Thematic Discussion of Female Custodes - Straight From the Page

[Captain Idaho]

For me the issue of Custodes being female is one of removal of representation. It's an angle often neglected, but with most factions with having male and female representation, there are precious few portraying a theme of all male or all female humans.

 

We have Adepta Sorioritas and Sisters of Silence who both represent all female factions, sisterhoods.

 

We have Space Marines and previously Adeptus Custodes on the other side of the coin, representing brotherhoods.

 

What these did was provide a theme telling the story of how such make ups dealt with stresses and challenges, success and defeat, victory and death (sometimes both) and crucially how they might interact with other factions and people, or how they might in return.

 

It is a homage to those of us who might have operated in brotherhoods in our day to day life. Be it military, sport or even groups of friends; there's an angle that can reflect in the art.

 

Losing one of those, Adeptus Custodes in this case, means it loses that angle.

 

In a practical sense, I don't think it needed to happen whatsoever. I don't know what is wrong with having any fraternity existing when there's plenty of alternatives - and I've not seen any convincing reasons why. If you want full representation then another faction is for you. Don't like men being super human and want super human women? Maybe GW can make a new faction for you - after all if this is such a popular idea then it'll work financially and sell great.

 

I find identity with brotherhoods of males who are physically elite, dealing with things that only they might in their way. I've grown up in such environments, through sports teams and other things and I'm not sure why representation of that facet of the male experience has to be degraded.

Edited September 5 by Captain Idaho

[Roomsky]

 

I think this might be the first thing I've read that I'd consider a loss to the faction by including women in the Custodes, I'd love to know if it was intentional when they created Custodes/Sisters of Silence or if it was a cool unintentional happenstance

 

 

Seconding this. I'm sure WeCHAT's not alone in seeing this angle, but this is the first time I've actually comprehended it. Well articulated! Though I too am curious as to how much of this is intentional and how much is the fandom doing all the heavy lifting.

 

That said, if equal but opposite is the intent, I don't know if I'd call it especially well-handled considering how ridiculously proficient Custodes have become since their introduction. They are both a part of a unified force that covers basically every angle, yes, but it's not exactly a 50/50 split in terms of prowess. The SoS function more as a support role when in concert with Custodes, a silver bullet for specific threats while the boys in gold are "tuned" for everything else. If they were powerful psykers instead, I might think differently. If Custodes were less overpowered and had not evolved into super-special perfect soldiers handcrafted from infancy to their creator's exacting specifics, I might also be more opposed to the change as well.

 

I reiterate that more than my own progressivism is playing a part here: I really don't vibe with what the Custodes have been turned into. My bias against them means I don't really view them as having thematic integrity as a faction; I view them as an army of that OC your friend with no self-awareness rolls up to a Star Wars RPG with (eg: a Mandalorian Gray Jedi who can use Sith lightning and wields 4 floating lightsabers with his mastery of the force.) Limiting them to being men just makes me say "I dunno, you've already gone this far, why start with the drawbacks now?" And of course, I acknowledge "complaining about armies I don't play" rather dampens my objectivity and credibility on the topic.

 

[phandaal]

 

I guess what I'm most curious about is why the change is viewed as a bad thing. Putting aside the cynical roll-out and the cynical reasoning for adding Femstodes - what about the change, beyond it on principle being an unearned change, is bad? What do we lose out on? Because it doesn't take away from the grimdark, it doesn't affect anything material about how Custodes act as far as I can see, they basically still just look the same too.

 

What am I missing?

 

Personally, I see it as something driven by influences outside of the game itself, and fans of 40k may support it because it mirrors something we might want to see happening in the real world. However, I personally do not support it because of how I view the driving impetus behind the changes.

 

Have we forgotten WarCom posting a Rumor Engine pic and saying that whatever model was teased must have "breathtakingly outdated views on inclusivity?" That is not the kind of thing someone who understands the separation between the 40k universe and real life would say. Can you imagine a statement like that making its way into an issue of White Dwarf even five years ago?

 

So the change itself can be neutral in the setting, or even positive if it happens in the real world, but the people driving the change are people who dislike the hobby and seem to dislike their fellow hobbyists. For that reason, I do not support these kinds of changes as a good thing in and of themselves.

 

Edit - should add that I do not hold it against any fellow hobbyists if they like the change. My issue is with what I perceive to be the reason for the change themselves. If someone decides to make insinuating remarks about me or others who dislike these kinds of changes, then my tolerance goes away, but if we can just talk civilly then it is just something we disagree on like anything else.

Edited September 5 by phandaal

[Scribe]

 

I guess what I'm most curious about is why the change is viewed as a bad thing. Putting aside the cynical roll-out and the cynical reasoning for adding Femstodes - what about the change, beyond it on principle being an unearned change, is bad? What do we lose out on? Because it doesn't take away from the grimdark, it doesn't affect anything material about how Custodes act as far as I can see, they basically still just look the same too.

 

What am I missing?

 

Its bad because of the motivation for the change, being externally driven, the change itself not being necessary.

 

The issue is 100% because this change is done to shift towards what some believe is Right-Think.

[darkhorse0607]

 

 

I reiterate that more than my own progressivism is playing a part here: I really don't vibe with what the Custodes have been turned into.

 

 

I mean at this point, I think it would be fair to argue that they don't have much of an identity anymore. Yes, they're big and gold, and have the iconic helmet design (even though seemingly every new Custodes kit from GW doesn't have that design), but what are they?

 

They were the guardians of Terra and more importantly the Emperor, so much so that they never left the palace while everything crumbled around them. During the Heresy, they had a full armory, everything from jump troops, to hover tanks, their own dreadnought chassis, etc. They were so dedicated to his protection, and so wracked by guilt that they would sacrifice the rest of the Imperium to make sure he was more secure

 

They were, in many cases, the sons of the rival warlords from the Unification Wars, and later from the nobility. I always thought that was a power move by the Emperor, not just because he is taking the children, but in cases, he is quite literally ending the family bloodline for those that opposed him by making the children his guard (yes, I realize that this is still the case but it seems diminished to me, originally it was a choice by the Emperor made to assert his authority, now it's that he did that but also kind of took whomever)

 

Now? They are still on Terra, but they're also acting as a standing army again. Except that they are a standing army doesn't function like a standing army. Except when they do. And that army doesn't have a full armory like they used to (even though there's no reason for them not to have access to their older equipment). I can understand why they send a few to watch over Guilliman, but now you have them leading armies. It seems as though they've just turned into Primarch-lite. But maybe that's just me

 

Back to the other topic

 

I think, for my part, it seems like it's change for change's sake. Or as other Fraters have pointed out, it's change caused by an external source. For me, it would've been better if it had been a 40kism (meaning that it was a recent development, the Emperor appears to Valoris, Guiliman or Cawl and tells them to do it), rather than "you're crazy we never said it wasn't the case." The attitude by GW is what sours it for me more than it would have if they had put a bit of effort into it. I can also appreciate the point that Captain Idaho made about the brotherhood and comradeship, and while that still exists for the Astartes, it does seem as though it's disappearing (at the same time you still do have gender-specific factions that go the opposite direction, which I guess apparently is fine). All-in-all, there were a dozen ways of going about this, and GW, in my opinion, took the worst/easiest one, and then doubled down on it with their comments on WHC.

 

Lastly, I'll leave out a lot of the reactions I've seen from both sides (and plenty of labels, talking down to others, etc) both here and on a website that rhymes with schrmeddit, but I do want to thank the mods and most of the Fraters on here for trying to have a level headed discussion. While there still has been some of that talk here, for the most part, I feel like people have been on it, and I appreciate that and the folks for trying to have an actual discussion about this, rather than slinging insults

[Marshal Rohr]

I think if ADB wanted them to be girls back in 2011 or whatever it’s not a big deal. GW’s marketing team is the issue because they one hundred percent could’ve said we wanted to do this idea originally proposed by a beloved author over a decade ago but couldn’t because of the minis, now we can and you can infer what you want about new minis from that

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Very well said Darkhorse. It's kinda like Primaris. It's not the change per se but the way it has been handled. 

 

I personally feel the motivation for doing things is very important. This wasn't done for representation. This was done to appease certain groups and their ideology.

 

Personally I think Custodes are one of several factions that were cooler when they were in the background but not the tabletop. 

[wecanhaveallthree]

 

The Emperor is kind of notoriously gentle and soft with a whole plethora of characters, often acts out of emotion and has "favourites". Malcador, Valdor, Ra, of course Horus etc. I'm not sure why using men and women as his bodyguard would make him gentler? 

 

Apologies for the lack of clarity. When I say it 'gentles' the Emperor, I don't mean in the sense it makes him an affable gent. We know he had plenty of friends and companions over the ages and values them highly (after all, he drops literal godhood because Oll asks him nicely). When I say 'gentles', I mean that it makes him seem like an egalitarian equal-opportunist across the board. The Custodes are the ultimate expression of who and what the Emperor wants to be his closest, truest Companions. They are a physical extension of his will - an actual embodiment of his vision. They are hand-crafted special projects, each and all, and that every single one is a man tells us a lot about the Emperor, who he is, what informed the man he is, and where he wants to go in the future. It is, perhaps, the most gleaming, gold evidence of his blindness, of his weakness, of his flaws. 

 

So when we say 'The Emperor knew how to, but didn't', I think that is the best possible explanation. The Emperor is a really powerful dude, but he is just a dude, at the end of the day.

 

On the subject of 'the betrayals and relationships he has aren't exclusive to the male experience', I would strongly disagree. Not because women can't be betrayed or be, y'know, kind of mad and/or sad if their uncle krumps their dad, but because the dimension to that betrayal is and has been written to mirror mythic elements. Cain and Abel is, of course, the obvious one, but let's not mince words here: Greek tragedy is all through the setting. The themes of men killing their blood relations is splattered all over everything. The Heresy is literally 'brother wars'. Horus' flagship is the literal Vengeful Spirit from Cthonia (those Cthonic myths!), and if you were like 'nah fam that's just a fun reference', Qruze even gets a sweet sword named after a goddess who explicitly punishes the shedding of familial blood. It's pretty on the nose about it. The Emperor's life, dreams and ultimate 'death' are all deeply entwined with traditional masculine tales and ideals. I see the Custodes as a representation of that. Another outward, obvious sign of the Emperor's inability to really change or move on from being a sad, frightened, angry kid carving his father's skull for burial.

 

There's a reason all those 'daddy issues' memes fountained up for ADB: because, I think, a lot of the men in the hobby immediately understood and identified (or identified with) the way he wrote the Emperor (and others). Lorgar is supposed to be closest to the Emperor, and that scene in The First Heretic where he won't even look up from his desk to acknowledge Argel Tal literally having jumped into the Warp, gone mad and come out the other side with a demon stuffed inside him all for space-dad's approval is, uh... pretty grim (and awesome). 

 

Captain Idaho says it better than I'm saying here, of course. There are many male-coded elements within Warhammer, and that is not a bad thing. Neither are more female-coded elements, and it's one of my chief disappointments with Erda who had so, so, so much promise as an 'Empress' who - in a misguided attempt to 'save' the Primarchs - caused them enormous suffering and then blames them for it afterwards. Erda is absolutely goddamn awful in the same way the Emperor is, but she is - was - absolutely female-coded, as a mother rather than a father, and hoo boy did that work for me. Equally so, I think Honourbound remains one of my favourite 40K books for having such a powerful - and powerfully written - female lead in Raine. Raine puts on the armour of the Commissariat, she believes in the Emperor, she does her duty like any good citizen of the Imperium, but she is unquestionably, undeniably a woman. Her complicated feelings towards her family, her sister, and what that means for her now are written in a different way to a Commissar worrying about his brother. Family, legacy, duty - these mean different things to Raine than, say, Cain. For another example, I'm a huge fan of Last of Kiru's Line because it treats Shadowsun not just as a one-dimensional baby maker (though family and lineage are the main themes), but the totality of her experience, her character, who she is and what she believes in. She's the last of her family and the Empire is telling her: please come home. You've done enough. And, y'know, we like your genes because we're a large-scale eugenics program, so it's your duty. Shadowsun's agonising over this is real and vivid, and her ultimate decision is heartbreaking - but deeply personal, female-coded and an actual confrontation of those similar pressures women feel in our real world. Shadowsun's decision is treated with respect and gravitas. It's great. Everyone go read it.

 

To Roomsky's 'how much of this was intentional', I think 100%. The whole vibe of the Emperor is TRVE ROME IN SPACE, laurels and all. The Custodians are the Praetorian Guard, or Cyrus' Ten Thousand, or the Persian Immortals - pick your flavour, really. 

[Karhedron]

 

I think if ADB wanted them to be girls back in 2011 or whatever it’s not a big deal.

 

In "Echoes of Eternity" by ADB, Sanguinius observes that the Emperor is accompanied by men and women in golden armour. Now this could simply mean the SoS but I think there is sufficient ambiguity to imply that it could also be female custodians.

[LemartestheLost]

 

 

Its bad because of the motivation for the change, being externally driven, the change itself not being necessary.

 

The issue is 100% because this change is done to shift towards what some believe is Right-Think.

 

One of my bigger problems is the externally driven part. Now I haven't met Kevin Rountree and the board, and I'm sure plenty of them are progressive, but I highly doubt after 15 years they just decided "Wow, in our heart of hearts we truly believe Custodes should be able to be female because it vastly improves the setting, and it's just the right thing to do". They wanted the free social credit points and a pat on the back. Additionally, as Roomsky stated earlier this gets the FSM argument out of the way without really going there. This is just speculation, and I have no proof, but to me this reads as GW extending a branch to Amazon/other studios if Amazon falls through saying, "Look, we know you want female superhumans so teenage girls can be into 40k without snarky schoolboys teasing/lambasting them about how they're physically inferior. Our lore isn't immutable, and we want to work with you. However, look at the upset this has caused. We (and projects you're planning by extension) will be crucified and left out to rot if we introduce FSM".

 

Also, I never saw a massive campaign from the community itself for female Custodes. Before the 10th codex, plenty of people on reddit were drawing Custodes p*rn and some were speculating that they didn't have to be male for the reasons we've all listed/heard already. Anecdotal, but I have yet to meet a real-life hobbyist in love with the change. Not saying y'all don't exist and it's cool if you like the change, but I don't think that more than 5-10% of folks ever actually wanted femstodes before the codex dropped. Even the Custodes players that did actually want them clearly liked the faction enough to collect them before they were a thing. The people that really wanted them to be female already kit bashed them with third party head sculpts. Heck, it seems 25% of people want Custodes removed from the tabletop because they're so hard to balance. Custodes are popular but I can't imagine more than 10,000 people desperately wanted their Custodes models to have female heads. GW doesn't do things for a 1/3rd of a percent of the total player base. When we look back at what changing Custodes lore actually did, it goes like this:

 

1. Little girls and young women won't be teased AS much in the future assuming they actually become 40k nerds through a TV show.

 

2. Solves the FSM question if GW let's it be solved.

 

3. Resulted in the upcoming release of AT LEAST one Custodes upgrade sprue

 

4. Resulted in a quadrupling of Custodes p*rn on Reddit

 

5.  Made GW come off as lazy, incompetent, and disingenuous with how they handled the community backlash.

 

6. Gave the click/ragebaiters more ammunition in the culture war.

 

TL;DR GW wants that TV show contract money and will step on their own lore if they think they can get it. GW shouldn't change their lore based on what Amazon or anybody else except the fans have to say. There is some silver lining with this change, but it's painful to watch your favourite soulless corporation kowtowing to the pressures imposed upon them by society and other soulless corporations they don't even have contracts with for the sake of subtle greed, not any actual values. 

Edited September 5 by LemartestheLost
Added context

[Scribe]

 

They wanted the free social credit points and a pat on the back.

 

I've said for a long time, the worst possible timeline is that social media draws its eye towards 40K. I remember the pearl clutching over Elden Ring being 'inspired by Berzerk' and Twitter digging into Berzerk and going 'whoa this is terrible OMG' with all their manufactured outrage.

 

I'm already on record with where I stand with the IP at this point, so it doesnt matter.

[phandaal]

 

4. Resulted in a quadrupling of Custodes p*rn on Reddit

 

Alright this one got me chuckling pretty good. I believe it though. 

[Roomsky]

We've seen some valuable points regarding GW's practice made here, I think, but I've updated the OP so that moving forward we can hopefully cleave closer to the topic of what the change means in-setting. The meta discussion is not unwelcome but I feel the salient points have been raised, and raised well, already.

 

Always good to remember that Twitter is a cesspit, social media will make you think we're far more divided than we actually are, and that GW is a soulless corporation that will feed everything you love about 40k into a woodchipper for a quick buck. 

[Ubiquitous1984]

 

that GW is a soulless corporation that will feed everything you love about 40k into a woodchipper for a quick buck. 

See I think you’re being flippant so apologies for the ackturlry response!  However I feel like introducing female Custodes is the very opposite decision that a heartless corporation would make.

 

I think the decision has shown a lot of heart and empathy for modern sensibilities.   

[Roomsky]

 

See I think you’re being flippant so apologies for the ackturlry response!  However I feel like introducing female Custodes is the very opposite decision that a heartless corporation would make.

 

I think the decision has shown a lot of heart and empathy for modern sensibilities.   

 

And here I go breaking my own word on the meta discussion

 

I think the change is good and I'm super glad so many people appreciate it. Purely in terms of consequence for the faction and the new fans its creating, love it. 

 

But corporations care about money before everything. Accumulating capital is the purpose of a corporation. If GW thought removing all female rep from the setting would earn them more money, they would do it. If they thought rebooting 40k into a Nobledark Age of Emperor setting and threw out 75% of the factions and tone we love so much, they would do it. If they thought pivoting their entire brand into a My Little Pony competitor and started only producing pink plastic horses instead, they would do it. Progressivism is in vogue and while I appreciate what I and many others get out of that, GW isn't doing it for me, they're doing it for my cash. 

 

There are individual artists and creators who get my love and respect, of course. Look at the Black Library stable. I think whatever individual came up with the Femstodes idea could be cool. Who can say? But GW rolled it out for the reasons Lemartes outlined. They think it will pay. It's why when ADB proposed the concept a decade ago, they said no. They didn't think it would pay.

[Scribe]

 

It's why when ADB proposed the concept a decade ago, they said no. They didn't think it would pay.

 

Exactly, and this is the end all be all to this unless one wishes (and I wont) to get into the meta of it as Roomsky is saying.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

I think the decision has shown a lot of heart and empathy for modern sensibilities.   

 

I agree. And that's exactly why it shouldn't have happened.

[Shield-Captain]

The change will no effect in-setting. We may get a book featuring a female Custodes character in a prominent role or maybe a non-binary Custodes. But it won’t change the “Brotherhood” in the slightest.

 

I believe the only reason to care is because you want something to be angry about. 
 

GW has changed more lore in the nearly two decades (ughh) I’ve been engaged in the setting than I can recall. Necrons, the Thirteenth Black Crusade, the other 12 Black Crusades, the Horus Heresy, the primarchs, the Tyranids, the Votann. They almost never gave an explanation for what they changed. It was simply “this is how it is.” 
 

This change is smaller than most of the ones I listed. It will likewise have a very small ripple effect in-setting. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

GW has changed more lore in the nearly two decades (ughh) I’ve been engaged in the setting than I can recall. Necrons, the Thirteenth Black Crusade, the other 12 Black Crusades, the Horus Heresy, the primarchs, the Tyranids, the Votann. They almost never gave an explanation for what they changed. It was simply “this is how it is.” 

 

Feel free to point to all the times they changed something and then loudly proclaimed that those WEREN'T changes.

 

Or just continue to miss the point and hit the "respectfully disagree" button without understanding the post.

[darkhorse0607]

 

 

I believe the only reason to care is because you want something to be angry about. 
 

 

Extremely dismissive of others' point of view, but ok

 

Also, just to point out, just because X,Y, or Z person, company, whatever, does something that people don't like repeatedly, does not mean that people aren't allowed to feel a certain way about it

[phandaal]

 

I believe the only reason to care is because you want something to be angry about. 

 

People are talking in a very relaxed way, and your response is "you want something to be angry about."

 

Nonsense like this devalues everything else you say.

 

To counter this point - it is possible to say "no" without being angry.

Edited September 5 by phandaal

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

Its bad because of the motivation for the change, being externally driven, the change itself not being necessary.

 

The issue is 100% because this change is done to shift towards what some believe is Right-Think.

 

Why would you think that diversifying the representation is a worse reason to change lore than their usual reason of needing to sell new models? (Granted, I certainly wish this would have come with new models too!) 

 

Furthermore, what's "external" about it, beyond the GW writers and designers being human beings that live in the same world than the all of us and thus are obviously influenced by it. I have seen similar sentiment many times in other contexts too, and it sort of assumes that that if the creator has an idea the person doesn't like, the creator must have somehow been pressured to implement the idea, that they could not genuinely want to do it or think it was a good idea.

 

40K was crated as satire of conservatism, its creators were pretty liberal sorts. And whilst sadly the satire has these days became so weak that setting seems more like glorification of what it was supposed to satirise, I still think most of the people behind it are pretty progressive. So I believe this was just something they genuinely wanted to do. 

[Roomsky]

To nudge things back to in-setting discussion...

 

Can the people who enjoy the aspect of brotherhood expand on that point? What elements of a fraternity to the Custodes embody? I dig the angle that making the Custodes an all-male force tells us something about the Emperor, but I'm still fuzzy on the inherent male-ness of their behaviour.

[Scribe]

 

Why would you think that diversifying the representation is a worse reason to change lore than their usual reason of needing to sell new models? (Granted, I certainly wish this would have come with new models too!) 

 

Why would I think changing what was already answered, with no basis at all, is a bad thing?

 

Because it means the setting is at the whims of social media faux moral outrage.

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

Why would I think changing what was already answered, with no basis at all, is a bad thing?

 

They do that all the time! I've followed this franchise since the second edition (which in itself was a massive retcon to the Rogue trader) and there has been countless retcons and changes. And yeah, there are many that I do not like. Some I do. But complaining hat things change in 40K is futile. It has always been in flux. 

 

 

Because it means the setting is at the whims of social media faux moral outrage.

 

As opposed to at the whims of the marketing people? And again, this still is just your invention. There was no social media outrage demanding female Custodes. It is just a change GW decided to do because they think it is a good idea. And yeah, it might have something to do with progressive ideals. So what? Every creator's values will affect their work.