Regarding sexism, I would say that Warhammer has the strange distinction of being capable of sexism in both ways.

The Imperium is a huge entity, with millions of planets, most of them unpleasant on the extreme.

So, there are some planets with feudal societies that treat women as cattle, at the same time that you can have a jungle world with amazon warriors.

The Ecclesiarchy has the odd effect of having women warriors (which would seem, in a very shallow way, feminist) clad in fetish-inspired power armor, or only with scrolls and piercings.

And then, of course, with have the Space Marines...

I would say that I very much agree with Pentregarth:

Actually, it's frequently stated that the imperium doesn't care one bit what gender you are, you're expendable human material anyways...so I wouldn't exactly call the background itself sexist or misogynist, it's really more misanthropic in general ^^

Krieg comes tom mind as an example of this, with their mixed regiments and baby bearing genetically modified "brood mothers".

Can you expand on what you mean with "sexism in both ways"? You present two examples, one where women are cattle, another where they are warriors. Are you saying that the second, the Amazons, is sexist against men? I spent a lot of time here trying to formulate this next sentence, but the takeaway is that that is simply not correct. A society that treats women as property and one where women are the dominant warrior caste are not even remotely parallel and to infer such demonstrates a complete ignorance of what sexism actually is (if in fact that was what you were inferring).

I'm not familiar with the lore surrounding Krieg and would be interested to read about what you're referring to. The only thing I was able to turn up was an oblique reference to cloning on Lexicanum.

Pathfinder is probably the worst mainstream offender of representing women in their art.

I suppose he inferred that the planet with the amazon warrior caste treats men as basically inferior members of society, which are good for nothing except manual labour and the necessities of breeding. Which would make it sexist against men, exactly how a planet that treats women as property is sexist against women...

Leaving aside Amazon societies are never portrayed as trading men like property, I think you're missing the point here. Or perhaps I wasn't clear.

Those two hypotheticals are sexist by definition, but the portrayal of them in media (e.g. a roleplaying game) is a different question. Both of those societies play into different male fantasies: one where women are property and one where women dominate men.

It's really not hard to make up a slew of vastly different make-believe societies in which men and women are equal and systrauser's initial post suggested this was a goal to be avoided.

Is this even a topic worth discussioning about? Fantasy Flight had been doing fine and treating both genders fairly. The only questionable art are from GW and what is GW requirements to fit their lore. Beyond that every thing had been fine.

Leaving aside Amazon societies are never portrayed as trading men like property, I think you're missing the point here. Or perhaps I wasn't clear.

Those two hypotheticals are sexist by definition, but the portrayal of them in media (e.g. a roleplaying game) is a different question. Both of those societies play into different male fantasies: one where women are property and one where women dominate men.

It's really not hard to make up a slew of vastly different make-believe societies in which men and women are equal and systrauser's initial post suggested this was a goal to be avoided.

I think you might of misinterpreted what was meant then.

I see what they (systrauser) were saying as a sort of comment that the Imperium is so vast that you can have things all over a wide spectrum. Yes, by certain standards, the examples that were provided may or may not be considered actual "opposites" but the point is still valid. The Imperium really doesn't care what society on a planet looks like, as long as it gives aliegence (in the form of tithes) to the Imperium. Each planet should have some sort of head of state (a planetary govenor) who is responsible for seeing this through. Beyond that, theres just a cursory "venerate the Emperor, don't be heretics," and pretty much anything else flies.

To the Imperium, meat is meat; a resource to leveraged against its enemies.

Those two hypotheticals are sexist by definition, but the portrayal of them in media (e.g. a roleplaying game) is a different question. Both of those societies play into different male fantasies: one where women are property and one where women dominate men.

Just going to plant a flag here to warn folks about the minefield above.

On the topic of GW art:

I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed - FFG has a better track record than GW, but it can stand to improve.

One thing that stands out to me is the bodyglove. It's supposed to be unisex and common form of clothing in the Imperium (depending on the world), but in the art the only characters (that I have seen) wearing a bodyglove are female characters. That's not to say all female characters are drawn that way, but out of all art depicting folks in a bodyglove I would venture to say it's exclusively women.

I think that's where the perception of women being drawn as 'having come from an S & M party' comes from.

Is this even a topic worth discussioning about? Fantasy Flight had been doing fine and treating both genders fairly. The only questionable art are from GW and what is GW requirements to fit their lore. Beyond that every thing had been fine.

Perhaps not. FFG has done fine in this respect. My real issue is that someone posted "sexism should be a part of 40k" and I felt that should not go unchallenged.

KommissarK, did you read what he wrote? The OP suggested including more women who were not in bondage gear and systrauser asked if he was insane, then went on to decry "watering down" and downplaying sexism and wonder how doing so would improve the game.

Regarding sexism, I would say that Warhammer has the strange distinction of being capable of sexism in both ways.

The Imperium is a huge entity, with millions of planets, most of them unpleasant on the extreme.

So, there are some planets with feudal societies that treat women as cattle, at the same time that you can have a jungle world with amazon warriors.

The Ecclesiarchy has the odd effect of having women warriors (which would seem, in a very shallow way, feminist) clad in fetish-inspired power armor, or only with scrolls and piercings.

And then, of course, with have the Space Marines...

I would say that I very much agree with Pentregarth:

Actually, it's frequently stated that the imperium doesn't care one bit what gender you are, you're expendable human material anyways...so I wouldn't exactly call the background itself sexist or misogynist, it's really more misanthropic in general ^^

Krieg comes tom mind as an example of this, with their mixed regiments and baby bearing genetically modified "brood mothers".

Can you expand on what you mean with "sexism in both ways"? You present two examples, one where women are cattle, another where they are warriors. Are you saying that the second, the Amazons, is sexist against men? I spent a lot of time here trying to formulate this next sentence, but the takeaway is that that is simply not correct. A society that treats women as property and one where women are the dominant warrior caste are not even remotely parallel and to infer such demonstrates a complete ignorance of what sexism actually is (if in fact that was what you were inferring).

I'm not familiar with the lore surrounding Krieg and would be interested to read about what you're referring to. The only thing I was able to turn up was an oblique reference to cloning on Lexicanum.

Pathfinder is probably the worst mainstream offender of representing women in their art.

Cps,

You are correct in you statement, and I apologize for not having being clearer in making my point (the woes of writing while at the office).

While the first example is a clear case of sexism against women, I have cut a lot of corners in my portrayal of the second example.

I was attempting to allude to the kind of sword and sorcery warrior women societies, where men are treated as slaves/second-class citizens and only women are considered citizens/people.

So, the Imperium includes societies that are sexist towards both men and women, depending on the planet you are on.

As the setting basically depicts the worst times of the Ages of Man, I see it as fitting that it should incorporate all kinds of discrimination. The characters are, after all, " racist, xenophobic, space fascists".

Regarding the Krieg, Warhammer Wiki states the following:

"It should be noted that Krieg raises an unusually large number of Imperial Guard regiments for such a devastated planet. This is attributed to the enforced use of the "Vitae Womb" birthing technique, which Krieg has been granted special dispensation to use as the result of their famous steel, determination and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor. Use of this technique is largely unknown outside of the Adeptus Biologis and are seen as dangerous and abhorrent by many Adeptus Mechanicus Magos Biologis."

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Krieg

I think it is very fitting of their mindset and the setting as a whole, and it reminds me of the Tleilaxu, which is always a good thing.

Leaving aside Amazon societies are never portrayed as trading men like property, I think you're missing the point here. Or perhaps I wasn't clear.

Those two hypotheticals are sexist by definition, but the portrayal of them in media (e.g. a roleplaying game) is a different question. Both of those societies play into different male fantasies: one where women are property and one where women dominate men.

It's really not hard to make up a slew of vastly different make-believe societies in which men and women are equal and systrauser's initial post suggested this was a goal to be avoided.

I think you might of misinterpreted what was meant then.

I see what they (systrauser) were saying as a sort of comment that the Imperium is so vast that you can have things all over a wide spectrum. Yes, by certain standards, the examples that were provided may or may not be considered actual "opposites" but the point is still valid. The Imperium really doesn't care what society on a planet looks like, as long as it gives aliegence (in the form of tithes) to the Imperium. Each planet should have some sort of head of state (a planetary govenor) who is responsible for seeing this through. Beyond that, theres just a cursory "venerate the Emperor, don't be heretics," and pretty much anything else flies.

To the Imperium, meat is meat; a resource to leveraged against its enemies.

Kommissark,

Thank you, that was precisely my intention. The Imperium is a huge and horrible place, so I believe that all kinds of horrible things happen all around it. The Imperium (with the exception maybe of the Ministorum and Astartes) doesn't really care about your gender, but the millions of different societies in it most certainly do.

If we haven't abandoned all our other horrible concepts by the 40th millennium, why should we abandon just this one?

Is this even a topic worth discussioning about? Fantasy Flight had been doing fine and treating both genders fairly. The only questionable art are from GW and what is GW requirements to fit their lore. Beyond that every thing had been fine.

Perhaps not. FFG has done fine in this respect. My real issue is that someone posted "sexism should be a part of 40k" and I felt that should not go unchallenged.

KommissarK, did you read what he wrote? The OP suggested including more women who were not in bondage gear and systrauser asked if he was insane, then went on to decry "watering down" and downplaying sexism and wonder how doing so would improve the game.

Cps,

am sorry if I have offended you in anyway, but I fail to see how my comment was offensive.

I specifically started my comment by decrying what I was going to say as a joke. I believe we are all adults here, discussing in a general climate of friendship, to improve the game and setting we love.

I do not believe that sexism is a good thing. It is a primitive and horrible feeling, whether being promoted by men against women, women against women or in any other context, as any other form of discrimination.

I must again repeat, however, that Warhammer depicts a horrible universe, in which all the basest impulses of men are present.

Why should we, in a setting depicted by its "grimdark" awfulness, choose to elect just one kind of evil impulse not to represent?

It may not be politically correct, but yes, I think that downplaying sexism, for the reasons stated above, in the concept of the game, does not fitting the theme and mood of the setting, which, in my view as a GM, are God.

I think it's important that we wind back to the original issue, which is less that "sexism exists in the universe" and more that "needless sexualisation of women in the artwork doesn't really do anyone any favours (except pubescent teenagers I guess)". I very much believe that it's alright to represent discrimination in a fictional setting as long as it's done in a considered, self aware manner. But we definitely don't need gratuitous cheesecake in our rulebooks.

This question I think is the crux of the argument:
Why should we, in a setting depicted by its "grimdark" awfulness, choose to elect just one kind of evil impulse not to represent?

We know the Imperium is a grimdark awful place, sure. I'm not contesting anything about the lore. Both you an Nikitas have countered what I've been saying on the basis of in-game lore.

We don't live in the Imperium. We live in real life, where the Imperium is a work of fiction written by people to sell to other people. When people hear about Krieg, what opinion do you think they'll form when they hear, "If you're a woman on Krieg, you exist solely to pop out babies for use as soldiers in the foreverwar and this is a good thing." What opinion will they have of the people who consume this media (us)? I can tell you it will not be positive. Things like this serve only to further isolate this hobby from the mainstream. If you can't GM a grimdark setting without demeaning or objectifying women I don't really know what to say. I don't understand how you can admit that sexism is bad while simultaneously defending its use in media.

It's not about being politically correct, it's about being a decent human being, and for FFG it's about appealing to as wide an audience as possible for maximum profits.

I think it's important that we wind back to the original issue, which is less that "sexism exists in the universe" and more that "needless sexualisation of women in the artwork doesn't really do anyone any favours (except pubescent teenagers I guess)". I very much believe that it's alright to represent discrimination in a fictional setting as long as it's done in a considered, self aware manner. But we definitely don't need gratuitous cheesecake in our rulebooks.

Oh.

Well, it seems I am an idiot.

I was discussing this matter as sexism in the art of the game as representation of the sexism in the setting.

I wholeheartedly agree that we don't need oversexualization in any situation which it doesn't fit the universe itself.

I must, however, say that it would be a loss to have it downplayed for censorship alone.

As EchoEcho himself said, Dark Heresy appeals to a more mature audience. There is no need for either censorship or oversexualization. We can have art that fits the scenario it shows.

This question I think is the crux of the argument:

Why should we, in a setting depicted by its "grimdark" awfulness, choose to elect just one kind of evil impulse not to represent?

We know the Imperium is a grimdark awful place, sure. I'm not contesting anything about the lore. Both you an Nikitas have countered what I've been saying on the basis of in-game lore.

We don't live in the Imperium. We live in real life, where the Imperium is a work of fiction written by people to sell to other people. When people hear about Krieg, what opinion do you think they'll form when they hear, "If you're a woman on Krieg, you exist solely to pop out babies for use as soldiers in the foreverwar and this is a good thing." What opinion will they have of the people who consume this media (us)? I can tell you it will not be positive. Things like this serve only to further isolate this hobby from the mainstream. If you can't GM a grimdark setting without demeaning or objectifying women I don't really know what to say. I don't understand how you can admit that sexism is bad while simultaneously defending its use in media.

It's not about being politically correct, it's about being a decent human being, and for FFG it's about appealing to as wide an audience as possible for maximum profits.

I really must start reading the answers I receive before I post my comments.

I believed I was just being a shmuck here and had inadvertently started a discussion out-of-topic, but it seems that wasn't the case.

Just as another caveat: I am currently not discussing the matter originally posted by EchoEcho, with whom I agree 100%, as I have just posted previously. This is an specific response to the post by cps, regarding sexism in the setting, not the art.

WE live in the real world, but the characters don't!

WH40K is like the World of Darkness. It IS a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE place. I don't think you appreciate how bad and, honestly, f***ed up it is. People are currency, the only resource available in large groves in the insane theocratic dictatorship that thinks of them as less then numbers.

Millions of people, psykers, the future of mankind are harvested to be eaten by an undead emperor.

Children are put to fight to death in insane battle royales for the right to fight to the death against the other winners for years, while having alien organs implanted into them, to serve as cyber warrior monks for centuries to come.

Smugglers are quartered and put in stasis fields to suffer forever (this one courtesy of Hostile Acquisitions).

And those are the good guys.

"When people hear about Krieg, what opinion do you think they'll form when they hear, "If you're a woman on Krieg, you exist solely to pop out babies for use as soldiers in the foreverwar and this is a good thing."

They will think the the Imperium sucks. Because it does.

"What opinion will they have of the people who consume this media (us)?"

They will have the same opinion as people have of players from games like In Nomine, Chult, Vampire, Eclipse Phase and all other RPGs set in horrible, dystopian universes.

"If you can't GM a grimdark setting without demeaning or objectifying women I don't really know what to say."

I can't GM a grimdark setting without demeaning or objectifying every member of the human race, as it does. It is, and it bears repeating, a very bad place. The Imperium is worse than most villains from most other settings.

"I don't understand how you can admit that sexism is bad while simultaneously defending its use in media."

I was not, as I have stated, defending its abuse in media, but it's use in the setting, as it is a part of it. I don't defend war.

I don't defend ****. I don't defend cannibalism. I don't defend religious fanaticism. I don't defend torture. Those are all horrible, terrible, monstrous things.

I don't play those things as good things. They are the other. The enemy. Curiously, I have a rule of not allowing my players to play as the villains. They are the guys who fight those things. But they are present in the universe and, as such, must be represented.

"It's not about being politically correct, it's about being a decent human being,"

As a good, ethic, law-abiding citizen, i see myself as a pretty decent human being. What i don't see as decent is trying to act as bad things don't exist, just because they are bad.

If you can't GM a grimdark setting without demeaning or objectifying women I don't really know what to say. I don't understand how you can admit that sexism is bad while simultaneously defending its use in media.

It's not about being politically correct, it's about being a decent human being, and for FFG it's about appealing to as wide an audience as possible for maximum profits.

That's a fair point - the setting may very well be sexist in places and we can't whitewash that. But it is up to us to not indulge in cheesecake (as Tom Cruise put it) and avoid unnecessary objectification in the art that decorates the game books. I'm all for making WH40k appeal to as wide an audience as possible while keeping true to the source material. We can certainly ditch the overly-sexualized images of women and depict them in a truer grimdark fashion.

I'd love some art by the guy who did the major stuff in the 1st edition of the wargame. IMO that's the best the setting has ever looked.

Sane (read: equal) representation of women would be a huge plus. I love BDSM, but not in my RPGs, thank you. It's wildly inappropriate, at best.

And speaking of what is & isn't appropriate, please confine the imagery to the pages. Don't get me wrong, the cover illustration is lovely. But please do not ruin a perfectly nice cover with it. The cover should be black and contain the title of the book. If you do anything more or other than that, then you are making it worse.

I will have to agree that the female representations could be a bit better but in terms of the guns...NO! 40k is a very, very ,very violent place where violence is often the first, second and third choice to resolve conflicts. This is part of what makes the setting unique and to take away would be to make the setting something which it isn't trying to be.

Firstly, the FFG artwork is generally very good, although i often feel it lacks 'grittiness' - a bit too shiney.

Interesting debate about sexism. What i'd say is that The Imperium is unbelievably rasist (clearly), sexist (possibly?), and generally intolerant (except where it is entirely tolerant of course).

For me, while its fun to debate and argue all manner of rules minutiae, and other such topics, the glaring ommission, the mega-elephant in the room with the whole 40k RP line is the almost total lack of exploration, exposition, or explanation of Imperial society.

We are still locked into the wargame handwavium 'there is only war' stuff that does a disservice to the roleplaying game (except OW of course).

I want to know what an Imperial citizen thinks 'culturally', what their morality is, what some basics like the Imperial Creed means to them; how they live their lives 'in the grim darkness of the far future...i've contended since 2008 that this is essential in order to properly roleplay in the Imperium.

So, in terms of artwork, what i want to see are civilian scenes, civilians, domestic and civil settings. Men, women, and children going about their lives amid the horror. We've had 30 years of chainswords and boltguns getting ever more cartoon and insanely over-egged, but look back at the art in 40k 1st Ed. and it was a mix of bonkers WAAARRRR!!!! and really interesting civilian, frontier, mining, and other vignettes and settings.

So yeah...civilian images please. This is, after all, where the majority of Dark Heresy investigations take place.

Yeah, we've barely got any images of what Imperial citizens even look like, which is a bit ridiculous.

For me, while its fun to debate and argue all manner of rules minutiae, and other such topics, the glaring ommission, the mega-elephant in the room with the whole 40k RP line is the almost total lack of exploration, exposition, or explanation of Imperial society.

We are still locked into the wargame handwavium 'there is only war' stuff that does a disservice to the roleplaying game (except OW of course).

Not to mention that we're reminded constantly that it could vary wildly from planet to planet, so discussing Imperial society can be seen as pointless.

Personally, I'd like to have some basic guidelines to follow. Variation only makes sense if you have a baseline to vary from. It'd be very nice if FFG would take some time to explore the more civilian sides of the setting. (And if it differs from the vision in my head, I can always change it )

Firstly, the FFG artwork is generally very good, although i often feel it lacks 'grittiness' - a bit too shiney.

Interesting debate about sexism. What i'd say is that The Imperium is unbelievably rasist (clearly), sexist (possibly?), and generally intolerant (except where it is entirely tolerant of course).

For me, while its fun to debate and argue all manner of rules minutiae, and other such topics, the glaring ommission, the mega-elephant in the room with the whole 40k RP line is the almost total lack of exploration, exposition, or explanation of Imperial society.

We are still locked into the wargame handwavium 'there is only war' stuff that does a disservice to the roleplaying game (except OW of course).

I want to know what an Imperial citizen thinks 'culturally', what their morality is, what some basics like the Imperial Creed means to them; how they live their lives 'in the grim darkness of the far future...i've contended since 2008 that this is essential in order to properly roleplay in the Imperium.

So, in terms of artwork, what i want to see are civilian scenes, civilians, domestic and civil settings. Men, women, and children going about their lives amid the horror. We've had 30 years of chainswords and boltguns getting ever more cartoon and insanely over-egged, but look back at the art in 40k 1st Ed. and it was a mix of bonkers WAAARRRR!!!! and really interesting civilian, frontier, mining, and other vignettes and settings.

So yeah...civilian images please. This is, after all, where the majority of Dark Heresy investigations take place.

This is great!

I would really love to see some pedestrians.

Although every planet in WH40K has it's own culture, I would at least like to see some "Gothic Classic" civilians, to show to my players.