OldeMusicke

Good old RAW. There are a couple of good ways to use RAW and one bad way, in any sort of game, even if you're playing Monopoly. One good way is: "This is our starting point and we'll interpret and evolve from there." This is not only permissible, but it's a good idea and it's unavoidable for any rules that are even moderately sophisticated or complicated. No RPG system covers every conceivable situation in full detail. Inevitably, there will be questions, discussions, and interpretations. One group's questions and answers won't be identical to another's, and that's fine. It lets your group create something together and play the way they want; that's a good thing. Another good use of RAW is, "If in doubt or we can't agree, we'll default to RAW if it provides an answer." That's fine if and when you need that, and it's a guideline, not a binding law, but RAW never covers every conceivable question. Any game publisher that issues new editions or errata is admitting (explicitly or implicitly) that there were shortcomings in the RAW. If the publishers don't consider RAW a sacred, inviolable text, why should we? A bad use of RAW is when the rules lawyers come out to play. Endless quibbling over strict interpretations and trying to stop the group from playing the way it wants is never fun for anyone (except the rules lawyer, and maybe not even then). It bogs down play. It violates the "yes, and" spirit of good roleplaying. Of course the traits are essential. The trait system is one of the big strengths of KAP. Traits are fun, in the right spirit of play. Seeing how a player implements their combination of traits is fun. The ideal (or shall I say, "the holy grail") of any trait system is that it's orthogonal and complete. This applies to real-world models such as MBTI and the OCEAN model, and it applies to RPG systems like D&D alignments and KAP personalities. "Orthogonal" means that every available axis is completely independent from every other axis. D&D alignments are pretty good about orthogonality because it's easy to find and understand all combinations of the lawful/chaotic axis and the good/evil axis. Pendragon's 13 trait pairs are less orthogonal. The fact that certain traits often cluster, such as the chivalry traits or religious virtues, tells you that the trait pairs are not entirely independent of each other. That's not a complaint, just the reality of the KAP trait system. What it means though is that fundamentally, the traits aren't completely independent of each other, so I'm not going to pretend they are; we interpret as we go and life is good. The other goal for a trait system is completeness. That is, in the domain the trait system is trying to capture, the system is complete if every possible situation can be neatly and unambiguously categorized. That's where MBTI falls short, because there are so many behaviors it doesn't really capture, and people often disagree about how to interpret a given behavior. D&D alignments aren't fully complete because not all moral or ethical decisions fall unambiguously into a particular alignment. Do KAP traits completely describe all possible traits and behaviors? No, and the RAW say as much. That's just the way it is, not a complaint. Suppose you asked 10 KAP players to identify the KAP trait exhibited in each of 100 examples. Do you think you'd get 10 identical sets of answers? Of course not, but that's okay. Player agency is a good thing in an RPG. Making the game your own (as a group) is a good thing. In terms of the prescriptive/descriptive debate, KAP traits aren't entirely one or the other, because you don't have to make a trait roll for everything you do or say. You can still try pretty much anything. Even if you do make a trait roll, there's more than one possible outcome. Traits can and should color your behavior, but like that one subheading says ("Interpreting Trait Results"), they're subject to interpretation. And that's RAW. Back to the OP's question: I'd say go ahead and keep Lustful as a pagan virtue, but feel free to interpret it in a way that suits your campaign. Basically, "Here's what we mean when we say Lustful is a pagan virtue." It might not be identical to how some other Lustful character behaves, but then that character might not get their Lustful trait from pagan religion. The RAW (4th edition, at least) already leaves the door open for this, because it gives the general description of Lustful first (sexual desire, often without personal commitment), and then a pagan description (recognizing "the value of this sensual art to appreciate the immanence of the Goddess"). "Often" isn't "always," so the description already gives you some leeway on how you'll play it. The pagan description calls for recognizing the value of the sensual arts, but it doesn't say that all pagans are horny goats.

KAP's use of the terms Chaste and Lustful seems more like the old definitions than the modern-day terms. Chaste - "virtuous, pure from unlawful sexual intercourse." Lustful - "wishful, desirous, having an eager desire." (Quoting from etymonline.com) For my own KAP purposes, I think of Lustful as somewhere in the neighborhood of lusty, sensual, sensuous, hearty, merry, joyful, or showing a lust for life. It could include crass or crude. Chaste becomes more like austere, decorous, proper, and so on. A Lustful greeting is big, loud, and demonstrative, for example, whereas a Chaste greeting is quiet, polite, and "proper." A Lustful way to eat a meal is messy and noisy, grabbing what you want and wiping your mouth and hands (if at all) on whatever's handy. A Lustful eater belches loudly and they might even be proud of it. A Chaste way to eat a meal is polite and discreet, keeping oneself neat and excusing oneself if a slight burp escapes. Lustful interactions with the opposite sex are forward, loud, and demonstrative (even if there's no intention of sex), whereas Chaste interactions are reserved and discreet (even if there are thoughts of sex). Lustful marriages engage in PDAs. Chaste marriages avoid PDAs except for an occasional discreet smile, touch, or kind word. Do these uses of Chaste and Lustful overlap with Modest and Proud, Pious and Worldly, or Temperate and Indulgent? Maybe, but so be it. KAP traits as written already have some overlap and similarities. I wouldn't want to bog down a game with arguments over fine distinctions like whether something is more like Lustful or Indulgent. Let the players interpret their traits and characters.