This is really giving me a headache because the core book contradicts itself and then in the forums I keep reading Traits do not give annual Glory for being 16+ and, in one instance, Greg himself wrote Passions still do. And everyone keeps repeating this is an official errata although I fail at any search to find such a rule anywhere except in these forums. Can I get a concise and clear answer? :-)

A) Do individual Traits give annual Glory if 16+? If so, how much?

B) Do Passions at 16+ give annual Glory? If so, how much?

C) An extra bonus question: Is the new Chivalrous Bonus requirement that the sum of Chivalrous Traits be 96+?

An official clarification would be much appreciated.

+1 on this, especially the Chivalry bonus. I see 80+ and 96+ in different places, and not sure which is the most recent.

This is really giving me a headache because the core book contradicts itself and then in the forums I keep reading Traits do not give annual Glory for being 16+ and, in one instance, Greg himself wrote Passions still do. And everyone keeps repeating this is an official errata although I fail at any search to find such a rule anywhere except in these forums. Can I get a concise and clear answer? :-)

A) Do individual Traits give annual Glory if 16+? If so, how much?

B) Do Passions at 16+ give annual Glory? If so, how much?

C) An extra bonus question: Is the new Chivalrous Bonus requirement that the sum of Chivalrous Traits be 96+?

An official clarification would be much appreciated.


For official clarification, we will need to wait for Greg to chime in. :)

Meanwhile, we can examine the records of Greg's Utterances and try to guess at the possible answer. :P

A) & B):
According to this thread http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1291-Testing-Glory-and-Fame&p=11055&viewfull=1#post11055 (and possibly others, I didn't have time to look them up), Traits no longer gain Glory. This is reflected on the p. 104 of KAP 5.1: "No Glory is gained for simply having high Traits or Passions or Skills." Greg clarifies in the previously mentioned thread that the other instances where Traits do give Glory in KAP 5.1 are simply editorial mistakes, and should be errataed. Now, if that HAS changed and we are going back to 4th edition rules, then Notable Traits and Passions gain as much Glory as their value is, once they are 16+. So Loaylty (Lord) of 19 will give you 19 Annual Glory.

C):
Based on this thread http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1306-Gadzooks-the-fracking-Chivalry-bonus-is-wrong!&p=11210&viewfull=1#post11210 the Chivary bonus is supposed to kick in at 96, not 80. It supersedes KAP 5.1.

Yesterday I read a thread (which now escapes me) where Grey said Passions still gave Glory even though Traits wouldn't. Hence, my confusion about the whole thing compounded by the fact that this is supposed to be an official change and I can't find it anywhere in the official errata which already seems out of date.

Yesterday I read a thread (which now escapes me) where Grey said Passions still gave Glory even though Traits wouldn't. Hence, my confusion about the whole thing compounded by the fact that this is supposed to be an official change and I can't find it anywhere in the official errata which already seems out of date.

As Greg has said at time, he still tinkers with the system and occasionally tries something out, which either works or doesn't. Or he might change his mind.

The best thing, IMHO, for you to do for your campaign is to make up your own mind, perhaps after reading the thread(s) that I linked, where people weighed in on whether giving Glory for Traits & Passions and changing the Chivalric requirements is a good idea or not. As long as you apply your ruling consistently in your campaign, the players will be fine with it. I can guarantee you that Greg won't raid your game session to confiscate your books. :P (If that would work as a Summon Greg -spell, he'd never get any peace. :) )

For what it's worth, I am veering towards a stance that:
1) Chivalric needs to be more rare. So I would adopt some kind of version of the 96 rule (likely so that you can/must switch Honor 16+ for one of those Trait requirements; high Honor, to me, is the quintessential mark of Chivalry).
2) Give Glory for Traits and Passions, but not for the Achievements of Chivalric and Religious, since they already give Glory via Traits and have other bonuses besides.

I'm not questioning whether it's my game or not, it's just that one has to have a baseline to work from, in this case, the rules. When something is announced as official, and not a mere house rule, game master and players tend to pay attention. Otherwise, we might as well not even discuss changes to the rules. I could play 4th or 3rd and be happy with it. In this case, the core book contradicts itself. I don't have the page numbers, but in one instance it says high Traits earn Glory, and in another it says the contrary. So, it's a necessity to know which one of these is correct. Yes, I could make up a rule and get on with it, and I probably will, but first I wanted to go to the source.

First high Traits and Passions did get a Glory award. Then they didn't, as Morien points out. A little bird told me they will likely award Glory again in the next official release. But such should be considered rumor and idle speculation at this point.

Extreme Traits and Passions (16+) will award annual Glory at a number of points equal to their value.

Either way, this is not an issue of game balance (few characters will have more than a few at 16+) so I wouldn't worry about it overmuch.

For my part, I started the GPC awarding Glory, then saw the errata and stopped awarding it. Now that I believe the winds are blowing back, I'm probably going to start awarding it again.

Either way, it can't break your game.


Best,


T.

Either way, this is not an issue of game balance (few characters will have more than a few at 16+) so I wouldn't worry about it overmuch.


Depends on the character... I have seen plenty of them who have Chivalric Bonus, Religious Bonus and High Passions (especially Loyalty & Amor/Love passions, which can get pretty high bonuses).

When a character gets almost 500 Glory per year for sitting on his ass, I find that displeasing. 500 Glory is about the same as soloing a Huge Giant (suicidal) for crying out loud! Sure, it is not destroying the game, but it does impact on the meaningfulness of doing heroics when the other guy gets the same by staying at home with no risk to life and limb.

But I think the problem is not so much giving Glory for the Traits and Passions, as it is giving Glory for Chivalric and Religion bonuses. At least I can use those high Traits and Passions to get the knights do something...

I'll be testing a new House Rule whereby when the knight becomes Religious or Chivalrous, he'll stop receiving Glory from those Traits and just get a flat 100 Glory / year. We'll see how that goes.

I just started a new campaign, and I'm trying out a variant: Traits and passions over 15 give annual Glory in the amount of their value minus 15. I Also give the bonus for high Attributes and Skills; either way, mathematically this is coming out to WAY less Glory then my players were getting in the last game I did, while still being a bit of a reward.

Was also toying around with the idea of increasing the Chivalrous requirement to 112, and also throwing Honor as a required value. While I like the idea of the variant that's been thrown around here of having Honor sub in for one of the traits, I feel like this doesn't put too much of a burden on PKs, considering base Honor is 15 anyways, and it still helps those Pagan Knights a little bit too. I do the same thing for the Gentlewoman's bonus, but with Hospitality. Was thinking of doing something the with Religious bonus... Not sure. Love (God) sounds good for Christian Knights, maybe Love (Goddess? Gods?) for Pagans, or possibly something to do with Spiritual/Worldly.

I'll be testing a new House Rule whereby when the knight becomes Religious or Chivalrous, he'll stop receiving Glory from those Traits and just get a flat 100 Glory / year. We'll see how that goes.

That would work. Prevents the double dipping. However, it depends a bit on the way you game. We use excel sheets as character sheets, so it automatically calculates Traits and Passions above 16. Thus, for us, it would be easier to simply continue doing that, and not give Glory for Chivalric & Religious. However, if you are doing pen and paper, I can see how a flat 100 would be nicer than having to calculate 5-6 traits together.


I just started a new campaign, and I'm trying out a variant: Traits and passions over 15 give annual Glory in the amount of their value minus 15. I Also give the bonus for high Attributes and Skills; either way, mathematically this is coming out to WAY less Glory then my players were getting in the last game I did, while still being a bit of a reward.

Yep, a whole lot less, so much so that I would honestly not bother. What I tends to see in mature characters, usually, is maybe 100 Glory or so, or about 6 traits and passions in 16+ range, many of them at 16. In your method, they would be lucky to get 10 Glory.



Was also toying around with the idea of increasing the Chivalrous requirement to 112, and also throwing Honor as a required value. While I like the idea of the variant that's been thrown around here of having Honor sub in for one of the traits, I feel like this doesn't put too much of a burden on PKs, considering base Honor is 15 anyways, and it still helps those Pagan Knights a little bit too. I do the same thing for the Gentlewoman's bonus, but with Hospitality. Was thinking of doing something the with Religious bonus... Not sure. Love (God) sounds good for Christian Knights, maybe Love (Goddess? Gods?) for Pagans, or possibly something to do with Spiritual/Worldly.

Yes, the ability of Honor to replace one trait in Chivalric would be a deliberate effort to allow Pagan Knights reach Chivalric, too, rather than keep it as a purely Christian association. It is true that the historical, medieval chivalry did emphasize Christianity, but that is because in High Middle Ages, that was the only game in town, enhanced all the more by the Crusades and the Other of Islam. But in KAP, Paganism is still around and accepted, and I would hate to cripple the Pagan PKs from achieving Chivalric. However, I do recognize that applying the replacement rule willy-nilly might lead to some stupid outcomes, like a Famously Cowardly knight being Chivalric, which would not be OK.

Lets look at this (* marks a Chivalric trait, - an anti-trait):
British Christian: Chaste, Energetic*, Generous*, Modest*, Temperate
Roman Christian: Chaste, Forgiving, Modest*, Merciful*, Temperate
Pagan: Lustful, Energetic*, Generous*, Honest, Proud-
Chivalric: Energetic*, Generous*, Just*, Modest*, Merciful*, Valorous*

One easy option that comes to mind would be dropping Modest altogether and replacing it with Honor all across the board. The downside of this is that it would actually make Roman Christians the worst at getting the Chivalric Bonus, which doesn't feel right, either. I am less concerned about making it too easy: getting 6 traits up to 16 is going to be difficult regardless, even if you would replace one with Honor 15 at the start. By contrast, the old 80 limit is achievable even by starting characters, which made Chivalric less of an achievement and more of a default. A starting British Christian knight starts easily with Energetic 13, Generous 13, Just 16 (Famous Trait), Modest 13, Merciful 10 and Valorous 15 = 80. Roman Christians need to work a bit harder for it, and Pagans even more.

As for the addition of Spiritual and/or Love (God), I am quite in favor of requiring the religious knight to actually be religious (Spiritual), especially since this is also implied in pp. 69-70 of KAP 5.1: "Christian knights must strive to exercise their virtues during their daily lives; they attend Mass as much as possible, and must attend Easter mass." In other words, they need to walk the walk and talk the talk and BE a practicing (even obsessive) Christian, not just have the traits of one.

That would work. Prevents the double dipping. However, it depends a bit on the way you game. We use excel sheets as character sheets, so it automatically calculates Traits and Passions above 16. Thus, for us, it would be easier to simply continue doing that, and not give Glory for Chivalric & Religious. However, if you are doing pen and paper, I can see how a flat 100 would be nicer than having to calculate 5-6 traits together.

The players will get the best end of the bargain: the 5 Traits required for a Religious bonus add up to 80, whereas being Religious awards a flat 100 per year. Same with being Chivalrous only that it is only a 4 point difference with the new 96 point requisite. I want to keep the math easy because my players want to focus on other things.

Yep, a whole lot less, so much so that I would honestly not bother. What I tends to see in mature characters, usually, is maybe 100 Glory or so, or about 6 traits and passions in 16+ range, many of them at 16. In your method, they would be lucky to get 10 Glory.


Well... maybe you and I give out different amount of checks. Also keep in mind that I specified that I give it for Attributes (someone can be famous for being tall or handsome or tough, etc) and Skills (famous swordsman, famous rider, etc) as well, even Directed Traits if the total of the Directed trait + regular trait exceeds 16 (famously Suspicious of Silchester!). I made a few characters with this system, using completely random results for all of their stats, and the yearly glory they're getting from this averages to about 17. If I actually optimized them, I could probably swing more. Now, most of these characters do have higher-than normal Attributes, point-wise, but they average out to only 2 that are actually over 16, and their famous traits only average out to be about 3. Point is, it's no significant, but not insignificant either, which is pretty much what I'm looking for.



Yes, the ability of Honor to replace one trait in Chivalric would be a deliberate effort to allow Pagan Knights reach Chivalric, too, rather than keep it as a purely Christian association. It is true that the historical, medieval chivalry did emphasize Christianity, but that is because in High Middle Ages, that was the only game in town, enhanced all the more by the Crusades and the Other of Islam. But in KAP, Paganism is still around and accepted, and I would hate to cripple the Pagan PKs from achieving Chivalric. However, I do recognize that applying the replacement rule willy-nilly might lead to some stupid outcomes, like a Famously Cowardly knight being Chivalric, which would not be OK.

Lets look at this (* marks a Chivalric trait, - an anti-trait):
British Christian: Chaste, Energetic*, Generous*, Modest*, Temperate
Roman Christian: Chaste, Forgiving, Modest*, Merciful*, Temperate
Pagan: Lustful, Energetic*, Generous*, Honest, Proud-
Chivalric: Energetic*, Generous*, Just*, Modest*, Merciful*, Valorous*

One easy option that comes to mind would be dropping Modest altogether and replacing it with Honor all across the board. The downside of this is that it would actually make Roman Christians the worst at getting the Chivalric Bonus, which doesn't feel right, either. I am less concerned about making it too easy: getting 6 traits up to 16 is going to be difficult regardless, even if you would replace one with Honor 15 at the start. By contrast, the old 80 limit is achievable even by starting characters, which made Chivalric less of an achievement and more of a default. A starting British Christian knight starts easily with Energetic 13, Generous 13, Just 16 (Famous Trait), Modest 13, Merciful 10 and Valorous 15 = 80. Roman Christians need to work a bit harder for it, and Pagans even more.

As for the addition of Spiritual and/or Love (God), I am quite in favor of requiring the religious knight to actually be religious (Spiritual), especially since this is also implied in pp. 69-70 of KAP 5.1: "Christian knights must strive to exercise their virtues during their daily lives; they attend Mass as much as possible, and must attend Easter mass." In other words, they need to walk the walk and talk the talk and BE a practicing (even obsessive) Christian, not just have the traits of one.

Yeah, that was why I decided to add Honor and up the total, instead of replacing. In my view, it does the same basic thing without leading to super wonky results, and I'm more happy with a Proud but still Chivalrous knight over say, a Cowardly one.

I think I would definitely prefer Love (God) to Spiritual though, for one because I think there are a couple religions that already have Spiritual as a Religious trait, so I don't want them double-dipping, as it were (even though they are probably from one of the weird Continental Religions that would almost never come up). Plus, I can wrap my head around someone with a great passion for God while still being a largely secular person; I am one of those myself, hell, my Worldly trait may in fact be considered famous were I in the game, even though I consider myself extremely religious and have great love for YHWH. To me, Spiritual seems to be more concerned with matter not of this world, not NECESSARILY that you attend Mass every week. Obviously, YPMV

To me, Spiritual seems to be more concerned with matter not of this world, not NECESSARILY that you attend Mass every week. Obviously, YPMV

The Spiritual trait is indeed all about matters not of this world. It's a focus on that which is greater than oneself and outside of oneself. But in the medieval world, and especially among Christians, this is largely a distinction without a difference from Love (God), IMO. Spiritual can apply to pagans too, which is why Love (God), is needed as a Passion — that and the mechanics of Traits and Passions serve to completely different purposes, as far as game mechanics are concerned. Not sure that pagans would have the kind of personal relationship with their gods that Love (God) represents. They may ascribe the thunder and lightning to Thor — and they may fear his wrath and seek to appease him with small offerings — but do they Love him, nor do they dedicate their lives to venerating him and earning his love in return? Are there strict "laws" to adhere to in order to please the pagan gods? I think not.

The Worldly trait in my mind is more about what we would call materialism and sensualiity. It is more concerned with the here and now and elevating oneself, as opposed to appeasing unseen spirits and trying to earn a place in an otherworldly and eternal Realm of Bliss.

We should not try to find common ground between Christianity and Paganism, in my mind, because the tenants of each faith respectively, and their relationship with the divine, is completely different. The expectations are completely different. It's not like you can say one is just substituting one god for another and otherwise it's the same effect.

I hope that makes sense. Sounds a little rambling to me, but it's not easy to articulate.


T.

...the yearly glory they're getting from this averages to about 17... Point is, it's no significant, but not insignificant either, which is pretty much what I'm looking for.

Yes, adding the high attributes and high skills would increase the amount of Glory gained. What I am saying, though, that especially in a pen and paper game, I probably would simply drop this as too much fiddliness. It is not really worth the calculating, and it would take 60 years for them to gain a Glory Bonus Point (1000 Glory) for this alone. Which is why I'd not bother.

What I have been toying with is the idea of:
1) Stat or Skill above 20: +5 Glory / point above 20.
- 20 is to me the line between 'normal' and 'legendary', since you can't raise the skill past 20 with Yearly Training anymore. Stats are limited usually by 18, but having the same limit makes it easier. I don't think that a SIZ 16 is anything particularly worthy of Glory, since the average for a knight (see KAP 5.1 p. 176) is 14, and even SIZ 18 is pretty common in our PKs (since SIZ is simply so good).
2) Trait or Passion above 15: +5 Glory / point above 15.
- The upside of this is that it would make a difference between a score of 16 and 20 more palpable, as it should be. 16 is MUCH easier to achieve than 20, but they give almost the same amount of Glory currently.
- Sure, Passion 20 would now gain 40 Glory, double what it used to, but since most Glory-awarding Traits & Passions would have been around 16 and 17, the average comes way down.

In a pen and paper game, I might simply say 10 Glory per Trait/Passion above 16 and Stat/Skill over 20, and leave it at that. Saves on math.



Yeah, that was why I decided to add Honor and up the total, instead of replacing. In my view, it does the same basic thing without leading to super wonky results, and I'm more happy with a Proud but still Chivalrous knight over say, a Cowardly one.


Alas, adding Honor to the Total makes almost no difference for the Pagan Knight. Sure, it is one number more that he can increase, so he would get by with six things at 18 and Modest 4, rather then needing five at 19 and Modest 3. Actually, the downside of this counting method is that you can still have Cowardly Chivalric Knights... Simply comes from the fact that you are calculating a sum, not looking at threshold values. So, the problem is still there.



I think I would definitely prefer Love (God) to Spiritual though, for one because I think there are a couple religions that already have Spiritual as a Religious trait, so I don't want them double-dipping, as it were (even though they are probably from one of the weird Continental Religions that would almost never come up). Plus, I can wrap my head around someone with a great passion for God while still being a largely secular person; I am one of those myself, hell, my Worldly trait may in fact be considered famous were I in the game, even though I consider myself extremely religious and have great love for YHWH. To me, Spiritual seems to be more concerned with matter not of this world, not NECESSARILY that you attend Mass every week. Obviously, YPMV


The Spiritual trait is indeed all about matters not of this world. It's a focus on that which is greater than oneself and outside of oneself. But in the medieval world, and especially among Christians, this is largely a distinction without a difference from Love (God), IMO. Spiritual can apply to pagans too, which is why Love (God), is needed as a Passion — that and the mechanics of Traits and Passions serve to completely different purposes, as far as game mechanics are concerned. Not sure that pagans would have the kind of personal relationship with their gods that Love (God) represents. They may ascribe the thunder and lightning to Thor — and they may fear his wrath and seek to appease him with small offerings — but do they Love him, nor do they dedicate their lives to venerating him and earning his love in return? Are there strict "laws" to adhere to in order to please the pagan gods? I think not.

The Worldly trait in my mind is more about what we would call materialism and sensualiity. It is more concerned with the here and now and elevating oneself, as opposed to appeasing unseen spirits and trying to earn a place in an otherworldly and eternal Realm of Bliss.

We should not try to find common ground between Christianity and Paganism, in my mind, because the tenants of each faith respectively, and their relationship with the divine, is completely different. The expectations are completely different. It's not like you can say one is just substituting one god for another and otherwise it's the same effect.


Good post, Taliesin. I agree that things are different between Christianity and Paganism, and probably they should use slightly different 'mechanics' than just filing away the serial number. The connection of Spiritual (Christian) and Love (God) is quite firm, as you say, since a Spiritual Christian SHOULD be thinking about the afterlife and sin and trying to get good with the Almighty with prayer, confessions and yes, church attendance. As for Paganism, I don't know so well the Celtic Paganism, but the Romans used to have an almost legalistic, mercantile approach to their gods: do ut des ('I give that you may give'), meaning that you gave proper sacrifices so that the god in question would grant your request. The rituals had to be done in a certain way, and some of the Roman priesthoods, especially the older ons, were a collection of taboos. A good example is Flamen Dialis, the high priest of Jupiter in Rome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamen_Dialis#Restrictions .

A really good (and funny) example of the Roman legalistic approach to gods and taboos: The reason why Flamen Dialis' bed has its legs smeared in clay is that Flamen Dialis was supposed to sleep on earth, and by smearing the legs with clay, they could claim that the bed was now 'earth', too. :P

To be honest, I would be tempted to simply ditch Love (God), and allow deeply religious folk get inspired by Spiritual instead. There is already a connection there, with Love (Deity) usually starting at the same value as Spiritual (aka Pious). The only reason, I think, why we even have Love (Deity) is so that there is a Passion to get inspired with, rather than having to use a special rule for a Trait. But there is a door slightly ajar in KAP 5.1 p. 67: "At the Gamemaster’s option, minor inspiration may be gained from a critical success with a trait."

Hi, thanks to you all for the thoughtful and interesting discussion.
My 2 cents:

- I recently re-checked KAP 5.1 for this very purpose, and my impression is that the rules explicitly exclude any Glory reward from high Traits/Passions. In particular, they are very clear that one only gains Glory from T/P when they are actually USED in play. So, I'd say that the rules AS THEY ARE NOW only allow this interpretation.

- The Spiritual/Love(Deity) dichotomy has been very elusive for me. I agree with Morien that L(D) seems to have the only purpose of granting Inspiration, at least for Christian characters.
- For me, Spiritual seems to make sense even without L(D), but not vice versa. I can imagine a very Spiritual character (even a Christian one) who doesn't love any deity; in particular, one can be very spiritual without being very passionate about it. On the contrary, loving a deity with passion, to me, seems to presuppose a high degree of spirituality.
- For pagans, the L(D) Passion could be a specification of the peculiar deity toward whom the character feels strongly; for example, one could Love(Jupiter) without feeling passionately toward Mars (i.e., no Love(Mars)); Love(Cernunnos) could be separated from Love(Mother Earth), and so on.
- Probably, L(D) for pagans could also mean "love toward all material things and concepts related to that deity"; in this case, perhaps one could care for and love very much these material things and concepts, without being Spiritual. For example, Love(Mother Earth) could be a Passion toward the Earth as a material "thing", felt by a character who is fiercely Worldly. Otherwise, one could never reconcile the pagan religion requirement for a high Worldly Trait with any Love (Pagan Deity) Passion.

Roberto

Otherwise, one could never reconcile the pagan religion requirement for a high Worldly Trait with any Love (Pagan Deity) Passion.

I think that has been superseded, Roberto. A religious person is Spiritual, no matter what his religion is.

Which of course causes some issues for Religions that already have Spiritual or Worldly in their write-ups, but that is a problem of the write-ups, not the definitions, IMHO.

To be honest, I would be tempted to simply ditch Love (God), and allow deeply religious folk get inspired by Spiritual instead. There is already a connection there, with Love (Deity) usually starting at the same value as Spiritual (aka Pious). The only reason, I think, why we even have Love (Deity) is so that there is a Passion to get inspired with, rather than having to use a special rule for a Trait. But there is a door slightly ajar in KAP 5.1 p. 67: "At the Gamemaster’s option, minor inspiration may be gained from a critical success with a trait."


Yes, exactly. One is a Passion, one is a Trait. My main point being that, in the main, I would not expect pagans to have such a deeply, er... passion about their gods. They might be passionate about defending their traditions (paganism) but I don't see the kind of personal investment and commitment in a deity that Christianity requires. However, pagans could be very Spiritual — any Druid would certainly have a Spiritual trait of 16+ (though being a pagan with Spiritual does not make one a Druid). But the personal Love (God) would not be seen in people who made offerings to the Lord of the Sea for safe passage, for example. As you say, these religions seems to be more transactual than passionate.

T.

I think that has been superseded, Roberto. A religious person is Spiritual, no matter what his religion is.

Which of course causes some issues for Religions that already have Spiritual or Worldly in their write-ups, but that is a problem of the write-ups, not the definitions, IMHO.

Okay, that's news to me. Not saying it doesn't make sense, just that I hadn't heard that.

Okay, that's news to me. Not saying it doesn't make sense, just that I hadn't heard that.

BotE, p. 5:
"PIOUS" NO MORE
The Pious/Worldly label has over the years
proved to be somewhat cumbersome and con-
fusing. Hereafter, this Trait pair will be known as
Spiritual/Worldly.
“Spiritual” indicates interest and inclination
towards matters and values of the Unseen World,
while “Worldly” indicates inclination towards the
good things of life and the material world. Yes,
Pagans fall on this scale too. The followers of the
Old Ways should not be considered the ancient
equivalent of atheists or secularists.

BotW doesn't have the same warning label up front, but some of its specials and unusual features do support the idea that religion and otherworldly stuff is Spiritual, no matter the religion:
Pagan Monument, None, Spiritual check if it is holder’s religion, or Worldly if not
Ancient barrow, Spiritual check
Haunted copse, Spiritual check

I'd also note that as far as I recall, KAP 5.1 doesn't say that Pious is the exclusive preserve of Christians; it is clearly written as religion-neutral. It was Book of the Manor (IIRC) that came up with the idea that Pagans are Worldly (pagan monuments granted Worldly checks) and Christians are Pious.

Which of course causes some issues for Religions that already have Spiritual or Worldly in their write-ups, but that is a problem of the write-ups, not the definitions, IMHO.

Such as Germanic (Saxon) Pagans / Wotanists. I thought about this a bit more, and my personal preference would be to switch Worldly to Valorous. After all, that is the common theme in Germanic (Norse, in this example) Afterlife: die valiantly a warrior's death and you will be taken to the mead hall of the Gods in Valhalla to feast until Ragnarok; die as a coward and you go to Niflheim, the land of ice and mist, where you just freeze until Ragnarok.

BotE, p. 5:
"PIOUS" NO MORE
The Pious/Worldly label has over the years
proved to be somewhat cumbersome and con-
fusing. Hereafter, this Trait pair will be known as
Spiritual/Worldly.
“Spiritual” indicates interest and inclination
towards matters and values of the Unseen World,
while “Worldly” indicates inclination towards the
good things of life and the material world. Yes,
Pagans fall on this scale too. The followers of the
Old Ways should not be considered the ancient
equivalent of atheists or secularists.

BotW doesn't have the same warning label up front, but some of its specials and unusual features do support the idea that religion and otherworldly stuff is Spiritual, no matter the religion:
Pagan Monument, None, Spiritual check if it is holder’s religion, or Worldly if not
Ancient barrow, Spiritual check
Haunted copse, Spiritual check

I'd also note that as far as I recall, KAP 5.1 doesn't say that Pious is the exclusive preserve of Christians; it is clearly written as religion-neutral. It was Book of the Manor (IIRC) that came up with the idea that Pagans are Worldly (pagan monuments granted Worldly checks) and Christians are Pious.

Yeah, I was going by Book of the Manor, and I thought there was a page on Greg's site or something that went into more detail why Pagans had Worldly, because that's where I remember seeing that Pious had been renamed Spiritual. Well, either way, that's fine with me, no one in any of my groups had all that high a Spiritual or Worldly anyways so this isn't gonna affect me too much.