Basically the arguement has swung between whether or not trait rolls should determine how a character acts. This I believe is unnecessary and a flawed interpretation of how traits should be used.
I believe that traits should describe how a character feels and acts, not force the character to act in a specific manner. They should be a reflection of the character's soul, not a mechanic for forcinf them to act in a certain manner.
In the mundane world traits have little direct effect, appart from aiding roleplaying and helping players make difficult decisions where they are unsure of how their character might act. Take the lusty (married) Orlanthi who is invited to spend the night by an alluring woman. The player is not sure of how his character might react (the character is no chaste Yelmy saint but he does love his wife...). The answer is a simple opposed roll between lust and love wife. Importantly the winning trait may increase and the losing may decrease (thus the traits follow the actions). If the player had decided how the character would act the opposed roll would be unnecessary, but the traits might still have changed.
On the heroplane, IMO, mortals still have free will. However, the mythical significance of actions is based upon both the action and the intent. Thus, if the PC heals the lion/dog/tabby cat/mongoose or whatever they have carried out the mythical action, however, if they do not do so out of Mercy (make trait roll) then they will not receive some or all of the benefits of the HQ.
Thus, roleplaying is left to the player, but traits become important on HQs.
Cheers
Lewis
Powered by hypermail