Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah I am walking away from the chaste sister thing, He reads the fluff one way, I another.

I agree...


...to disagree.

Omegus wrote:The only BL novels that show Sisters getting into some hanky-panky are the Caiphus Cain novels, which are basically 40k satire. They are not the strongest source.

They may be lighthearted in terms of 40k novels, but they're pretty solid about fluff. Certainly moreso than some more "serious" works. That said, I remember it being explained either by Cain of Vail- there is sometimes a preception that they are chaste, but that is due to the constraints of a lifetime of dedicated service. They just don't have time for relationships and romance. The incident of romance occuring was with an older sororitas sent to train recruits. And it was with a fellow staff member, and clergyman. (Showing that celibacy doesn't extend to either gender.)

I think that's a pretty good middle-ground myself.

I looked up the 'chatelaines' thing and it is, sadly, NOT an FFG thing. It dates back to Codex: Sisters of Battle from 2nd ed. So this isn't an editorial gaff on FFG's part.