I feel that the game has swung just about as far to the grim-dark as I can without being farcical (perhaps optomistic, I know) but I look back at earlier editions and there was room for dwarfs
on bikes, orks that brew beer from squigs, dark eldar battle barges with princess leia like slaves on the deck. there was room for camp, for humor, for human beings to live. where ass the
universe described in so many places now just feels so dour and self serious. I would like to develop an army, fluff and models that pushes against this onciming tide, just a little.

40k is essentially fantasy in space and almost all fantasy is of a conservative bent. common arguments go along the lines of; its dominated, if not by male authors, then by a “masculine”
aestheticism, ethos, and structural focus (it’s “the hero’s journey”, not the heroine’s). And, as with other male-dominated bastions “threatened” by egalitarianism (a.k.a. feminism and femininity),
it systematically defends this masculinity with great vigor. That sort of thing

It feels like the most dated thing in the world that there are no female space marines. Utterly preposterous in my opinion. I also want to push a less ultra-masculine aestheticfor my army,
I want to describe a world with some life and energy to it.

symbiosis between the AI and the mortal

 Psienesis wrote:

Fantasy is neither Conservative nor Liberal. It can be used to present topics and arguments for/against on either side, however.

The lack of female Space Marines is simply a conceit of the setting, waved off with some mumbo jumbo the Emperor said and some pseudo-science to support it. The Sisters of Battle are superior anyway, they do everything the Marines do without being transhuman monstrosities.

I'm not sure I'm best placed to argue the conservative-ism of fantasy but Im going to crib some of China Meiville's arguments. If you look at stereotypical 'epic' or 'high' fantasy, you're talking about a genre set in magical worlds with some pretty vile ideas. They tend to be based on feudalism lite: the idea, for example, that if there's a problem with the ruler of the kingdom it's because he's a bad king, as opposed to a king. If the peasants are visible, they're likely to be good simple folk rather than downtrodden wretches (except if it's a bad kingdom...). Strong men protect curvaceous women. Superheroic protagonists stamp their will on history like characters in Nietzschean wet dreams, but at the same time things are determined by fate rather than social agency. Social threats are pathological, invading from outside rather than being born from within. Morality is absolute, with characters--and often whole races--lining up to fall into pigeonholes with 'good' and 'evil' written on them.

Longer breakdown

Spoiler:

Racial Essentialism: Fantasy tends to divide the world into races with really clear essential characteristics, both physically and psychologically. The physical characteristics are exaggerated, and the psychological characteristics are really restrictive. Dwarves are stubborn and proud, elves are more intelligent and creative than anyone else, etc. This extends to the evil races too, which are clearly intellectually and socially inferior. The stereotypes of the evil races clearly relate to stereotypes of black people that were extant in the 30s, and in general the evil races also happen to be swarthy and kind of, well, blackish. If the humans ever have any racial diversity, this also follows strict characteristics – the “cruel haradrim”, for example. It doesn’t necessarily matter whether the races follow black/white colour lines, because the key conservative point is the essentialism. Races are different, and they shouldn’t mix, and when they do society degenerates. The model for Gondor and the mingling of High and Common Men is a clear reference to racial theory of the 30s. Wriggle as much as you like, but Tolkien is an established eugenicist and his writing doesn’t shy away from that. This trope is repeated in an awful lot of subsequent high fantasy – it’s a struggle to find any that doesn’t contain this idea, and this idea is a cornerstone of 20th century conservatism.

Racial exclusion: almost all heroes in high fantasy are white. This problem has been discussed extensively as well in the world of literary criticism, and as far as I can tell it’s not up for debate anymore. High Fantasy is white. Now, it may be that the authors only want to write about their own colour, but if that’s the only reason, it’s kind of an unfortunate coincidence that racial exclusionism also happens to be an essential element of much conservative politics.

The male saviour: Most fantasy stories involve a male saviour rescuing a crumbling nation state from an external threat. The saviour is always male, and of course white. Harry Potter, Belgarath, Frodo (not to mention everyone else in that story), Eragon, the kid in the Robert Jordan series, Druss, Tanis Half-elven, Conan, whatever… they’re all male. When women enter high fantasy they do so as teachers or wise women, or occasionally in support roles.

External threats and nation states: In LoTR, the world of men was crumbling through racial intermixing, and awaited a racially pure king to resurrect the nation state. In most High Fantasy there is an external threat which only a strong nation state can protect against, and the role of the hero is to uncover their puissance and take power over the nation state, guiding it again to greatness. Although the nation state was not a strong concept in Dragonlance, the external threat was (it was an evil god); but the presence of both together is prevalent throughout the genre. The enemy within is usually a nerdy, anti-war figure who accomodates the enemy out of fear and is used as a spy or traitor. Consider the Wheel of Time, that awful Terry Goodkind stuff, Stephen Donaldson, the Worm Ourouboros, Eragon, the Belgariad, Magician, etc. It’s a very common idea.
Gender roles: sure, in modern High Fantasy there are sometimes female characters, but the world itself is continually recreated as a world in which women serve and men rule. It’s fantasy, anything goes, but for some reason women always are “goodwives” (shudder) or feisty aunts at best. And the female characters are not acually quite the feminist achievements one might expect – read this review of the Wheel of Time for a good description of how female characters often serve to reiterate classic stereotypes of feminine weakness, intransigence or triviality. Often as well the powerful ones get knocked down a peg or two before the end, and although women in general can’t rule in these worlds, they are often over-represented amongst the bad guys (e.g., there are two female characters in Dragonlance and one is evil). Harry Potter is a good example of this – Hermione is ostensibly a strong female character, but at every climax in the first novels she is knocked unconscious or otherwise unable to be an active participant in the plan she helped formulate, ultimately being rescued by the boys.

Nuclear family: we know that in the middle ages Nuclear families were not the norm, and that this is a modern invention, as is childhood as a concept. Yet High Fantasy worlds – which are sticklers for the truth when it comes to the role of women in peasant societies – seem to be very good at ignoring the real family structures of their carefully reconstructed societies, and instead populating them with perfect nuclear families. The nuclear family is a touchstone conservative issue, and is reproduced out of time and place in almost all fantasy novels.

Inherited Wealth: Not necessarily in the form of money, because in fantasy worlds money plays second fiddle to magic, which is usually inherited either as a talent or through attendance at a special school which it is only possible to enter through selection. Even though magic breaks the rules of conservation of matter, and therefore in principle enables High Fantasy worlds to be utopias like The Culture, magic is always hoarded by a powerful class who dispense it amongst their favourites. Harry Potter is a really good example of this – there is an elite world which he is allowed into by dint of his having inherited this form of wealth, and throughout the novels he is given for free things which only the very rich can afford. Free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who can’t – a conservative trope, and well reproduced through the medium of magic.

Heteronormative: do we know of any gay characters anywhere in High Fantasy? How coincidental, in a world of nuclear families…

Glorification of war: having read the Silmarillion, I find it impossible to comprehend the claim that Tolkien doesn’t glorify war. That’s all his stories are about. I suppose you could excuse it because he’s british, but still… it’s also not the case that “glorifying war” means saying “yay! more people dying”. Literature which glorifies war always talks about the tragedy, the loss of youth, the hardship. It’s part of the admiration of muscular masculinity and discipline which is going on beneath this glorification. It’s a hard life to be a soldiering bloke, but how noble it is, etc. This is prevalent throughout fantasy too – in The Worm Ouroubouros, at the end of the novel the battles are over and they all go back to their homes to plan the next war because life without war is boring. The Sturm side story in Dragonlance is a classic example of this mixed glorification/tragedy complex. High Fantasy stories without war at their centre are rare.

Genocide is cool: because of the glorification of war and the racial essentialism, it’s inevitable that the bad guys are going to be wiped out to a man. This has been discussed extensively as a criticism of D&D and it’s true – there is an unquestioning acceptance throughout High Fantasy that mass murder is acceptable. It’s worth noting that when the genre began, eugenics had taken over in anti-semitic literature, and extermination as the “final solution” was beginning to become an acceptable notion, because racial essentialism based on biology (rather than culture) demands it. You can read about this link in Hitler’s Willing Executioners (which is otherwise a pretty dodgy book). I don’t think anyone believes Tolkien supported genocide in reality, but the logic of High Fantasy demands it and that is essentially what was planned throughout the novels, by both sides. It has continued to be an acceptable act in subsequent iterations of the genre.

Libertarian or authoritarian communities: High Fantasy tends to allow the good guys only two types of community. On the one hand we see small rural idylls run on generally libertarian or communitarian grounds, because life is so simple that they can be self-managed, and there is no racial mixing to cause crime; and on the other we see large kingdoms run by strong men, usually inheriting their position but sometimes voted in. The concept of a strong man appointed by popular election was popular in the interwar period, when liberalism and democracy were beginning to look a bit shonky, and it was supported by a much larger segment of the world than just Germany and Italy. In fact most of Europe was under this leadership, and many in England and America beyond Oswald Mosley were looking for the same thing. This is reflected in modern High Fantasy, whose origins lie in that turbulent time. In contrast, the bad guys often have a classless or semi-classless society, run by a strong man or sometimes anarchist, often with strong inter-racial mixing. Sounds a bit like a well-described conflict from that time…

Its not my intention to argue that fantasy, even space fantasy is conservative, and certainly not my intention to argue with anyone who offers their input (as you have done and I thank you for that) but I for one am pretty convinced.

symbiosis between the AI and the mortal

AI wasn't even available during the Great Crusade. Many thousands of years before even that time, the Men of Iron, machine automatons driven by AI code, had driven humanity to the brink of extinction, which is why AI is banned by decree of the Imperium and the Adeptus Mechanicus now.

If it is a world that is now compliant with the Imperium, it would have had all trace of AI removed (forcibly) and destroyed by the Cult of Mars. If the Crusade had never reached it, it would have never developed the geneseed required to create Space Marines, since that was done by the Emperor himself.

Well yes and no. I didn't necessarily mean to imply that they were human AI's, what could be more alien than a synthetic life form created by a filthy xenos? But I would also quibble the presence or various forms of AI within the imperium. Its always been my understanding that when a techpriest berrates a gun for jamming frequently its not probably jamming beacuse of its machine soul but beacuse its porly maintained, but when a land raider is able to independently target and attack without the crew, that was at least a 'soft AI' of some kind. And of course there are references to the groups like the Khamrians who seek to study Abominable Intelligences. Perhaps they are backed or founded by Khamrian radicals?

40k is all about the grimdarkness because it is a tale of the End Times for humanity. That's... the whole point. It doesn't really matter what happens, what Primarchs come back, what tools they discover, what weapons they develop... Mankind is doomed. Doomed, doomed, doomed. Sure, a new invention or discovery might allow them to delay the inevitable for a few more years, maybe a couple centuries... but that is all it is: a delay. Having all the Loyalist Primarchs come back? A delay, at best. At worst? Their presence tears the Imperium asunder in civil wars and does nothing but hasten the end.

And on that I have no defence, you may well be right

Maybe I will play with that? the Tau for example can be seen as a brave, foward looking group of happy clappy space communists OR they can be seen as the an Orwellian nightmare dominated by a caste of pheromone swilling etherials. maybe I will work up some fluff in a similer vein the way they seem themselves compared to the way others might interpret them?

3) with the multiple heads and multiple arms a quick google search found a few mythological creatures, but it quickly became apparent the lords of multi-armed multi-headed creatures were
the dharmic traditions of indian folklore and hindu religion. deva and rakshasha and others have already been used by d&d and other fantasy works so I didnt feel too appropriative to
use dharmic mythology for my guys.

AI wasn't even available during the Great Crusade. Many thousands of years before even that time, the Men of Iron, machine automatons driven by AI code, had driven humanity to the brink of extinction, which is why AI is banned by decree of the Imperium and the Adeptus Mechanicus now.

locarno24 wrote:

3) with the multiple heads and multiple arms a quick google search found a few mythological creatures, but it quickly became apparent the lords of multi-armed multi-headed creatures were
the dharmic traditions of indian folklore and hindu religion. deva and rakshasha and others have already been used by d&d and other fantasy works so I didnt feel too appropriative to
use dharmic mythology for my guys.

The Imperial Army force commander in Legion (Namatjira?) has a dress combat uniform which is essentially a 'kali-suit' - with two extra pairs of augmetic arms all carrying scimitars.