Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Volomon

Female playing Deathwatch?

Recommended Posts

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

I dont even think it is a biological failure. I dont know the biology involved in the super evolved homo sapien psychis superior imperator's DNA. HIs enhanced advanced mutated DNA, super psychic powers and other abhuman evolutions may only be compatible with male DNA/genetics. As I seem to understand cloningin modern standards, it is the exact recreation of a animal on a genetic level (such as Dolly the sheep who was genetically identical to her birth mother). With that in mind, or as my basis for science fiction, a female can be cloned from a female and a male from a male. But only females can gestate a fetus so only females can be implanted to "give birth" to a clone.

The primarchs are cloned/made from the emperor and the geneseed from the primarchs, it is highly plausible that they geneseed canonly exist in a male host, especially after a few treatments that make them more like the original host, such a chemical and electrochemical enhancements.

So the geneseed would in general be rejected by those who have DNA anathema to the seed itself, with a high rejection rate amongst candidates as it is and an almost 100% rejection rate of generally not considered candidate (Females, Ogryns, Ratlings). Scientific/medical anomalies could exist, providing for one or two female or ogryn or ratling or eldar or whatever variations being made, but with the rate of failure why would the imperium even try.

Now a renegade Magos Biologis hellbent on implanting stolen gene seed into various other forms could be a very interesting villain as he hires mercs and xenos to hunt and kill space marines, steals their glands/seed and kidnaps various test subjects.

But on a basic level, the biology is not wrong at all.

It is, afterall, science fiction.

 

 

 

Not even anything that drastic. The existing technology is there, and it really wouldn't be too terribly difficult to sit a bunch of the brightest minds by 40k standards down in a room and tell them "make this happen." Within the century they'd have tailored the implants and genetic modifications towards the female physiology.

They just don't for a multitude of reasons. Sexism may play a part in it but I am not going to try and open that can of worms, what I would label as stupidity(A fighting force made entirely of women? We already have one of those, we don't need another), ten thousand years of Imperial dogma teaching them that Space Marines and the Primarchs are the Sons of the Emperor, techno-fear, etc.

 

Ah hell, I contributed. What have I done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zombieneighbours said:

Actually, on this one i have  to disagree slightly.It isn't sexist to want to achieve equality. I mean, if you think that a peice of fiction is  glorifying masculinity and degrading feminity based on the authors prejudices, then actually, turning away from that is probably a very good thing.

Now the reason that i think trying to change the 40k setting is a bad thing is that in truth, 40k doesn'r glorify the imperium, as a whole.

The setting maakes it very clear that it is a bigoted, ignorant and evil theocracy, which dominates through fear and repression. Every aspect of the imperium repesses freedom and chokes any form of development. The cult of masculinity is tied up deeply in that, and the cause of many of the issues of the empire, and i think you loose a little of the setting punch if you start lightening it up, by removing in setting sexism and other forms of intolerance.

It's a bit sexist to make this much of a fuss about a ficitonal game and demand that it all be changed, to allow female Space Marines, just because.

And as for accusations about sexisim in the Imperium, well no it's not sexist, but it's not like this is the first time people have said that, just because only males can become Space Marines. And it's a really stupid accusation to level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no women SM cause it's a boyz only sona... well if I where in to SM I would still prefer a leather matron but that's me.

The Imperium is not sexist it's just the most vile and ugly society you can imagine! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ok I haven't checked this thread in a while so I'm responding in general to many comments.  Yes maybe a girl can not be a Space Marine, but girls should have some form of equal.  The likely hood of a female wanting to ROLEPLAY a man is about the same as a man wanting to play with dolls.  Though there are some fluff ways of including a female in other capacities (still ultimately dimished and hence might not be plausible) I do agree that females should not be SPACE MARINES, but there has to be another chapter or something eventually within Gamesworkshop that says here is a specific role that females can play in a large scale brutal conflict.  The current only reason a female can not serve on special forces and keep in mind they do serve in elite forces in some if not a majority of the worlds elite forces (the exception being the USA and Russia), is due to feminine hygenie.  It would suffice it to say that around the 41st century they would have found a solution to this.

It would seem to me that a woman has far more capacity for extra organs if you remove the entire womb.  That being said should they become literially men no, but there should be some capacity to which they perform better.  Maybe an unrevealed entire organization within the various arms of government with far more potent psykers even.

Ultimately this whole thing prevents me from purchasing Deathwatch.  As I have up to three ladies who like to play at any givin time and even if I could convince one of them to play as a man there is in no way all three would agree.

(Yes I am lucky)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crisaron said:

There are no women SM cause it's a boyz only sona... well if I where in to SM I would still prefer a leather matron but that's me.

The Imperium is not sexist it's just the most vile and ugly society you can imagine! 

Actually it is sexist in the fluff it even says so in the Dark Heresy book that a female character will be treated differently at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Why do people keep starting this debate again and again?  Its like me crying that I cant be the Pope because I'm an atheist.  The only difference being I actually CANT be the Pope because of this where as you CAN play a female (even a female SM if your GM allows it) in this game.  Read the other 500 pages of threads dealing with this stupid question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volomon said:

 

crisaron said:

 

There are no women SM cause it's a boyz only sona... well if I where in to SM I would still prefer a leather matron but that's me.

The Imperium is not sexist it's just the most vile and ugly society you can imagine! 

 

 

Actually it is sexist in the fluff it even says so in the Dark Heresy book that a female character will be treated differently at times.

 

 

 

Why would anyone treat a woman like she was a man though?

 

Alex

PS I still say this forum needs a FAQ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be said, an RPG with no female characters is not that same as an RPG with no female players. I've seen men play woman and woman play men in my time, and as long as everyone was having fun I ran with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its easy to say the challenge of a roleplay, is playing the things most different than who we are or what we want. Games are about challenges and people should embrace the fact that this game doesn't shy away from what its suppose to be for the sake of something that doesn't fit its setting.

Its never been explicitly stated and it probably should be; why can't women be the genetically enhanced super human Space Marines. I asked my geneticist girl friend to come up with a reasonable explanation, I paraphrase:

"If I had to write the fluff, I would say that the genetic enhancement that a marine undergoes are a direct result of alterations made to the "Y" chromosome and expression of DNA packed therein. The "Y" chromosome sees the highest degree of mutations, modifications made by the Emperor could have exploited this and would explain the variations between chapters. That the unrecombinate parts of the "Y" chromosome are effective combining and joining with the new genetically engineered DNA  strand at the portion of genes that do not recombinate with the "X" chromosome; thus creating the chimeric situation of marines expressing the genes of their human parent and that of their primarch."

That explanation based on scientific fact would make it impossible for a woman to be a marine by means of the same technology. I'm not saying its the case but its sounds reasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volomon said:

 

The likely hood of a female wanting to ROLEPLAY a man is about the same as a man wanting to play with dolls.

 

Sorry... but what?

Really?

That's probably the most sexist and bigoted thing I've seen in this whole **** thread.

Of course there are lots of women who want to roleplay a man, just as, multiple times, I've roleplayed a female character, as have lots of male roleplayers. I might not allow a female Space Marine just to please someone who didn't feel comfortable with it, and would instead suggest playing an Inquisitor, assassin, something like that, but at least I don't actively make a huge generalisation about an entire gender...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volomon said:

The likely hood of a female wanting to ROLEPLAY a man is about the same as a man wanting to play with dolls. 

This is laughable...utterly laughable.

I have been fortunate enough to play with a fair old number of woman over the years, and every one of them, save my girl friend, with her grand total of three sessions under her belt, has at some point played a male character.

If anything, my experience  that female players are far more open to gender bending than male players.

Liz, a former member of my current group was the most prolific gender bending player i ever had the pleasure of playing with

While claire, a current member, literal jumped at the oppertunity to play a male troll slayer in a day late and a shilling short, and despite being offered the choice to change gender, didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MILLANDSON said:

 

Volomon said:

 

The likely hood of a female wanting to ROLEPLAY a man is about the same as a man wanting to play with dolls.

 

Sorry... but what?

Really?

That's probably the most sexist and bigoted thing I've seen in this whole **** thread.

Of course there are lots of women who want to roleplay a man, just as, multiple times, I've roleplayed a female character, as have lots of male roleplayers. I might not allow a female Space Marine just to please someone who didn't feel comfortable with it, and would instead suggest playing an Inquisitor, assassin, something like that, but at least I don't actively make a huge generalisation about an entire gender...

 

 

Entirely with you on this one. Saying 'you have to have a female character option' because no woman would play a man', is by far the most sexist thing i have seen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

zombieneighbours said:

 

Fluff holes:

1st. Actually, it is you who are responcible for biology fail on a fairly epic level here. There is nothing biologically impossible about gender based rejection, there are real world condition in which mothers can reject zigots, based on over active immune responce to elements of the Y chromosome, and anyone with higher education in biology will tell you that the immune system is like a schizophrenic survivalist in a world that actually full of goverment conspiracies, alien abduction and satanic cults, i.e. a basket case that is willing to shoot first and ask questions later. I mean this is a system that will attack and destroy itself.

There is nothing biologically impossible about gender specific biological augmentation, and thats from just the perspective of the immune system.

When you start throwing in everything else, for different organs, musculature,  fat lay out, and hormonal systems, all of which could easily conflict with the implants, actually, the argument for gender specific implants becomes very strong to a biologist.

 

 

Actually most biologists laugh at 40k in general.  I've been avoiding the tissue rejection issue for the following reason: it would probably kill them, male or female, due to AT LEAST one of the following: hyperacute rejection, acute vascular rejection,cellular rejection, chronic rejection.  Every last implant would have to overcome the same issues as, say, transplanting a baboon heart, as the genetic material does not match (and probably does not even come close to matching) the subject. 

zombieneighbours said:

 

2. You assuming that the dark gods are intelligent agencies. It is entirely possible that they are not, but rather something more like the idoit demon saultan azothoth, than a sentient force. Given the inability of the dark gods to organise a piss up in a brewery, i rather lean towards this view, but even so, what chaos space marines can do, with sorcery has nothing to do with the existance of female loyalists.

 

 

Point on the female loyalists, however, the issue is FSMs in general.  As far as sentience, I point you to Realms of Chaos.

zombieneighbours said:

 

Historical Comparison:
40k isn't history. What happened there, does not really matter with regards to a science fantasy setting, in the distant future.

But that said, you do realises that Saxons and Norse are western right?

 

 

I was refering to locations dominated by the current western mode of thought. 

 

zombieneighbours said:

 

Personal Issues:

The 40k universe does have warrior woman, both amongst the adeptus soriatas, crusaders, Inquisition, death cults, adeptus arbites, imperial guard, and officio assassinorum.  And that is sticking with only a few canon examples of imperial forces which include females, amongst the wider setting you have both eldar and and dark eldar, where gender plays almost no part in who takes to the battle field.

Infact, in the case of the eldar, you have individuals taking to the battle field in drag.

All in all, the 41st millenium is better represented for female warriors than the whole of earths history.

 

 

Yes, but most of them are also segregated into same sex organisations. (hence why eldar are taking to the battlefield in drag, and dark eldar wyches seem to be fairly women only.)

And, for al those women, you'd think they'ed get equal coverage in fluff.  Instead what we get is fifty million novels of space marines.  And, frankly, if there's a woman and a space marine in the book, someone's falling to chaos/embracing xenos, at least 80% of the time (Granted, Shonai made it to her second appearance before embracing the Tau, but...). 

 

Edit: And, 40k has had.... hmm....  slightly more then 4 times current human history to build up to this...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, suprisingly enough, 40ks biology is psudo-science, just like its physics and chemistry, so claiming that its biologically impossible for it to be gender specifics(one of the few elements which actually makes vague sense) is biology fail, doesn't get you much of anywhere.

If we are going to treat realms of chaos as source, we have chaos spacemarines turning up in the warhammer world with plasma guns, personally i'll keep my chocolate spread and my peanut butter seperate please. We are also talking about player characters for deathwatch, a game that is by default about loyalist marines.

 

 

Eldar: guardians, dire avengers and dark eldar warriors, mixed gender fighting units.

Humans: adeptus arbites, some guard units, inquisition, death cults - mixed gender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what Bolter rounds are filled with (and it's a solid!).

It's an oooooold piece of fluff too, and they haven't changed it. The concensus of the player base is that they chose it because it just sounded cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BaronIveagh said:

 

Actually most biologists laugh at 40k in general.  I've been avoiding the tissue rejection issue for the following reason: it would probably kill them, male or female, due to AT LEAST one of the following: hyperacute rejection, acute vascular rejection,cellular rejection, chronic rejection.  Every last implant would have to overcome the same issues as, say, transplanting a baboon heart, as the genetic material does not match (and probably does not even come close to matching) the subject. 

 

 Thats why I liked the explanation I posted. Virus and bacteria can rewrite genes, so there should be some way of doing that on a large scale even if risk is involved. Such as binding to the uncombinitate part of "Y" chromosome an engineered chromosome, you could produce the sort of chimeric individual who could be more receptive. So if preceeding the full implanting of organs some part of the process changes the persons genetic make up than implanting to the predesigned genetic template would be easier. Turn the person into a universal receipient or at least make them more prone to fully taking the designed organs. Using their own genetics as part of the frame work of the engineered organs makes it even easier.

 

The fluff says the implanted organs are keyed to the individual, so its not as extreme as implanting between two unrelated species. With the acception of the second heart, the first 4 or 5 implants are designed to secreet specialized and engineered hormones. The marines are heavily monitored and imbalances in their body chemistry can be corrected. So there are obvious technologies in the 40k universe that can overcome some if not all of the types of rejection you bring up.

Even in the fluff a lot of marines are lost just to this process so its not safe. They start with hundreds of candidates, of which many die or are rejected in training, than they start basic genetic implanting, and more die... so by the time they're done they've gone from hundreds to only about a squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zombieneighbours said:

Entirely with you on this one. Saying 'you have to have a female character option' because no woman would play a man', is by far the most sexist thing i have seen here.

 

Don't share your definition of sexism though. It has been merely a generalization that doesn't hold true at all across the board; it varies from group to group.

In fact I have seen many accusations of sexism here but nothing that qualifies as discrimination in my mind.

 

Alex

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ak-73 said:

zombieneighbours said:

 

Entirely with you on this one. Saying 'you have to have a female character option' because no woman would play a man', is by far the most sexist thing i have seen here.

 

 

 

Don't share your definition of sexism though. It has been merely a generalization that doesn't hold true at all across the board; it varies from group to group.

In fact I have seen many accusations of sexism here but nothing that qualifies as discrimination in my mind.

However, a generalisation that all women do not want to play male characters, just as men don't play with dolls, is sexism. Not only does it suggest that women would not want to play male characters because it is not "the done thing" (as with men playing with dolls), it suggests that the opposite, that men would not play women characters, which is equally bigoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MILLANDSON said:

 

However, a generalisation that all women do not want to play male characters, just as men don't play with dolls, is sexism. Not only does it suggest that women would not want to play male characters because it is not "the done thing" (as with men playing with dolls), it suggests that the opposite, that men would not play women characters, which is equally bigoted.

 

And where is the discrimination in that? Where is in any of that an assignment that either gender is less worthy? If there is no assignment of less worth, you won't get me to subscribe to the notion that it's sexism.

 

You can call it that way if you want, but I would point out then that it's definitions such as these which make accusations of sexism inflationary and thus fairly meaningless.

Plus, it creates unnecessary mine-fields where there shouldn't be any, complicating conversation between/about genders.

 

To me, it's a statement that holds a bit of truth to it, only not in this sweeping form. I don't play female characters and I know many guys who don't either. And as such it's an assessment that I consider incorrect but a far cry from sexism.

 

Alex

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MILLANDSON said:

ak-73 said:

 

zombieneighbours said:

 

Entirely with you on this one. Saying 'you have to have a female character option' because no woman would play a man', is by far the most sexist thing i have seen here.

 

 

 

Don't share your definition of sexism though. It has been merely a generalization that doesn't hold true at all across the board; it varies from group to group.

In fact I have seen many accusations of sexism here but nothing that qualifies as discrimination in my mind.

 

 

However, a generalisation that all women do not want to play male characters, just as men don't play with dolls, is sexism. Not only does it suggest that women would not want to play male characters because it is not "the done thing" (as with men playing with dolls), it suggests that the opposite, that men would not play women characters, which is equally bigoted.

MILLANDSON said:

ak-73 said:

 

zombieneighbours said:

 

Entirely with you on this one. Saying 'you have to have a female character option' because no woman would play a man', is by far the most sexist thing i have seen here.

 

 

 

Don't share your definition of sexism though. It has been merely a generalization that doesn't hold true at all across the board; it varies from group to group.

In fact I have seen many accusations of sexism here but nothing that qualifies as discrimination in my mind.

 

 

However, a generalisation that all women do not want to play male characters, just as men don't play with dolls, is sexism. Not only does it suggest that women would not want to play male characters because it is not "the done thing" (as with men playing with dolls), it suggests that the opposite, that men would not play women characters, which is equally bigoted.

Yeah we all seen one or two players play a women character and miserably fail at it. The odd really good cross gender players are rare and to be truth full never that special or cool. It's simply written female on the guys sheet cause it's not really important to anyone.

On the other hand a girl/women playing an rpg as the same issue, it's not here normal nature to play a matcho (how ever sexless the mind training may have made him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still the discussion somehow strikes a chord within all of us readers and responders.

I guess you can have a men's club. Or a girl's club. And, sure, you can have a universe in a roleplaying game that makes certain options available only to men or women. Why not.  However, I do not think that, once you agree to play with girls, you should give them the worse water pistol, if you follow my drift, because they are girls.

Seconding Adeptus Sororitas to the Death Wach isn't that far fetched. But they should on equal footing with the guy's characters on a purely gameist perspective.

In the end, if you are playing a game like Deathwatch, all players should have the same game-effect wise opportunities. It is unfair to give one player a (just slightly, really, it's nothing....) worse character based on the player's gender or, worse, tell them they have to play a different gender for the same game effect.

No fluff should be made to excuse that, I think. If someone puts another player at a mechanical disadvantage, because of the player's gender, that is simply not right.

So, if the girl can't be a Space Marine because fluff says so, then the alternative must be equally good from a mechanical point of view.

And no, just making her the inquisitor does not count, if that is the only option (we used to play computer games with my little sister like that, she could watch and be the queen and we played).

Since we all have no problem with the many queasy concepts universes like 40K wreak on us, like the no-helmet thing from the other thread (ie no helmet equal armour cause it looks good) we should not have a problem with having girls play by the same rules as men in social game even though the appearance might be different. However, don't just pretend by tweaking a "lesser" ruleset, since it only serves to remind the player of the inequality.

So, no "we'll take one of the gofer dudes from DH, slap on some XP, and presto, you are (almost) as good as the real boys".

Now let me have it.....

 PS the depleted Deuterium is rich, but yes, it does sound cool, eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...