Well, I think the key thing is, "affinity" is something you are--"feat" is something you do, because you have the affinity.
Keeping in mind that I only know what I read on the mailing list--maybe it would help to give examples? Here's my understanding of it.
The three parallel cases:
Alfred is a theist, he worships Humakt. Because of this, he has an affinity for death. That is simply a part of him--death is part of his nature. Because death is a part of him and vice/versa, he is able to perform death-related feats--for example, he can drive a ghost back to the underworld with his sword ("put ghost to rest" feat). He can perform other feats, too, all of which are connected to his affinity for death (like "decapitate foe", "kill with a glance").
Betty is an animist. Her shaman gave her a charm with a spirit bound into it, the spirit of a ghost-eater wolf. Getting the charm didn't really change Betty, she's the same lovable person she was, not particularly more or less connected to death (unless she has to do certain things to keep that spirit happy and cooperative). But when she encounters a ghost, she can draw on the power of the charm to dispatch it. She can draw on other abilities, too, because they are other powers of the wolf spirit ("run fast", "smell keenly", "blood-rage").
Chuck is a wizard. Through long studies in grimoires, he has mastered an "exorcise ghost" spell. Again, knowing the spell hasn't changed him (although the process of learning it might have affected him, just as any learning experience can leave a mark). He's also learned other spells, which happened to be written in the same grimoire, probably for reasons related to the life of the wizard who wrote the grimoire in the first place ("cure pox", "know thyself", "reveal the path").
The mechanics of the "get rid of the ghost" power are the same in each case. But the role-playing would be different, as would the consequences of failure.
Am I on the right track here?
Powered by hypermail