View Single Post
Old 08-14-2011, 03:32 PM   #32
Phoenix42
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mainz, Germany
Default Re: And the Angel of Irony wept...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Man View Post
I also agree that the "Fundamentalist Christian IN" you linked to is probably not one that I would play -- and I'm a Protestant Christian! That said, I don't think IN demands the relativistic philosophy, even though it was obviously conceived in it. Those who want to tie it to a particular faith or to a more solid good-evil conflict aren't having Hurting Wrong Fun unless they push it on someone who's clearly not interested. Which is true of any take on any RPG, of course.
To be fair - I think there's likely a world of difference between fundamentalist Christianity and non-fundamentalist Protestant faiths, so your reluctance is quite understandable; though I'm speaking as an atheist, so I guess there are those who would say I can't make statements on the matter. But I agree, there's no harm at all in tweaking IN according to one's own philosophy, religious or not - in fact, the system actively invites it, and know I do it all the time - I just always wonder (and this is likely telling of my having studied philosophy, I just realise) when it stops being In Nomine and starts being something entirely different - an academic exercise at best, I'll readily admit. But it may be one of those questions that are more revealing than their answers...

One thing that might be noted in general about the "sexing angels" as you put it so neatly, is that of course it makes for a lot easier roleplaying. Playing an absolutely non-human entity is trying at best, and defining angels with a sex certainly makes things easier as far as character identification is concerned - which is probably why IN allows that most angels have sexual preferences in one way or another. Of course, playing an angel who has no comprehension of the difference between the sexes, or the motivations behind them, makes for great fun and probably quite a few anthropological insights - if you can pull it off.

Quote:
(And as a side note -- yes, I do consider "sexist" a more accurate adjective than "misogynist" for what was being described. Thanks for being accommodating; I hope I haven't been too rambling in return. )
Always glad to improve my definitions - no rambling involved, imho.

One question, though (and this is probably going to be another testament to my ignorance): What is Hurting Wrong Fun? I assume from your usage and capitalisation that it's a term in it's own right, I just haven't heard it before - the curse of being on the wrong side of the pond/channel.

Last edited by Phoenix42; 08-14-2011 at 03:34 PM. Reason: can't spell for toffee
Phoenix42 is offline   Reply With Quote