Hi,
just noticed that when building Christian religious monuments you get a Pious check (as I expect).
But for Pagan religious monuments you get a Worldly check, which I dont understand. As a devout and spiritial Pagan I want to build something for my pagan beliefs, I get a worldly check and thus hence I'll become less devout/spiritial??
So experienced Pagan priests (aka Ovates/Druids) are known for their Worldliness? Meaning that they dont believe in anything?

Do I misunderstand Paganism?

fg,
Thijs

I think it represents that Paganism is tied strongly to the natural world. So appreciating the world is being pious.

Compare to Medieval Christianity where the material world is considered unimportant and corrupt, and only the spiritual is worth considering.

just noticed that when building Christian religious monuments you get a Pious check (as I expect).
But for Pagan religious monuments you get a Worldly check, which I dont understand. As a devout and spiritial Pagan I want to build something for my pagan beliefs, I get a worldly check and thus hence I'll become less devout/spiritial??
So experienced Pagan priests (aka Ovates/Druids) are known for their Worldliness? Meaning that they dont believe in anything?

Do I misunderstand Paganism?


Yes, but that is largely my design fault, or at least, a vocabulary error.
I have discussed this at length elsewhere, and will try to get a post on my site about this.

Yes, in the rules Pagans are worldly, not pious. This stemmed from the crisis I had in trying to use this trait to define a major difference between Paganism and (Roman) Christianity. The formal name for what I wanted to illustrate finding the sacred in the manifest (Worldly) or in the nonmaniest (non-worldly). My vocabulary failed when I chose Pious as one of the terms.
Here's my current solution.

Redefined Traits: Otherworldly/Worldly

Otherworldly indicates an interest and concentration on the immaterial side of life. This might be deliberately spiritual, philosophical or aesthetic; or maybe just weak-minded. At it higher levels it may appear as deep thought, absent-mindedness or wisdom.
Worldly is concern with the material world. It can manifest as crude desire or cultural sophistication.

This trait often works in conjunction with, or as motivator for, other traits. While it is easy to consider lust, greed and other traits as vessels of worldliness, careful consideration will show that they can also be attached to otherworldliness. Sacred copulation during public fertility rites is otherworldly Lust, while sacred greed, or greed for the sacred, is a frightening but not unknown motivation found in the likes of Duke Klingsor, King of Castle Mortal.

Redefined Passion: Piety (aka "Love God/dess")
Piety is a passion for a higher spiritual being or state of being. It requires a focus for it, commonly whatever deity is favored. It is invoked in the presence of that entity, or to bring that entity or its power to where the person is. It is possible to work miracles through Piety, but even religious knights lack the talent to do so. (Wonder working knights like Galahad are exceptional and outside the rules. Magicians will be handled under another supplement.)

Spiritual/Material?

If it's only to indicate difference Christian and Pagan, why not Christian/Pagan?


fg,
Thijs

If it's only to indicate difference Christian and Pagan, why not Christian/Pagan?


Probably because that would eliminate any conflict or reason for the trait to exist for a character. There would be no reason for a Christian character to have or roll his Pagan trait, or any game motivation to do so- or vice versa.

All the other trait pairs tend to have some perk to the "bad" trait or some reason why a character could act that way. While we might not commend it when a character is cruel or lustful, we can understand why a character could act that way.

I can't understand why a Christian Knight would "act Pagan". I could see him acting materialistic, and understand it, even if he should be concerned with the "more important" spiritual world.



There is still the problems with Pagans having no need to "get pious". ???

Until Greg comes with official redefinition I think I stick with Pious/Worldy, because that's how I always (mis)interpreted it.
With Pious acting in accordance with the dogma of your faith (and fear of the afterline), and Worldy when acting with little regard to the spiritual world (and/or afterlife) according to your religion. Which means you get a check in Pious and Merciful if you spare an enemy when fearing to get send to hell when you slay him. And a Check in Worldy and Merciful if you spare a 'holy enemy'... A check in Pious if you bury the dead despite the delay and Worldly if you just ride on (without even a minor prayer). Pious if you go to Mass (despite the enemy army outside) and Worldly if you forbid mass to be said before the battle.
This means I'll change (for my campaign) the BoM investments into always giving Pious bonus.
Just my 2c.

fg,
Thijs

If it's only to indicate difference Christian and Pagan, why not Christian/Pagan?


It is not to "only to indicate" that. Everything is more complex than it appears at first.

Because some Christianitities believe in Immanence, and some Pagan religions believe in Transcendence.

And because Pagans need to be able to be Pious.

Part of the difficulty here is that much of the material is covered under other trait pairs: Chast/Lustful, Generous/Selfish, Indulgent/Temperate.

Maybe Pious Worldly could act as a meta-directed trait. Much like using Faith to help resist temptation?

Part of the difficulty here is that much of the material is covered under other trait pairs: Chast/Lustful, Generous/Selfish, Indulgent/Temperate.


?



Maybe Pious Worldly could act as a meta-directed trait. Much like using Faith to help resist temptation?


Please tinker and play as you wish, but to me Pious/Worldly is just a bad/false dichotomy.
Pious works as a passion in every condition that Thjis stated.

Part of the difficulty here is that much of the material is covered under other trait pairs: Chast/Lustful, Generous/Selfish, Indulgent/Temperate.


?

Sorry. What I meant is that many of the sprirtual/material tests are respented with the other personality traits. For instance, temptations of the flesh = Chaste/Lustful, tempations of greed= Generous/Selfish and so forth.



Please tinker and play as you wish, but to me Pious/Worldly is just a bad/false dichotomy.
Pious works as a passion in every condition that Thjis stated.


A passion would simplify things in that we would now have two scores to track (Religion and Piety/Love (Deity) but dropping the Pious/Worldly trait pair leaves us with the following problems:

1) What do we replace it with for the Germanic and Heathen Religious virtues?

2) Is the Pious Passion now something that all characters should get/roll for and have on their sheet? Or only those knights who wish to take the Passion?

Of course, Christianity per the rules is neither worldly nor otherworldly, same as Paganism, except when it comes to religious monuments.

But yeah, the trait pair is confusing.
---
If we drop the trait pair, Saracens can replace Pious with Generous for their trait value (come to think of it, that makes more sense even if we do keep the trait pair; charity is one of the Five Pillars!). For Wotanic, I would replace Worldly with Honest, but I freely admit I'm taking that straight off the Norse. Heathens I don't know enough about.

How about dogmatic/agnostic?
That's sorta how I interpret Pious/Wordly, you can behave in accordance to your religion (and gain the religion bonus) but not follow the dogma, or you can follow the dogma to the letter but not behave as 'example' christian/pagan (no religion bonus).

fg,
Thijs

Sorry. What I meant is that many of the sprirtual/material tests are respented with the other personality traits. For instance, temptations of the flesh = Chaste/Lustful, tempations of greed= Generous/Selfish and so forth.


I disagree here.
A chaste/lustful or generous/selfish roll may be a religious test, but it is NOT a test of spirituality or worldliness (no any indication of transcendence/immanence)




Pious works as a passion in every condition that Thjis stated.


A passion would simplify things in that we would now have two scores to track (Religion and Piety/Love (Deity) but dropping the Pious/Worldly trait pair leaves us with the following problems:

1) What do we replace it with for the Germanic and Heathen Religious virtues?


Nothing. No change. They are worldly in their religion.



2) Is the Pious Passion now something that all characters should get/roll for and have on their sheet? Or only those knights who wish to take the Passion?


It would be voluntary.

How about dogmatic/agnostic?
That's sorta how I interpret Pious/Wordly, you can behave in accordance to your religion (and gain the religion bonus) but not follow the dogma, or you can follow the dogma to the letter but not behave as 'example' christian/pagan (no religion bonus).


I encourage people to do what you need/wish to make your own sense of this.

However, dogmatic/agnostic does not come close to the division of transcendent/immanent that is necessary here.

How about dogmatic/agnostic?
That's sorta how I interpret Pious/Wordly, you can behave in accordance to your religion (and gain the religion bonus) but not follow the dogma, or you can follow the dogma to the letter but not behave as 'example' christian/pagan (no religion bonus).


I encourage people to do what you need/wish to make your own sense of this.


I know, thats why I love Pendragon and have such high Loyalty(Greg Stafford)
:)

fg,
Thijs

Redefined Traits: Otherworldly/Worldly

Otherworldly indicates an interest and concentration on the immaterial side of life. This might be deliberately spiritual, philosophical or aesthetic; or maybe just weak-minded. At it higher levels it may appear as deep thought, absent-mindedness or wisdom.
Worldly is concern with the material world. It can manifest as crude desire or cultural sophistication.

Underlined for emphasis on my part.

You're going to have to explain those two terms, because upon first glance these two phrases don't seem jive with the subject (of Otherworldlessness) or the other characteristics presented that this trait represents (even as dichotomies of them).

You're going to have to explain those two terms, because upon first glance these two phrases don't seem jive with the subject (of Otherworldlessness) or the other characteristics presented that this trait represents (even as dichotomies of them).


Here is my new definition.
Remember that a Trait defines WHAT YOU DO

Otherworldly indicates concentration on mental, immaterial matters. Its extreme indicates attention directed elsewhere even at the cost of knowing what is right in front of them. Spiritual otherworldliness is common, with holy people distracted by their secrets and mysteries and strange goings-on that are unknown to normal folk. Philosophical and aesthetic otherworldliness is caused by deep of lofty thoughts, but manifests the same way—inattention to immediate events. Such inattention might also be caused by intense innocence (Percivale), and may often eem to be, and sometimes even might be, weak- or absent-mindedness.

Spiritual/Material?
In my game, we use Spiritual/Woldly instead of Pious/Worldly, where Spiritual "indicates concentration on mental, immaterial matters. Its extreme indicates attention directed elsewhere even at the cost of knowing what is right in front of them. Spiritual otherworldliness is common, with holy people distracted by their secrets and mysteries and strange goings-on that are unknown to normal folk. Philosophical and aesthetic otherworldliness is caused by deep of lofty thoughts, but manifests the same way—inattention to immediate events."

In our game, this creates some funny episodes, when some of the 16+ Spiritual PCs start praying in the face of imminent danger. "There's a dragon! To arms!... Hey whatta heck are you guys doing! Gah! On your feet!"

// M

Otherworldly indicates concentration on mental, immaterial matters. Its extreme indicates attention directed elsewhere even at the cost of knowing what is right in front of them. Spiritual otherworldliness is common, with holy people distracted by their secrets and mysteries and strange goings-on that are unknown to normal folk. Philosophical and aesthetic otherworldliness is caused by deep of lofty thoughts, but manifests the same way—inattention to immediate events. Such inattention might also be caused by intense innocence (Percivale), and may often eem to be, and sometimes even might be, weak- or absent-mindedness.

I like it.

However, that being said, this still seems to skirt the borders of the purview of passions. One would think that, whatever their True Passion is (love for Deity, Reason, Food (as diametric), etc.), their value in their passion(s) would reflect this behaviour.

Could you have a high Otherworldly and a pitiful Love (God), for instance? Seems rather strange ... that would be one tortured individual!

Btw, where is this info on your main site?

Otherworldly indicates concentration on mental, immaterial matters. Its extreme indicates attention directed elsewhere even at the cost of knowing what is right in front of them. Spiritual otherworldliness is common, with holy people distracted by their secrets and mysteries and strange goings-on that are unknown to normal folk. Philosophical and aesthetic otherworldliness is caused by deep of lofty thoughts, but manifests the same way—inattention to immediate events. Such inattention might also be caused by intense innocence (Percivale), and may often eem to be, and sometimes even might be, weak- or absent-mindedness.

I like it.

However, that being said, this still seems to skirt the borders of the purview of passions.


?
These are Traits. They track what you do.



One would think that, whatever their True Passion is (love for Deity, Reason, Food (as diametric), etc.), their value in their passion(s) would reflect this behaviour.


Of course. Someone mentioned earlier the player knights dropping to their knees to pray as the enemy closed in.
However, I don't think it needs any rules



Btw, where is this info on your main site?


http://gspendragon.com/pagans1.html

?
These are Traits. They track what you do.

I was merely commenting on the fact that this particular trait seems to skirt any sort of belief or action (its a "mental" trait, as opposed to the "emotional" other ones). One would think that it would be tough to be Wordly and have a high Piety score at the same time, so this is going to still have problems with "paganism" as this game portrays it (but don't take me saying that that Paganism has Worldly as a virtue either).

More my Muse just commenting, in other words. I'm not even sure we need this trait pair, because we have Passions and its mechanics to represent this "action" ... yes? One would think that the very act of having certain passions itself would preclude this trait of "... attention directed elsewhere even at the cost of knowing what is right in front of them." Like you said:


Of course. Someone mentioned earlier the player knights dropping to their knees to pray as the enemy closed in.
However, I don't think it needs any rules.

I was merely commenting on the fact that this particular trait seems to skirt any sort of belief


I will pause here first--Traits have nothing to do with thoughts and beliefs.
They record actions.
That is, in a testing situation, did your knight act or become motivated by worldly or otherworldly?



or action (its a "mental" trait, as opposed to the "emotional" other ones).


You may make this dichotomy between mental and emotional if you wish, but you are only making problems for yourself to split them.




One would think that it would be tough to be Wordly and have a high Piety score at the same time,


I don't know who One is (I wish people used their real names instead of pseudonyms online!) but if it is tough to imagine then it is probably because they are stuck thinking that the Christian definition of Pious is universal.

Whereas "pious" always has to do with respect and devotion, the actual actions for such are different for different religions.
Here is an example of Piety and Worldly: you revere the force of creation and worship its manifestations, one of which is sexual pleasure, either for procreation or its own sake. Pious worship consists of reverent, respectful participation in the sacred rites of sex, aware of its greater implications and sources.
That is one simple example (and there's less problem getting people to worship this way than to go to church)
Sex is just the example to shock puritans and victorians.
The immediacy of the living gods is present is every kind of work. When the smith hammers, Gofannon is hammering. When the plowman plows, Amaethon is plowing. When the druid enchants, Gwydion is enchanting.



so this is going to still have problems with "paganism" as this game portrays it (but don't take me saying that that Paganism has Worldly as a virtue either).


I'll try to make it clear through the essays on my site.

I'll try to make it clear through the essays on my site.


Dude! And so he did:

http://www.gspendragon.com/pagans1.html

http://www.gspendragon.com/merlinsez.html

http://www.gspendragon.com/merlinsez.html

I've never been tempted to play a pagan character before, but this is awesome.

I will pause here first--Traits have nothing to do with thoughts and beliefs.
They record actions.

Surely they mean more than that.

For example, a knight isn't Honest just because he acts that way - its because he believes it to be The Right Way to do things. Even if the source is because of his faith, or his King, or because he hates someone, each motivation tells him that this is the Right Way; in the end the Knight has made (un)conscious choices to be a certain way. He makes a point to show his belief - and he gets recognized for it. A man makes a choice to be chaste, even in the face of temptation, or when he doesn't need to be.

It is the same for all traits. They are the framework upon which all humans are judged.

This new one, however, of Otherwordly and its opposite, seems to challenge that framework because its acting differently. Its acting as a source for all these other specific thoughts about the way this person should act. In other words, you're creating a Wisdom attribute stat embodied in a trait ... if that made sense.

I like it. Its just ... different.

Also, isn't that making the left hand trait, Worldly, opposite to that? Whereas I should think that someone could enjoy the finer things in life because they've (possibly) thought about the Other Side enough to have figured things out and not to worry about that stuff anymore ... kinda like an Old Wise Woman. She just putters around, tending her garden (or whatever), enjoying life and her role in it ... the way Otherwordly is described makes that impossible to get to such a state ... wise about the world and Life but doesn't trouble herself anymore about thinking about it.

The goal, of course, is the same in all religions - NOT question these things and just live and work in harmony in the Now with whatever structure Life has destined for you ...

I will pause here first--Traits have nothing to do with thoughts and beliefs.
They record actions.
Surely they mean more than that.


Yes and now, but mostly no.



For example, a knight isn't Honest just because he acts that way


I disagree.
A knight can think and want anything he wants, but if he steals and lies he is not Honest.



- its because he believes it to be The Right Way to do things. Even if the source is because of his faith, or his King, or because he hates someone, each motivation tells him that this is the Right Way; in the end the Knight has made (un)conscious choices to be a certain way. He makes a point to show his belief - and he gets recognized for it. A man makes a choice to be chaste, even in the face of temptation, or when he doesn't need to be.


I disagree. Motivation is irrelevant.
A knight can think and desire anything he wants, but actions are recorded by the Trait stats.



It is the same for all traits. They are the framework upon which all humans are judged.


People are judged by their actions, not by their intentions.



This new one, however, of Otherwordly and its opposite, seems to challenge that framework because its acting differently. Its acting as a source for all these other specific thoughts about the way this person should act. In other words, you're creating a Wisdom attribute stat embodied in a trait ... if that made sense.

I like it. Its just ... different.


OK, good
Everyone is invited to interact with the game as you wish.
I am merely stating my designer's intentions and understanding here.



Also, isn't that making the left hand trait, Worldly, opposite to that?


Yes, as per the definition.



Whereas I should think that someone could enjoy the finer things in life because they've (possibly) thought about the Other Side enough to have figured things out and not to worry about that stuff anymore ... kinda like an Old Wise Woman. She just putters around, tending her garden (or whatever), enjoying life and her role in it ... the way Otherwordly is described makes that impossible to get to such a state ... wise about the world and Life but doesn't trouble herself anymore about thinking about it.


Your interpretation is because you are not looking at these as actions, but as motivators.
Your description of the Wise Woman is not of an Otherworldly person. It simply does not fit the definition that I use.



The goal, of course, is the same in all religions - NOT question these things and just live and work in harmony in the Now with whatever structure Life has destined for you ...


This is a definition of some religions.

Weird. After all this time, I've been playing traits one way whereas it was intended to be merely an accounting device as it were.

Hah! Learn something new everyday. :)


I disagree. Motivation is irrelevant.
A knight can think and desire anything he wants, but actions are recorded by the Trait stats.

....

Your interpretation is because you are not looking at these as actions, but as motivators.
Your description of the Wise Woman is not of an Otherworldly person. It simply does not fit the definition that I use.

They aren't just an accounting device.

You may have a knight who has 16 Honest, and think of him as an honest knight. But only in play, when we see how those honest rolls turn out (does he keep fumbling?), do we see if he actually is honest. Your concept of the knight may change with those rolls.
You may start out making decisions based on your knight's high honest score: "I'll tell the truth, because I wouldn't lie," but later on, you may find you are re-evaluating whether your knight really is honest, depending on how the game and the rolls pan out.

As an accounting tool, they aren't perfectly effective - because you may lie, but nevertheless fail the deceitful experience roll. But still, it makes sense to think of them this way: "this is how my knight tends to act when the chips are down, regardless of my own interpretation of his thoughts and feelings"

Oh, I get that now that Greg has straightened out my incorrect assumptions about what his original intentions with this aspect of the game have been all along. I had been, instead, looking at them as motivators.

I tell you, it sure would be fun to be a player in one of Greg's games ... just to see how the game is played by the creator. It would be an enlightening experience to be sure!

:)

As a matter of straightforward rules inquiry, when a new character has Pious underlined as a religious trait are we to just make it Otherworldly?

As a matter of straightforward rules inquiry, when a new character has Pious underlined as a religious trait are we to just make it Otherworldly?


Yes.
If he has a Passion of Love (God/dess) that = Piety.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and am still somewhat confused. Assuming that it is now Otherworldly/Worldly:

1) How does someone act Otherworldly? Vacant stare? I can see how someone could act Lustful, Energetic, Proud, Reckless and so on, but Just don't understand how they act Otherworldly.

2) Just what would force a Otherworldly test?

3) What is the game rational for characters with a high Otherworldly but no Pious Passion? Is it that they "believe" but do like it? And what of the reverse- a character with a high Worldly but a high Pios passion, do they lack faith but love God?

An Otherworldly person might blame the plague on the wrath of God.
A Worldy person might blame the plague on the Jews poisoning the wells.

An Otherworldly person might blame a catastrophic military defeat on God's anger at the sins of the soldiers.
A Worldly person might go looking for scapegoats.

If I'm reading this right, an Otherworldly person looks for answers in spirituality and religion (and maybe astrology), and acts with their eternal reward in mind. Worldly people generally look for answers on earth rather than in heaven, and may wait until they're near death to really give serious thought to their eternal souls.

But wouldn't a Pious person be just (or even more) likely to believe in the divine and it's interaction in mortal affairs?

And what about a character with Otherworldly 2 but who has Pious 16? He loves God but doesn"t believe that HE is doing anything?

Before now I sort of read it as:

Relgion = Knowledge/Dogma
Pious = Belief/Faith
Love (Diety)= Devotion

And what about a character with Otherworldly 2 but who has Pious 16? He loves God but doesn"t believe that HE is doing anything?


No, he's still very pious, but he doesn't see literally everything in his life as being the result of direct divine intervention. Alternatively, he believes in God, but believes that the best way that he personally can serve Him is in the world, with a wife and personal possessions, rather than cloistered inside a monastery. Or he sees nothing wrong with enjoying some of the pleasures of the world, like wealth, good food, and family, but is still zealous about doing his duty to God (preferably in a head-bashing capacity). For example, in the battle of Dorylaeum in the First Crusade, the crusaders prefaced the battle by saying "Let us fight for God, and thereby gain great booty," or something along those lines. This doesn't mean that they were greedy thugs who didn't care about God, but rather that their own knightly interpretation of Christianity meant that their martial Christian duty and worldly rewards went hand-in-hand.

Now, Otherworldly 16 and Pious 2 I have no idea. Thinks a lot about his personal relationship to the Divine, not much of a materialist, but not particularly zealous?

Assuming that it is now Otherworldly/Worldly:
1) How does someone act Otherworldly? Vacant stare? I can see how someone could act Lustful, Energetic, Proud, Reckless and so on, but Just don't understand how they act Otherworldly.


They act as if the physical plan, the material world, the everyday world of stuff, is not important. The mystic's calm, the druid's trance, the saint's frenzy--these are all obvious and extreme. These states are often indistinguishable from stupidity, slow thinking, certain neurotic states, and immense innocence.
But those are just the extremes.

To act otherworldly is to
--react to every strange or unknown thing as a manifestation of the Great Unknown, the Great Mystery--perhaps from God, or the devil, or a faerie or a pagan god.
--not require physical proof for something to be true.
--do things to interact with your Otherworld, like Easter Mass



2) Just what would force a Otherworldly test?


A Miracle occurs. Your success in Otherworldly determines what you see. Everyone = just the physical results, Success = the process of the miracle (angels or ghosts doing the work), Critical = you benefit frm the vision
You come upon a strange setting--say a Roman fountain the middle of the forest spouting wine and water. Otherworldly success = this is a magic place; critical = the source of tis magic is X.




3) What is the game rational for characters with a high Otherworldly but no Pious Passion?


In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?
Nonetheless, for this: philosophers.



Is it that they "believe" but do like it?


?



And what of the reverse- a character with a high Worldly but a high Pious passion,


Sincere practicing Pagans hav a high Worldly and high Pious.
I was told by an Orthodox Christian that his Church believes God is immanent, although I've never followed up on that.



do they lack faith but love God?


Please explain to me what Worldly has to do with faith?

Another way is to force a test of Otherworldy/Worldly whenever extreme danger approaches - as in whenever you are forced to make a Valor roll (or at least when you fail your Valorous test). A success in O --> kneel and pray (http://www.jesus-passion.com/Saint_Stephen_first_martyr.jpg). A success in W --> fight (or RUNAWAAAY! (if you go with the Valor fail version). This is what we do, at least. Otherworldly mosters or extreme combat-related conditions at least risks forcing PCs to pray instead of acting in "the physical world".

Except not even Galahad, the most otherworldly of the knights, ever dropped to his knees to let his enemy get in a free hit. That's like saying that they should give up their manors in expectation of receiving food and comfort through miracles--that's not otherworldly, that's just crazy.

that's not otherworldly, that's just crazy.

Hmm, anyone reminded of the quest for the grail...

I was told by an Orthodox Christian that his Church believes God is immanent, although I've never followed up on that.


I've not followed this discussion properly, having been away for a few weeks, but I think as a Christian minister I can respond to this one. In the Christian faith God is both transcendent and immanent. God is transcendent in that everything is in God the Father, he is over and above his Creation. At the same time, in Christ, God the Son entered the created world as one of us - God is immanent. Both these concepts are central to the faith. I could explain more if anyone is interested, but don't want to turn a game discussion unnecessarily into a theological one.

Except not even Galahad, the most otherworldly of the knights, ever dropped to his knees to let his enemy get in a free hit. That's like saying that they should give up their manors in expectation of receiving food and comfort through miracles--that's not otherworldly, that's just crazy.
1. Maybe Galahad is just Pious (in the above sense) and not as Otherworldly as you thought.
2. Maybe it's crazy, but so is a lot of Passionate behaviour in KAP.
3. It works well for us, and it also gives a real impact on the game (instead of the often so abstract and hardly ever adequately played "oh, I'm so spiritual and pious"). I think O/W should have a REAL impact on the game, the same way Chaste, Generous, Merciful and Valorous has. They should not just be a flavour.

To act otherworldly is to
--react to every strange or unknown thing as a manifestation of the Great Unknown, the Great Mystery--perhaps from God, or the devil, or a faerie or a pagan god.

Isn't that self-evident? We're talking about pre-Darwin civilization here. All phenomenon should be reacted to this way from everyone witnessing it, shouldn't they?

I'm still leary about defining this behaviour as a trait ....


--not require physical proof for something to be true.

Isn't that a function of the Trusting trait?


--do things to interact with your Otherworld, like Easter Mass

Isn't that a function of Religion (and your willingness to devout time (skill points) towards it)?


You come upon a strange setting--say a Roman fountain the middle of the forest spouting wine and water. Otherworldly success = this is a magic place; critical = the source of tis magic is X.

Again, self-evident. Who wouldn't think this is a magical place?!? I need to make an Otherwordly check to confirm this for me? And, what's Faerie Lore/Folk Lore for now?

What's happening to learning and skill?


In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?

Don't we need to understand the rules to play them?

1. Maybe Galahad is just Pious (in the above sense) and not as Otherworldly as you thought.

I wouldn't support that interpretation, going by what Greg wrote about Otherwordly ...

Pre-darwin societies had sceptics, unbelievers, and doubters too (The Christian faith has a particularly famous doubter, I have heard).

Also, people can believe in the supernatural, and still view what they see and interact with in purely practical, terms. Say you find a cache of roman gold in your manor lands. A high otherworldly trait would lead you to think, "this is no coincidence - I found this because it was meant to be found by me," or maybe, "the faeries are kind to me - they have left a present," etc. A worldly character would go, "oo, treasure!" and immediately wonder how to spend it, without concerning themselves too much about divine plans.

A google search on the phrase, "magical thinking" might help understand otherworldly.
---
Trusting is usually how you act towards people, but many traits overlap to some degree (I know there are many times in play I've agonised over which trait would be most appropriate in some situation), so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

---
Religion is knowing how to practice mass (and all the various lores and rituals to do with your religion) - but you may have just studied it, and feel no particular need or desire to perform it.
If you need to get the ritual right, roll Religion.
---

What I believe Greg was saying about the magical place, is if it actually is a magical place, the Otherworldly character will have some sense of it.
Have a look at the Medbourne adventure in GPC, where "pious" (now Otherworldy) characters have a chance of recognising the nature of the magical well, and calling o a spirit for help.

To act otherworldly is to
--react to every strange or unknown thing as a manifestation of the Great Unknown, the Great Mystery--perhaps from God, or the devil, or a faerie or a pagan god.

Isn't that self-evident?


No. Many modern people scoff at the idea because physics, chemistry and biology explain it all.



We're talking about pre-Darwin civilization here. All phenomenon should be reacted to this way from everyone witnessing it, shouldn't they?


I can not assume that anything is self evident to my audience.
For instance, most people do not have a clue to what Paganism and its worldliness is about, though others will say it is self evid :oent.



I'm still leary about defining this behaviour as a trait ....


Then please don't use it. You have my permission. Play the game you want.





--not require physical proof for something to be true.

Isn't that a function of the Trusting trait?



Sure, but Otherworldly refers specifically to things of the otherworld.
Suspicious/Trusting is also applicable to people, institutions, etc.




--do things to interact with your Otherworld, like Easter Mass
Isn't that a function of Religion


No. Religion is specified to be knowledge, which is differentiated from belief (Piety) and practice (Otherworldy/Worldly, depending on your religion).





(and your willingness to devout time (skill points) towards it)?


You come upon a strange setting--say a Roman fountain the middle of the forest spouting wine and water. Otherworldly success = this is a magic place; critical = the source of this magic is X.
Again, self-evident.


To you perhaps, as a player or reader entirely separated from the event and with a modern outlook.
Read the literature.



Who wouldn't think this is a magical place?!?


Anyone who failed their Otherworldly roll.
It is pretty clear that Arthur's adventuring knights did not think this to be unusually magical and shun it.
They do not sense what it is, perhaps being under its spell or glamour.
This is one of the ways that the game system helps to define the world of the knights as different from our world.



I need to make an Otherwordly check to confirm this for me?


Yes, if you differentiate between what you, the player, knows and wants; and what your character knows and does.



And, what's Faerie Lore/Folk Lore for now?


Same as before, KAP p 82



What's happening to learning and skill?


?




In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?


Don't we need to understand the rules to play them?



No. It's pretty clear that people play this game without understanding parts of it.
Everyone does our best, and that's just fine if we're having fun.
All good roleplaying games include a way for players to play a character that has knowledge, experience or beliefs different from those of the player. Playing one's modern self in Middle Earth, Barsoom or enchanted Logres has its amusement value, but this game is based on your character acting very differently for reasons that are generally unknown to modern people.
So it has Loyalty (lord) and Love (Family) and Pagans that are piously worldly and seven Christianities.
You don't have to understand WHY everyone is loyal to their liege lord, just do it. And so on.

But you misunderstood me.
Your question pushes the envelope of obscurity and irrelevance for me.
I am not trying to be a completist, to try to make this game do everything that is might possibly do and explore every dinky wierd option.
Not every possible form and option is likely to come up in play. Some things are just unlikely to occur, and there's no point in me trying to address them. Sometimes players and gamemasters just have to do a little work.

And I answered your "high Otherworldly and no Pious" question: philosophers

A Miracle occurs. Your success in Otherworldly determines what you see. Everyone = just the physical results, Success = the process of the miracle (angels or ghosts doing the work), Critical = you benefit frm the vision

Would all Otherworldly characters see the same thing? Or would Christians see angels, but Wotanic Pagans see Valkyries, Alfar or something else?







3) What is the game rational for characters with a high Otherworldly but no Pious Passion?




In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?

Because people are going to have to try and roleplay this. If it is anything other than a bunch of die rolls and game mechanics they need to have some understanding of what it means, so they know to play thier character.



Is it that they "believe" but do like it?




?

Sorry, typo. It should have been do not like? Specifically, if a character has a high Otherworldly but no Pious passion, is it that they "believe" but do not like it?




And what of the reverse- a character with a high Worldly but a high Pious passion,



Sincere practicing Pagans hav a high Worldly and high Pious.
I was told by an Orthodox Christian that his Church believes God is immanent, although I've never followed up on that.

But what of Chiristians. Specifically a Christian knight with a Pious passion, but with a low Otherworldy.

As far as immanence is concerned it is probably best that you didn't follow up on that. The God of Arthurian legend and the Middle Ages fits better with the concept of trancendance.




Please explain to me what Worldly has to do with faith?


I thought that people with a high Otherworldly would believe/have faith in their religion.


Right now Otherworldy/Wordly seems less like a personality trait and more like a type of magical perception.

A Miracle occurs. Your success in Otherworldly determines what you see. Everyone = just the physical results, Success = the process of the miracle (angels or ghosts doing the work), Critical = you benefit frm the vision

Would all Otherworldly characters see the same thing? Or would Christians see angels, but Wotanic Pagans see Valkyries, Alfar or something else?


I am certain we are entering the realm here of specific GMs and ggroups interpretations.
In other words, some GMs will describe the same thing to all faiths, and others will describe something tailored to each religion. Neither is wrong.




3) What is the game rational for characters with a high Otherworldly but no Pious Passion?




In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?

Because people are going to have to try and roleplay this. If it is anything other than a bunch of die rolls and game mechanics they need to have some understanding of what it means, so they know to play thier character.

This is up to each player to rationalise. You might have a character with 16+ in every single trait on the left side, and also a Hate at 16 - there's a contradiction there. You can have a Hate (christians) and a Love (Christian God) - or Piety as it is now. Dont worry if you can't see how to rationalise it - when a player has those traits, he'll figure it out.




Sorry, typo. It should have been do not like? Specifically, if a character has a high Otherworldly but no Pious passion, is it that they "believe" but do not like it?


You can be open minded to the idea of the supernatural, but lack the strength of passion to be truely Pious as defined in Pendragon. Remember Passions represent an exceptional level of feeling. Even low scores can drive you to states that normal, sane people don't suffer.
So a high Otherworldly undoubtedly and no Piety believes supernatural forces exist, and the player may declare his character believes in and worships a particular god (or he may be more flexible, accepting all gods without devoting to any particular faith). The Pious character, on the other hand, is driven by a passion to not just believe in a particular religion, but to act on that believ in concrete ways - to put his religion before other things, sometimes even before his liege or his family. That's what the Piety score measures.



And what of the reverse- a character with a high Worldly but a high Pious passion,


Again, a high Piety character is driven to act on his religion's interests. Low Otherworldly simply means he isn't very spiritual, and wouldn't necessarily recognise a miracle if it occurred, but he still wants to do things for his faith. He might be quite pragmatic about it - giving land and money to his church, or when he has sinned, follows the bishop's direction to do public penance. A high ranking nobleman who lacks Piety might do these things for political reasons (because it looks good and wins the favour of churchmen and peasants), a Pious knight or lord does it because he feels he must. His passion drives him, and since he has no ability to sense what the higher powers want (due to his low Piety), he has to take note of what the gods representatives tell him, and perhaps what is written in books if he can read. But he won't really understand the deeper meanings of parables.

Note this doesn't mean he would blindly obey anything a priest told him. He might be Trusting or Suspicious. Which could easily lead to him ignoring a command that really does come from god, because he doesn't trust the priest who gave it, or being manipulated by a corrupt priest if he was exceptionally trustworthy.

Such a character can be great fun to play.



Right now Otherworldy/Wordly seems less like a personality trait and more like a type of magical perception.


In practice, that was always the most important use of the old Piety/Worldly trait in my games. So that's not a bad thing! But the otehr stuff above - none of that has changed with the name change: these are the same things the trait always represented to me.

A Miracle occurs. Your success in Otherworldly determines what you see. Everyone = just the physical results, Success = the process of the miracle (angels or ghosts doing the work), Critical = you benefit frm the vision
Would all Otherworldly characters see the same thing? Or would Christians see angels, but Wotanic Pagans see Valkyries, Alfar or something else?


Why would such a thing happen?




3) What is the game rational for characters with a high Otherworldly but no Pious Passion?



In truth, I don't care that some of these don't make sense. Why ought they?

Because people are going to have to try and roleplay this. If it is anything other than a bunch of die rolls and game mechanics they need to have some understanding of what it means, so they know to play thier character.


But all actions don't make sense in life, so why are they expected to do so here?
Just roleplay it.



Specifically, if a character has a high Otherworldly but no Pious passion, is it that they "believe" but do not like it?


Traits have nothing to do with beliefs. Traits track actions. I believe I have said this before.
They have nothing to do whether someone likes or dislikes.




And what of the reverse- a character with a high Worldly but a high Pious passion,



Sincere practicing Pagans have a high Worldly and high Pious.
I was told by an Orthodox Christian that his Church believes God is immanent, although I've never followed up on that.

But what of Chiristians. Specifically a Christian knight with a Pious passion, but with a low Otherworldy.


Why is this so hard?
He really, really believes (passion) that Christ is his personal savior and is also a gourmand, art collector , and decadent over of life.
So he believes, and is a lousy practicing Christian. Pretty common, actually.



As far as immanence is concerned it is probably best that you didn't follow up on that. The God of Arthurian legend and the Middle Ages fits better with the concept of trancendance.


Yes, that is what I have said over and over.




Please explain to me what Worldly has to do with faith?

I thought that people with a high Otherworldly would believe/have faith in their religion.


High Otherworldly tells how they act.
If your character, or you, have or would have a high faith because of otherworldly actions, excellent!
The connection is not automatic.



Right now Otherworldy/Wordly seems less like a personality trait and more like a type of magical perception.


OK. I use all the Traits as perceptions too, on the principle that a dishonest person recognizes dishonesty, so you are not wrong.

link=topic=559.msg4822#msg4822 date=1266958458]




A Miracle occurs. Your success in Otherworldly determines what you see. Everyone = just the physical results, Success = the process of the miracle (angels or ghosts doing the work), Critical = you benefit frm the vision
Would all Otherworldly characters see the same thing? Or would Christians see angels, but Wotanic Pagans see Valkyries, Alfar or something else?





Why would such a thing happen?

Because many Christian Saints are also know to Pagans as Gods. While it would be less likely to overlap with Saxon beliefs, at this time in the campaign, there is probably still some overlap. There certainly will be overlap with some of the Pagan Gods.




But all actions don't make sense in life, so why are they expected to do so here?
Just roleplay it.

Hard to do if you don't know what it is you are trying to roleplay.



Why is this so hard?

Because the rulebook implies very different meanings that what you are stating here.



A pious character dwells on spiritual matters, and is aware of them and their implications in the material world (This is not the same as worship, which is an action rather than a belief). A pious person is a spiritual person. An extremely pious person is devout or zealous, perhaps even saintly.

The "which is an action rather than a belief" line seems to imply that Traits, Pious specifically track beliefs.


Passions, in the book are described as "Strong personal emotions". Nothing in the description noted that they are a measure of belief.





OK. I use all the Traits as perceptions too, on the principle that a dishonest person recognizes dishonesty, so you are not wrong.

Ah. That's a new wrinkle for me.


Thanks for the answers. They have helped clear away some of my confusion.

Edited to correct quote blocks (hopefully correctly!)

I think I've played with the old names for too long just to make a simple switch of names. Because as long as you understood that the Pious-Worldly also implied Christian-Pagan, then it was quite easy to read the chapters about paganism and deduct what "worldly" was all about.
So even while I will ignore the change I do enjoy your discussion about these matters.

Just to see if I can make things more complex while trying to explain things this is how I've always explained it to my players:
Religion (xxx) is just knowledge so it can be ignored when it comes to behaviour since it only answers if you know the context or not.
Passion(religion) is just to see if you are fundamental about it, ie if you can be inspired/crazy for it. So it only affects extreme behaviour and can thus be ignored since it is really easy to understand.

The opposing traits are a bit more difficult, but I explain them as Divine-Spiritual.
Someone with a high Divine trait would see himself as a tool for the Divine where the body/world is unimportant and the only important thing is the immortal soul. The Divine is all-knowing and all-powerful and thus will only judge you at the end of your life. A PK with high divine prays that he will do the right thing so that the Divine will deign to help him.
Someone with a high Spiritual would see the spiritual in everything around him. The spiritual live in the animals he eats, the trees he walks through, the sword he uses and everything else. The spiritual effects everything and can in turn be affected through everything thus what you do, how you do it and what you do it with becomes highly important. The spiritual needs help by the believers to make the spiritual's wishes come true in the world, and vice versa. The spiritual can be tricked and can trick you. A PK with a high spiritual prays in pacts, if I do this then you do that.

A christian knight with a high Spiritual would probably be Arian (Jesus is the son of god in the practical sense, as in begot). He would oppose "evil" wherever it is in the world, because the world is the very concrete battleground between God and satan. He would pray in pacts, please god grant me victory in the coming battle and I will build you a church on the high ground. He would weep at the beauty of a sunrise knowing that it is the proof of god the creator of all. Pilgrimage is done for the spiritual yourney, concentrating in exactly what happens and how that can be seen as signs on what to do or where to go next. A Christian knight with very high Spiritual would prefer the old testament, and would completely understand the implications of the book of job while he would have difficulties with the parables in the new testament, like what is really the message of the "prodigal son".
etc etc

A christian knight with a high Divine would probably accept the concept of trinity as the only possible truth. He would further the faith wherever he can, spending much time in church comtemplating what role he plays in gods great plan, hoping that he is worthy of such a destiny. He prays for divine intervention, please god in the battle tomorrow use me as thy tool and bring me a miracle so that I can do thy will in the field. He would weep at the beauty of the sermon seing the divine key which it holds to the pearly gates. Pilgrimage is done for worshipping the places of miracles, concentrating on where the divine has shown the true path to salvation. A Christian knight with very high Divine would prefer the new testament, and would completely understand the implications of parables like the "prodigal son", while he would have difficulties with how to reconcile with how god lets satan treat Job in the book of Job.
etc etc

Where it all becomes difficult is because most are neither (10/10) Divine or Spiritual, which means they take a little bit of both. Which in fact is the modern christian apporach. Which in turn explains why so many have problems with the concept.
:D :D :D

Why would such a thing happen?

Because many Christian Saints are also know to Pagans as Gods. While it would be less likely to overlap with Saxon beliefs, at this time in the campaign, there is probably still some overlap. There certainly will be overlap with some of the Pagan Gods.


That is modern nonsense. It's got no place in a Medieval game.
Can you find me anything in the literature that might support this happening?



But all actions don't make sense in life, so why are they expected to do so here?
Just roleplay it.

Hard to do if you don't know what it is you are trying to roleplay.
[/quote]

Why would you roleplay something that is extraordinary that no simple model for it exists in our time or the middle ages?





Why is this so hard?

Because the rulebook implies very different meanings that what you are stating here.



I have said this modifies the rulebook.



An otherworldly character acts upon immaterial matters, both being motivated by them and affecting them. He is aware of otherworld powers and their implications in the material world. Traits are actions, and to visualize them then imagine what otherworldly characters are like: Saint Francis with his gentleness, Saint Dewi with his fierce fasting, Sir Galahad with his dense, unimaginative rote answers, Sir Percivale with his raw innocence and after, hypnotic Love. Otherworldy does not require Piety, though many spiritual activities require Otherworldliness.



Thanks for the answers. They have helped clear away some of my confusion.


You are welcome

Where it all becomes difficult is because most are neither (10/10) Divine or Spiritual, which means they take a little bit of both. Which in fact is the modern christian apporach. Which in turn explains why so many have problems with the concept.
:D :D :D


Actually, that is where the least problem occur because no one is committed enough to care. :)

That is modern nonsense. It's got no place in a Medieval game.

But in the game you have introduced situations, like that with "Helen of the Wells" whom the Pagan known as a deity and the Christians know as a Saint. If you thought that was "modern nonsense" why did you do it?




Can you find me anything in the literature that might support this happening?

No, but then the literature doesn't support Pagan Knights, either. Part of the difficulty is that all Medieval Christianity rejects all other faiths as false (not to mention other Christian sects). But Pendragon gives us a game where multiple religions somehow co-exist despite the fact that not all can exist, according to the dogma of the different faiths.

So if and when a miracle occurs I am not sure how it would appear to Otherworldly characters of different regions, who happen to witness it. That they have high Otherworldly traits (and supposedly make their trait rolls) indicates that they see something spiritual. But I have no clue if they are all seeing the same thing, or perhaps more accurately seeing the same thing but in different ways.






Why would you roleplay something that is extraordinary that no simple model for it exists in our time or the middle ages?[/quite]

Because you told me to in your previous post. ???

[quote author=Greg Stafford] Just roleplay it.


And if we are not supposed to roleplay it, what is it doing in as a trait in a roleplaying game?

Then please don't use it. You have my permission. Play the game you want.

No, I'm going to play it this way - if I can make sense of it. Its part of the creator's vision for a game I paid money for.


Sure, but Otherworldly refers specifically to things of the otherworld.
Suspicious/Trusting is also applicable to people, institutions, etc.

So? Why split hairs? Its still trusting something. This then begs the question: what does trusting now apply to?


To you perhaps, as a player or reader entirely separated from the event and with a modern outlook.
Read the literature.

I'm not getting where you're coming from. If its not important to the story, its not mentioned. In that case, we the audience know its nothing special. The characters don't see it that way, of course. They just know its important just like we would in real life because its a fountain spewing wine and water in the middle of nowhere - that's not normal.


Same as before, KAP p 82

Not any more. Apparently, now this trait takes its place [of Knowledge Lore and other skills].



You don't have to understand WHY everyone is loyal to their liege lord, just do it. And so on.

That's not the issue here. This is a game mechanics question: why is this trait functioning unlike the other traits (and, more specifically, like other things that have nothing to do with traits)?


And I answered your "high Otherworldly and no Pious" question: philosophers

Those weren't my quesions, but those of Atgxtg.


Right now Otherworldy/Wordly seems less like a personality trait and more like a type of magical perception.

Exactly. Thank you, Atgxtg.


OK. I use all the Traits as perceptions too, on the principle that a dishonest person recognizes dishonesty, so you are not wrong.

Ah. Ok, enlightenment. NOW I'm understanding where you are coming from. See, I've never played it this way, and the rulebook doesn't suggest this concept either.

See, I used to believe that traits represent someone's perceptions and belief of what's important with how things are going on around them, which affected their motivation for subsequent actions in a situation they found themselves in ... but I was corrected that these traits only represent past/future actions. What gives?

So, now we can discuss the heart of the issue of this new trait: game mechanics. For instance: I'm not sure you can separate spirituality and religious interests for charaters inhabiting this world ... if you have a Passion in this area, you are necessarily spiritual to some degree - but you're other traits, skills, and passions help define how that is approached. If you devout skill points to your Religion skill, that says something about your spirituality - you're interested in certain aspects about your religion and what it all means. Why are we creating yet another level of separation that we must then expend precious advancement options on, spreading out the character's definition to get somewhere even further towards a specific character archetype?

Why not fold/re-confirm these concepts into already pre-existing mechanics?

Maybe I got lost in this labyrinth, and maybe, because of that, my opinions are obsolete, but:

1. I don't agree with Traits just "tracking actions". At least, in my group we don't play it athat way. Our take on it is that they are _also_ a measure of beliefs and/or the characters' view of himself. If a PCs values don't shape (as in: are the basis of) his Traits, then I suppose he'd (in time) rationalize his actions into being his view of the world (values). You can't completely separate views/beliefs/values from actions. (That "separation" we use directed traits for, btw).

2. I don't see the problem with using O/W as "regular" traits, where one is how new age-ish you are about things (seeing a hidden meaning in everything that happens, praying instead of "acting", focusing on the cultivation of your character) and the other is how crude/practical you are about things ("first food, then morals").

Oh, well. Just thought I'd tell you guys how we play it.

// M

That is modern nonsense. It's got no place in a Medieval game.

But in the game you have introduced situations, like that with "Helen of the Wells" whom the Pagan known as a deity and the Christians know as a Saint. If you thought that was "modern nonsense" why did you do it?


Cool! Can you tell me where this is, please?

So let me test how instructions are written, here. Please, if you would, interpret how your would gamemaster this situation:
"If your knights are with Helen of the Wells, she appears as a saint to Christians, and as a goddess to Pagans."

And it doesn't matter what the rules say is normal. Those are the scenario instructions.





Can you find me anything in the literature that might support this happening?

No, but then the literature doesn't support Pagan Knights, either.


You are right about that.
They are a KAP construct.
I made them up for the game.
And I made up their religion, British Paganism.
That's why I get to say what it is or is not.
Perhaps I have said it unclearly, but I hope the explanations posted http://gspendragon.com/pagans1.html and to be posted will help.



Part of the difficulty is that all Medieval Christianity rejects all other faiths as false (not to mention other Christian sects). But Pendragon gives us a game where multiple religions somehow co-exist despite the fact that not all can exist, according to the dogma of the different faiths.


Of course they can coexist. They did for centuries, until the Roman bishop claimed supremacy in the early fifth century.
They do today.
They did in the Middle Ages (Spain), at least until a king wanted their land (Occitan) or money (Jews in Spain, England, etc.)



So if and when a miracle occurs I am not sure how it would appear to Otherworldly characters of different regions, who happen to witness it. That they have high Otherworldly traits (and supposedly make their trait rolls) indicates that they see something spiritual. But I have no clue if they are all seeing the same thing, or perhaps more accurately seeing the same thing but in different ways.


The world of Pendagon is not arbitrary.
Miracles have a source--the Christian God.
Whatever form He manifests his miracle is the form that everyone sees.
What it means to them might be different, or how they interpret it--but that is shaped by Religion and Passion.

Then please don't use it. You have my permission. Play the game you want.
No, I'm going to play it this way - if I can make sense of it.


You will have to make up your mind then
Either play it, or make sense of what I've said. This is my last post to the thread. This is a pretty tiny point of play, I've done my best, and have more important things to address.
My advice: Stop thinking. Play the game. See if this comes up. Tell us what happened.



Its part of the creator's vision for a game I paid money for.


Sure, but Otherworldly refers specifically to things of the otherworld.
Suspicious/Trusting is also applicable to people, institutions, etc.

So? Why split hairs? Its still trusting something. This then begs the question: what does trusting now apply to?


I'm not splitting them, I am cutting them off at the base.
Events can invoke more than one Trait at a time. Suspicious AND Otherworldly AND Chaste AND Valorous, all at once, for intance.
Maybe this is a surprise?




To you perhaps, as a player or reader entirely separated from the event and with a modern outlook.
Read the literature.

I'm not getting where you're coming from. If its not important to the story, its not mentioned.


100% disagreement from me on this.
Huge things are left unsaid, assumed.
One example: Loyalty. Rarely deliberately invoked, when it is (pulling Balin's sword from the stone) it is to emphasize it. (Lancelot does not obey, Gawaine does "though I know I'll be hurt by it," then Percivale tries, "So Gawaine alone will not suffer.")



In that case, we the audience know its nothing special. The characters don't see it that way, of course. They just know its important just like we would in real life because its a fountain spewing wine and water in the middle of nowhere - that's not normal.


Same as before, KAP p 82
Not any more. Apparently, now this trait takes its place [of Knowledge Lore and other skills].


Your method of excluding everything that came before has again come into play here.
Games ought not to be played where thing ae only ne thing like that.



This is a game mechanics question: why is this trait functioning unlike the other traits (and, more specifically, like other things that have nothing to do with traits)?


This the Exclusionary Interpretation again.
Assume that this is a Trait that ac ts like all other traits.





And I answered your "high Otherworldly and no Pious" question: philosophers
Those weren't my quesions, but those of Atgxtg.


Yes, sorry to cause confusion.



So, now we can discuss the heart of the issue of this new trait: game mechanics. For instance: I'm not sure you can separate spirituality and religious interests for charaters inhabiting this world ... if you have a Passion in this area, you are necessarily spiritual to some degree - but you're other traits, skills, and passions help define how that is approached.


Yes. That is correct.
All of these aspects: Otherworldliness, Passion, and Religions WORK TOGETHER.
But for game purposes they are separated that way.




If you devout skill points to your Religion skill, that says something about your spirituality - you're interested in certain aspects about your religion and what it all means.


Just as it is if you devote points to the flail or the Harp.



Why are we

We? This is my construct.


creating yet another level of separation that we must then expend precious advancement options on, spreading out the character's definition to get somewhere even further towards a specific character archetype?


Because that is how the game defines and separates characters.



Why not fold/re-confirm these concepts into already pre-existing mechanics?


Because I am the game designer.
That is not how the game works.
Nothing you have said makes me think I should change it, just clarify issues better IF I EVEN BOTHER TO EVER MAKE THIS SPECULATIVE NON-PUBLISHED RULE OFFICIAL.

As I said at the start of this: you are invited to make your own interpretations, house rules, and add or drop what you want.

Yes. That is correct.
All of these aspects: Otherworldliness, Passion, and Religions WORK TOGETHER.
But for game purposes they are separated that way.

....................
Nothing you have said makes me think I should change it, just clarify issues better IF I EVEN BOTHER TO EVER MAKE THIS SPECULATIVE NON-PUBLISHED RULE OFFICIAL.

As I said at the start of this: you are invited to make your own interpretations, house rules, and add or drop what you want.

Yikes. Did I do something to tee you off, or what? I'm not trying to start anything here, Greg. But to do what you suggest, I need to understand your reasoning behind this. I'm *not* trying to change your mind about anything, I just want to understand why its this way - because its not clear to me with what we've been given. That's all. I'm genuninely curious here, about the inner workings of a game designer mind. And I'm not the only one who thinks this, apparently. At least it seems that way from other posts here.

Based on what's written, all these aspects aren't working together. At the moment, the way its written is making Otherwordliness function like other aspects of these mechanics, duplicating them, and I want to know why. Is it because the upcoming Book of Clergy is going to introduce a method that involves traits to behave this way? That's fine. Is it because you read something that suggests traits need to be changed to function differently? That's fine too. Did I just mis-interpret what traits do in the game? That's fine too. But, I just want to know the reasoning that went behind the apparent change. And I'm not talking about the book-learning "because Paganism was made up by me" line; I'm talking about game mechanics.

For example: if Traits are meant to represent how a person acts, and this new trait is made to represent "the stupid factor" when people behave strangely, what's the point of passions now other than a glory tracker? Beforehand, it seemed passions functioned like that beforehand; if you succeeded or failed, the result determined if you swooned and gazed into the snow at three drops of blood, or fell down and prayed to God, or smited thy dastardly nemesis unto the paps ... etc. Why is this trait now behaving like a passion? Is it because you always meant it to be this way? That's cool! I don't have a problem with that - but I didn't realize this and I hope that's ok.

Please forgive me if I'm seemingly being obtuse, but I honestly am seeing this come way off from left field here ... and its caught me off guard.

Where it all becomes difficult is because most are neither (10/10) Divine or Spiritual, which means they take a little bit of both. Which in fact is the modern christian apporach. Which in turn explains why so many have problems with the concept.
:D :D :D

Actually, that is where the least problem occur because no one is committed enough to care. :)

Huh? The religious are usually highly committed and usually care a lot. But they usually lack knowledge, like actually knowing their own religion's crede & dogma and the implications thereof.
This then becomes a real problem when they try to forcefeed others with a misconception about their own religion. Which in olden medieval times would lead to excommunications, but in ours instead lead to sectarism.


/edit/ :P
Maybe I should give an example so that the religious on this board don't think I'm too much of a dick.

The Al-Qaida, is an extreme example of misunderstanding the tenents of islam.
The Lehi, is an extreme example of misunderstanding the tenents of judaism.
The Orange Volunteers, is an extreme example of misunderstanding the tenents of christian protestantism.
etc

Yikes. Did I do something to tee you off, or what? I'm not trying to start anything here, Greg. But to do what you suggest, I need to understand your reasoning behind this.

Don't take it too personnally, he seems just to be venting some old game designer frustration at why the players always seem to come to a different interpretation of the rules than the ones you intended. ;)



I'm genuninely curious here, about the inner workings of a game designer mind.

Nonononononooooooooooooo. You don't wanna know, you simply don't. And if you would actually gleen something the black vans riders are going to appear on on your lawn courtyard.
They are coming to take me you away, haha...



ased on what's written, all these aspects aren't working together. At the moment, the way its written is making Otherwordliness function like other aspects of these mechanics, duplicating them, and I want to know why. Is it because the upcoming Book of Clergy is going to introduce a method that involves traits to behave this way? That's fine. Is it because you read something that suggests traits need to be changed to function differently? That's fine too.

I just think that it is something that has been bothering him for some time which he suddenly had the urge to address. Unfortunately you seem to be caught up in the creative process. Its not a finished ruling yet, its not been thoroughly wetted, and the texts are not yet polished.
So no worries.


Please forgive me if I'm seemingly being obtuse, but I honestly am seeing this come way off from left field here ... and its caught me off guard.

There really are no big changes. It's like with the "berserk" thingie, the words used when interpreted by their usual definition doesn't fit the intended purpose. Thus a search for new words begin, but the new words are also "tainted" with other definitions again leading to re-interpretations outside of the intent. Which lead to re-interpretations on their effect on the game.


Let's see if I may be so bold as to find Greg's own quotes regarding this, (and in the process maybe misrepresent him completely).



Playing my game continually provokes creative responses in me. Published rules are static, and must be self-contained and consistent. Here I muse, stretch and explain some of my reasons, design intentions and changes in thought.




Yes, but that is largely my design fault, or at least, a vocabulary error.




My vocabulary failed when I chose Pious as one of the terms.
Here's my current solution.


So if you truly wish to run with this but don't "get it" yet, then simply don't use it right away. Instead let Greg (and others) work it through. It will probably change a little more before it settles and by then Greg has probably sorted out a better way of explaining the concept.

Thanks, Spoonist!


So if you truly wish to run with this but don't "get it" yet, then simply don't use it right away. Instead let Greg (and others) work it through. It will probably change a little more before it settles and by then Greg has probably sorted out a better way of explaining the concept.


Oh, I got that part. My enthusiasm for this game got the better of me (?), however, as least as far as Greg seems to have responded to my queries. I really don't care even if Greg goes back and re-changes things back into something completely different later on, once again after we settle on this new fangled idea.

Although, that being said, my enthusiasm seems to it paid off too, in ways I never intended. I never knew traits were meant to be used as a form of perception! That's new to me. Oh, and that traits are mostly just action markers (rather than the way my group has been playing it, which has been just like Noir's group, it seems).

Like I said, I like this new trait, I just don't get it the way its explained and I want to know "what-for", "how-now", and all that. Like, right now, so I can start implementing it into my games! :)

For example, Spoonist, to address what someone else has said in defense of this new trait:


Also, people can believe in the supernatural, and still view what they see and interact with in purely practical, terms. Say you find a cache of roman gold in your manor lands. A high otherworldly trait would lead you to think, "this is no coincidence - I found this because it was meant to be found by me," or maybe, "the faeries are kind to me - they have left a present," etc. A worldly character would go, "oo, treasure!" and immediately wonder how to spend it, without concerning themselves too much about divine plans.

What I believe Greg was saying about the magical place, is if it actually is a magical place, the Otherworldly character will have some sense of it.
Have a look at the Medbourne adventure in GPC, where "pious" (now Otherworldy) characters have a chance of recognising the nature of the magical well, and calling o a spirit for help.

Isn't a lot of this conditional on the situation you find yourself in? Can we actually stat this into a mechanic as a result (such as this new trait is suggesting)?

For Roman Gold: If its buried, that says one thing. If it suddenly appears out of thin air in front of me, that's something else entirely. I'd need a trait (rather than a Faeire Lore) roll for me to act upon the meaning of each condition?

Another example: Dude, if a glowing spirit woman suddenly appeared to me and said: "I am Helen of the Wells", you're saying there is a chance my character wouldn't understand that this is a special occurance, who she is, or and that I wouldn't "get" its significance to my quest at hand? What's happening to role-playing? Does my die roll (whatever it is utilizing) tell me I can't ask her to help me even though she is a glowing spirt woman (and thus has powers beyond my ken, surely she can do something ... )?

If I happen on a group of women in a glade in the middle of nowhere, whereupon I ask: "My fair ladies, whyfore art thou in the midst of this glade? And they answer: "My good knight, we are stuck here, help!" ... that I would not be able to understand that some foul magic is at work here and a quest is in order? Worse, that my Wordly character, even if he did help, would fail to understand the common conventions of a quest? Rather, if I make the Otherwordly roll that my character would understand that if I help I would be entranced into the curse as well and that would affect my actions of doing knightly service unto a lady?

Cripes, this trait is like an automatic "I win!" button ...

Yes, that sounds absolutely correct. Also, if you have a 16 in Generous, you're not allowed to keep any personal possessions. Ever. Likewise, if you have a high Merciful trait, you're not allowed to fight with any weapon other than a Nerf sword.

Yikes. Did I do something to tee you off, or what?


No. I am just giving up.
The discussion has been useful and interesting.
I've been repeating myself.
I stop.
Maybe others can take it up.

Where it all becomes difficult is because most are neither (10/10) Divine or Spiritual

Actually, that is where the least problem occur because no one is committed enough to care. :)

Huh? The religious are usually highly committed and usually care a lot.


Not at 10/10

The fantatics you speak of re high passion, low knowledge, O/W trais could be either.

[quote author=Greg Stafford link=topic=559.msg4809#msg4809 date=1266884315]
That is modern nonsense. It's got no place in a Medieval game.

But in the game you have introduced situations, like that with "Helen of the Wells" whom the Pagan known as a deity and the Christians know as a Saint. If you thought that was "modern nonsense" why did you do it?


Cool! Can you tell me where this is, please?

Sure, it in the Adventure of Gobordoc the Fiend, GPC pp. 107-109, and Boy King pp.31-34.

The passage that led to my beliefs is:


Religion. (Success = You know who Helen is.Pagans consider her a goddess who oversees blessed wells; Christians aver that she is a saint who blessed many wells.)

Now the way I interpret that was that Helen was a Celtic goddess whom the Church "adopted" as is tried to spread Christianity through Britain. Most historians agree that the Catholic Church did absorb and incorporate many local gods an heroes as it tried to spread "the Faith" into new lands. Brigid/St. Brigit or Ireland being a well know example.

Not that the Christians were the first to do this. The Greeks and even the Germanic peoples did this. The relationship between Zeus-Apollo (or Odin-Thor) was originally that of separate cults where one absorbed the other. Or at least that is what most of the historians seem to believe.

Of course with you being "Mr. Glorantha" I bet you already were aware of this. I'm just trying to explain my so you can see where I'm coming from and hiopefully point out where I'm going wrong.




So let me test how instructions are written, here. Please, if you would, interpret how your would gamemaster this situation:
"If your knights are with Helen of the Wells, she appears as a saint to Christians, and as a goddess to Pagans."

And it doesn't matter what the rules say is normal. Those are the scenario instructions.

If I were running this, and Helen actually appeared (a rare thing) I would have both types of players see basically the same thing. A woman, clad in nice clothing, and with some sort of aura.

Where I would differer the description is that Christians would see the aura as a halo or mandorla, and get a feeling of "holiness", while Pagans would see an aura but the effect would be more "elfy", different rather than than divine. I view Faerie Otherworldy as something other than God Otherworldy/Holy.

Since I should be running this adventure next session, I'll get a chance to see if I do it right, too.





They are a KAP construct.
I made them up for the game.

True. But you used real bits of Myth and Legend there. I tend to view them as pre-Christan Celts. Truth be told, I might run them a bit more Irish the Briton, as I am more familiar with the Irish versions of the myths and the names of the Tuatha De'Danaan. Heck, at least I can pronounce the Irish ones. Some of the British Cmyric names are real tongue twisters. At least to someone whose native tongue is Modern Americanized English.




And I made up their religion, British Paganism.

Yeah, but the British Christians work out well. Perhaps too well. About the only trouble I have with British Christians is differentiating it from Grail Christianity, or determining if I should differentiate it.




Perhaps I have said it unclearly, but I hope the explanations posted http://gspendragon.com/pagans1.html and to be posted will help.

It does, and it doesn't. It helps to give the Pagans view of the matter, but it doesn't really help in understanding how the Christians (British or Roman) view the Pagans, and why they tolerate them. In the game we let it slide since we want to play heroic, adventuresome knights rather than religious zealots, but these were the times of the Crusades.

Generally I find polytheistic cultures easy to mingle. Walk up and tell then about some new God and they nod, and add it to the list of beings to make offerings to. Its the monotheistic cultures that are a pain, especially Medieval Christianity.




Of course they can coexist. They did for centuries, until the Roman bishop claimed supremacy in the early fifth century.
They do today.
They did in the Middle Ages (Spain), at least until a king wanted their land (Occitan) or money (Jews in Spain, England, etc.)

Yeah, they can coexist. But generally they didn't and don't coexist peacefully, today included (sadly). Even in Rome there was a time when "feeding the lions" was not a popular phase among Christians. Richard II's truce with Saladin being the exception rather than the rule.

The fact that practically all the failure to coexist peacefully were instigated for political and/or material gain hasn't gone over my head either. The Moors, the Cathars, the Knights Templar, Jeanne D'arc-all for someone's gain.

The tricky bit to me is that in Pendragon we have multiple religions that can all manifest in some way. It gets a lot harder to dispute someone else's region when it can conk you over the head with a grail, or take you to faerie where you can party "until Monday".





The world of Pendagon is not arbitrary.
Miracles have a source--the Christian God.
Whatever form He manifests his miracle is the form that everyone sees.
What it means to them might be different, or how they interpret it--but that is shaped by Religion and Passion.

;D ;D ;D

THATS IT! That is precisely the bit I wanted to know. The explanation (http://gspendragon.com/pagans1.html) is partly what confused me. I was expected a more cosmoplitian answer-"all paths are valid", etc. That would have been nice, fair, and modern, but not very Medieval.

I was worried about if characters of different faiths would see differernt things.

Now, if I got it right, they all see the same thing. Just some people might see an angel felling the foe with a spear, while others just see the guy keel over for no apparent reason.

And then maybe later, the ones who saw an angel get together and argue over how many pairs of wings the angles had.