| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn's answer is as clear and solid as it get, and the same answer is always the one given. I don't know why the "just change it yourself" is always said, perhaps it's true that we're blind to other people problems unless we also have them ourselves.Because not everyone has the option of modding the feats for their games.So you change it for your individual games and it exists as is for the people who aren't interested in modding their games in that manner. Everyone wins.
Why is this an argument?
Perhaps. Or a shorter answer than I gave earlier is that it is easier to complain about it on the forums than change what the problem is. There are choices out there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of improvement would indicate that there is something wrong with it. That is where the disagreements come from, as there are those that don't see the problems that others do.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's only one way of thinking about it, though - why is there this attitude that the mechanics are "more real" rather than less? I don't play games for the sake of their mechanics.
Would YOU eat food that had no flavor or bad flavor- assuming you had the means of consuming higher quality products?Roleplaying games are the same way, flavor is technically unnecessary (hence the reason that flavor is mutable- you can change it with no harm to the meal's nutrition) but incredibly important.
I do. I personally own a massive library that includes pretty much all of AD&D, D&D 3/3.5, 4th, and 5th, Pathfinder, Cypher System, Gods of the Fall, Numenera, Swords and Sorcery, Fantasy Age, Mutants and Masterminds, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game, Star Wars Saga Edition, and probably a few others I'm forgetting at the moment. I can tell pretty much any story I want with minimal effort using those systems, but I generally choose the system that my players are most familiar with and which requires the least amount of work for me to tweak into the shape I desire.
Generally, that's why Pathfinder is my favorite. If I want to make a badass leader of a thieve's or assassin's guild who killed his way to the top, it's really easy for me to take a Ranger with the Skirmisher archetype, party-buff Hunter's Bond, Favored Enemy Humanoid (human), and Favored Terrain Urban, and present him as a cold-blooded assassin who honed his skills on the street. I can take a Medium who only uses the Champion spirit and present him as a paladin who doesn't realize that his powers come from his dead brother"s watchful spirit and not from any god. It's the strength of the mechanical framework that sells the game to me over most of the alternatives, and the fact that it's really easy for me to take a class and refluff it into whatever I want or need it to be, more often than not without having to change the actual mechanics since the fluff is usually kept neatly separated, though obviously there are unfortunate exceptions like the topic at hand.
As for "flavor," let me put it this way: The game belongs in your head, not in your mouth. It feels to me like that kind of language lends itself more toward a dulling of the mind's eye, and I'm not at all happy that it's gained the kind of foothold it has.
Hmmm... Flavor and crunch generally are and, in my opinion, should be, separate things. The fact that a spell lets me summons rivers of quicksand from the earth to hinder my enemies is cool crunch; the fact that it's the favored spell of druids of Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval, Lord of Rivers and Sand, is awesome flavor that I want to be able to ignore in the event that Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval doesn't exist in my game, or if it turns out that a deity in a later book also has a portfolio including rivers and sand for whom the spell would be perfect.
When the flavor bleeds into the crunch, I have to start making judgement calls. Did the person who wrote this think that locking it to Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval was balancing in some way? Is there some shared trait amongst all followers of Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval that impacts the balance or functionality of the feat? And I actually have the luxury of getting to make those calls, where many people don't. When the flavor and crunch are neatly divided, it's a lot easier for me to present my friends with the best possible story and game by being able to easily adapt to multiple settings and circumstances. When there's too much Golarion-specific fluff woven into my crunch, it becomes harder for me to adapt those options to a game that isn't in Golarion, because I've got to reverse-engineer the option and identify whether or not those fluffy bits are also doing double-duty as balancing factors, and if I don't have the time to do that, I may just have to ban the options altogether. That means that ultimately, my game suffers, and the player who wanted to use whatever resource I just banned doesn't get to create the character they envisioned in the way they envisioned it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the fact that it's the favored spell of druids of Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval, Lord of Rivers and Sand, is awesome flavor that I want to be able to ignore in the event that Al-Habim-Sur-Norraval doesn't exist in my game, or if it turns out that a deity in a later book also has a portfolio including rivers and sand for whom the spell would be perfect.
it IS something you can ignore in your games , or did they let the paizo enforcement gnomes out of their babycages again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's only one way of thinking about it, though - why is there this ostensibly-prevailing attitude that the mechanics are "more real" than the rest of the game rather than less? It doesn't even seem to acknowledge that there are other ways of thinking about it, it charges ahead and assumes there's consensus. I don't play games for the sake of their mechanics. Dungeons & Dragons, Might & Magic, TORG, whatever - all these mechanical systems have their ups and downs, but that's all of secondary importance to me.
Would YOU eat food that had no flavor or bad flavor- assuming you had the means of consuming higher quality products?Roleplaying games are the same way, flavor is technically unnecessary (hence the reason that flavor is mutable- you can change it with no harm to the meal's nutrition) but incredibly important.
I never claimed flavor was less real, whatever flavor the GM and players choose to impart into their game is every bit as real [and far more prominent, seeing as mechanics should be nearly invisible under the hood] as mechanics. What that flavor might be- default [aka publishes] or otherwise is for the group to decide.
As for "flavor," let me put it this way: The game belongs in your head, not in your mouth. It feels to me like that kind of language lends itself more toward a dulling of the mind's eye, and I'm not at all happy that it's gained the kind of foothold it has.Dulling of the mind's eye? My friend you will not find a stronger proponent then me on these boards of feeding and cultivating the mind's eye. It's precisely to that end I so fervently oppose the 'published flavor is the only flavor' mindset.
Exactly this. "We don't want to continually have to fight an uphill battle to express a character with flavor not of the default game setting" does not auto-equate to "no flavor of any kind". I personally think a player should be (and the first time I ever made a character a decade ago, I did so) envisioning to some kind of detail a reason behind every single mechanical aspect of a character's abilities. Why this feat and not that one? Why points in thoseskills and not these? Why that language? I had ten whole pages written out, with absolutely no expectation of being any kind of center of attention.
Plenty of flavor and it helped that it was a Catfolk Rogue, a combination of game elements that have plenty of flavor but absolutely no restrictive flavor. And by "it helped", I mean, I lucked out and dodged a bullet. Had I tried to start with a Monk character right off the bat, the repeated emphasis of "no" would probably have soured me entirely on the whole endeavor. I'd probably be a little bit richer with a lot more bookshelf space, a hobby shorter and significantly more lonely.
That should not be a matter of luck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it IS something you can ignore in your games , or did they let the paizo enforcement gnomes out of their babycages again?
*shakes rabid gnome off his leg*
Not that it matters. The Paizo enforcement gnomes are rather ineffective at enforcing anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of people always wanted dex to damage with more and more weapons, and paizo only gave restricted options and people always complained about the restrictions, just as in this case.I am kind of amused that for all these years there was no way to do this thing at all. Scimitars were pretty much the only way to do Dex to damage at all, or an Agile weapon.
Now we've got a bunch of different ways to do it and finally this book comes out and suddenly Dex to damage glaives is this thing that everyone's always wanted to do but didn't realize it and now it's this huge deal that it's restricted to one religion.
I'm starting to think (X non STR stat) to damage was a big mistake anyway. Outside of CMB and Damage, STR really doesn't have much going for it once you can haversack up. Why let a stat that affects AC, Initiative, and a saving throw poach territory from it? Why do anything to contribute to the Cha affects everything stackability of the Oracle?
It would have been a solid rogue niche.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I support the disuse of str who needs strength when they have me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should I point out that "rivers of quicksand from the earth hindering your enemies" is actually flavor, not crunch..?
Not if they use the quicksand mechanics. That's not to say you cannot then reflavour the quicksand mechanics and then reflavour the spell though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I would turn your own question back on you- why is it you feel the need to support arbitrary restrictions that wouldn't affect you anyways when not including them in the first place would have allowed everyone to enjoy them? Why be arbitrarily exclusive instead of inclusive?
It's a long way past (and you didn't address this to me) but I thought I'd offer a perspective anyhow, since removing what you term "arbitrary restrictions" would reduce my enjoyment of the product, even though I could just add in "must worship deity for any name-of-deity feat".
Like you, I have an enormous collection of RPGs (or have had, anyhow. I purge it from time to time). However, the mechanics has very little interest to me. I prefer Mage: awakening rulebooks to PF rulebooks, yet I've never even played the former. Similarly, first edition shadowrun was close to my ideally presented system.
My enjoyment of them (and what fuels my demand for them) is the flavor. I like the fact paizo presents an idea to be used exclusively by followers of a specific deity in their setting then says "here's some gizmos which represent that idea - including the limitation". I understand the viewpoint that mechanics could be standalone and flavor could be presented entirely separately (or more accurately in an additive fashion). However, I wouldn't enjoy that as much.
Whilst it's clearly not my goal to persuade you that you should share my preferences, hopefully you can at least understand them. Strange as it may sound to you, I don't read rulebooks for the rules but for the flavor (and how I might represent that flavor using the rules). As such, it's not true that it "wouldn't affect me anyway" - it would reduce my enjoyment substantially (rulebooks divorced from a gameworld generally sit, unused on my shelf).
I'm not supporting preventing others from enjoyment for no benefit. You and I have mutually exclusive desires, so advocating for mine will necessarily involve advocating against yours (unfortunately). That's nothing to do with the rules themselves though, it's how one uses RPG rulebooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do anything to contribute to the Cha affects everything stackability of the Oracle?
Well, Cha tends to get it because Cha doesn't...do much. Int gives more skill points, Wis gives Will save, Con gives Hit Points and Fort Saves, Dex gives a good bit and even Strength gives carrying capacity/CMB/CMD.
Cha is a kinda worthless stat compared to the others as it has no function beyond skills (And feats and traits both exist to even move social to another stat).
So you end up with Cha as a VERY safe stat to use for 'Get X to Y' as it's not a valuable stat inherently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the fact paizo presents an idea to be used exclusively by followers of a specific deity in their setting then says "here's some gizmos which represent that idea - including the limitation". I understand the viewpoint that mechanics could be standalone and flavor could be presented entirely separately (or more accurately in an additive fashion). However, I wouldn't enjoy that as much.
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion. If it was something that actually made sense to be tied to a religion, the fluff wouldn't sound so ridiculous and arbitrary to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion.
Unless it's not entirely mundane
Is there an official limitation on how many gods you can worship?
Or can you just go 'I'm Pantheistic' and cherry pick your favourite bonuses?
We do already have the Godsclaw who worship several gods as a single religion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's not entirely mundane
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion.
So it takes divine magic to push someone hard enough to knock them down? Who knew every single real-world schoolyard was a blessed conduit of holy might?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's not entirely mundane
That's homebrewed fluff. Not part of the feat's fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's not entirely mundane
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion.
You mean like the unchained rogues mythical ability to use dex to hit and damage right? Or the Polearm Master's Pole Fighting for shortening grip? Nothing in the feat in question is anything BUT mundane and other abilities similar to it are EX abilities. If the feat ISN'T mundane, it should let you know so you know how it interacts with antimagic and the like as a SU and SLA. It can't be non-mundane and unaffected can it?
The quicksand rules would be crunch. Quicksand is still flavor.
quicksand is both gritty for crunch and swampy for flavor
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it takes divine magic to push someone hard enough to knock them down? Who knew every single real-world schoolyard was a blessed conduit of holy might?
deep in your heart you knew they were evil.
I would say several possible reasons have been listed in this thread. Just not ones you apparently like.
Main reasons said are "It might be magical" (despite not actually being a magical effect rule-wise, not having any fluff to suggest it's magical, and doing anything that couldn't be done without magic), and "It's part of their culture" (which somehow mystically prevents others from learning it independently/learning it from someone who already knows it/forcing someone who knows how to do it to teach it).
Why do anything to contribute to the Cha affects everything stackability of the Oracle?Well, Cha tends to get it because Cha doesn't...do much. Int gives more skill points, Wis gives Will save, Con gives Hit Points and Fort Saves, Dex gives a good bit and even Strength gives carrying capacity/CMB/CMD.
Cha is a kinda worthless stat compared to the others as it has no function beyond skills (And feats and traits both exist to even move social to another stat).
So you end up with Cha as a VERY safe stat to use for 'Get X to Y' as it's not a valuable stat inherently.
Until you consider classes like paladin and Oracle where for pretty minimal investment you now have cha to saves and/or AC as well as attack and damage and its also a casting/class abilities stat.
And that diplomacy and intimidate are two of the stronger skill choices.
Edit: it may not be applicable to certain classes but if you take the "must worship desna" away from the fighting style feat paladin cha becomes all of their saves, attack and damage, bonus to hit from smite, amount of healing from lay on hands and their spellcasting stat, so bonus spells and a dc high enough to maybe do more than buff and heal with the list.
Even WITH must worship desna the oracle isn't far behind paladin, making it affect Spellcasting for a 9 level caster, AC instead of dex and either reflex saves, or cmd, as well as attack and damage and the DCs and uses per day of a big chunk of the available revelations. And all this is before you get into the idea of dipping a few levels in one or the other to gobble up that cha to saves or AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's not entirely mundaneThat's homebrewed fluff. Not part of the feat's fluff.
So any fluff that's explicitly listed in the feat doesn't belong there, and any explanation for how it works not listed there is homebrew and thus valueless?
The catch 22 is not a legitimate form of argumentation. It's disingenuous snark for snark's sake. If you think it should work differently ask your DM to make it work differently.
So it takes divine magic to push someone hard enough to knock them down? Who knew every single real-world schoolyard was a blessed conduit of holy might?Unless it's not entirely mundane
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion.
or just use regular old trip. It doesn't HAVE to work by sticking something between someone's legs. Could just as easily be a push or a choke slam.
So any fluff that's explicitly listed in the feat doesn't belong there
No. The fluff that's in the feat is just "I am graceful in swinging my glaive" and "You must worship a specific god to know how to be graceful in said swinging". It doesn't necessarily not belong there, but the latter doesn't really make much sense.
and any explanation for how it works not listed there is homebrew and thus valueless?
Any fluff that's not in the book has as much value as any other fluff that's not in the book. It's homebrew, worthy of merit in the right discussion, but not really in this one in my opinion.
Until you consider classes like paladin and Oracle where for pretty minimal investment you now have cha to saves and/or AC as well as attack and damage and its also a casting/class abilities stat.And that diplomacy and intimidate are two of the stronger skill choices.
That was my point. You see that a lot more than say, Int to AC or Int to saves because Charisma is itself a weaker stat.
Diplomacy and Intimidate also both have traits to move them away from Charisma (Basically everything Cha has can be poached by Int or Wis without much investment)
I say my favorite flavor is chocolate and it should of been CHR to damage.
Until you consider classes like paladin and Oracle where for pretty minimal investment you now have cha to saves and/or AC as well as attack and damage and its also a casting/class abilities stat.And that diplomacy and intimidate are two of the stronger skill choices.
That was my point. You see that a lot more than say, Int to AC or Int to saves because Charisma is itself a weaker stat.
Diplomacy and Intimidate also both have traits to move them away from Charisma (Basically everything Cha has can be poached by Int or Wis without much investment)
My point is that its only a weaker stat outside of certain classes, but it turns those classes SAD in a way not even wizard can be. It is a feat for literally any cha based caster class except maybe sorceror, and its strictly superior and more "stackable" on available classes than even dex to damage (Which takes 2 feats to achieve)
The feat requires worship the same way that power attack needs str 13, improved trip needs int 13, that wizards don't start with heavy armor prof. Or that non-magic classes exist, because that's the rules. Rationalize or explanation isn't done in the book.
Plus it's far easier to remove or alter the diety prereq then to add them or know that there "should" be one otherwise. If you need a rule to say the deity specific feats are able to be changed to adapt to different settings, it's rule 0.
So all it comes down to is how is the table running such stuff?
|
Just because crunch and fluff are separate things doesn't mean one is more important than the other. But it does mean that if you don't like the flavour you can change it to something else.
I don't think anybody is actually arguing against that (and I'll have yet to see those thousands of jerk GMs unwilling to do so just for stepping on other people's' fun; that's hardly the norm).
But I'm with those who say that setting's should come with limits, constraints and restrictions. So rules that have setting in mind can have those constraints, limits and restrictions too, because that defines what is the norm in the setting we are talking about. We're arguing about a feat all the time which exists in a book that is all about giving cool setting-specific rules options to worshippers of a number of setting-specific deities.
So you dislike the Golarion setting. I have my gripes about it, though I generally like a lot of the single parts it consists of. Both of us (at least, I do) will use pathfinder setting-specific stuff to integrate into the setting of our choice by modifying or outrightly removing the fluff part to make it fit our vision. We even might remove the generic fluff from the rulebooks, as your example with the dwarves shows.
But that does not invalidate the existence ofthose descriptions in any way and it certainly shouldn't be taken as an excuse to remove it alltogether. It is equally vital to understand what the expected standard for the game or setting is and to help players get a vision for their character (because that's something pure crunch cannot do for most). Which is why I can relate to HidingInTheCloset, because too often, people seem to argue that rules are much more important than descriptions, when actually most of us don't play roleplaying games because of the rules (that part comes in when we decide which RPG to play, but it's generally not our main motivation to be active in this hobby).
Semitangent on this matter; is some way to alter HeroLab to make that kind of house-rules? My group use it constantly, and can be a real pain.
I don't think anybody is actually arguing against that
I was replying to someone saying they don't like people saying things like treating Fluff and Flavour as being separate to the rules... so yes. Some people do argue that fluff and crunch aren't separate.
But I'm with those who say that setting's should come with limits, constraints and restrictions. So rules that have setting in mind can have those constraints, limits and restrictions too, because that defines what is the norm in the setting we are talking about. We're arguing about a feat all the time which exists in a book that is all about giving cool setting-specific rules options to worshippers of a number of setting-specific deities.
Setting related limits/constraints/restrictions are fine given correct context. The feats being discussed just doesn't have context that actually makes sense to have such limits/constraints/restrictions.
So you dislike the Golarion setting. I have my gripes about it, though I generally like a lot of the single parts it consists of. Both of us (at least, I do) will use pathfinder setting-specific stuff to integrate into the setting of our choice by modifying or outrightly removing the fluff part to make it fit our vision. We even might remove the generic fluff from the rulebooks, as your example with the dwarves shows.
Yeah, I wont be integrating any Golarion stuff, too much useless text I'll never read to bother buying the product.
But that does not invalidate the existence ofthose descriptions in any way and it certainly shouldn't be taken as an excuse to remove it alltogether.
No it doesn't. But that's not why these people want it removed in this situation so that's rather irrelevant in my view.
I actually like Golarion a lot and I find all these Golarion related stuff really great.
The only think I dislike comes just from my way of GMing/playing.
Me and some people on my roleplaying books have been playing on a Dragonlance setting for a long time. We've told many stories and each one continues the former ones even if it's in a very diffuse way. It's no longer a common Dragonlance setting but our own.
We've moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder but we couldn't leave the old stories behind.
We made a lot of adaptations from Pathfinder stuff, from APs to feats and such, but always trying to keep the basic notions of the original and making sure everything made sense.
The bad side from Golarion based stuff is, well, that it's Golarion based and you just cannot make everything fit into another setting.
We could just move on to Golarion but I'd rather lose some cool features than leaving behind all the stories we've told. I guess I am getting old.
Is there an official limitation on how many gods you can worship?
Or can you just go 'I'm Pantheistic' and cherry pick your favourite bonuses?
We do already have the Godsclaw who worship several gods as a single religion.
For the most part, and certainly for the purposes of the PFS campaign, you are only allowed to gain mechanical benefits from the worship of one deity.
The Godsclaw do not worship 3 gods as one, but rather are a curious situation where 3 disparate gods are sharing a common goal. Each of it's members typically worship one of the three as primary, and venereate the other two as allies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an official limitation on how many gods you can worship?
Or can you just go 'I'm Pantheistic' and cherry pick your favourite bonuses?
We do already have the Godsclaw who worship several gods as a single religion.
For the most part, and certainly for the purposes of the PFS campaign, you are only allowed to gain mechanical benefits from the worship of one deity.
The Godsclaw do not worship 3 gods as one, but rather are a curious situation where 3 disparate gods are sharing a common goal. Each of it's members typically worship one of the three as primary, and venereate the other two as allies.
PICARD VOICE: There! are! FIVE! godclaw! deities!
Situational worship honestly makes the most sense in a world like Golarion. The gods cover only so many areas, and so showing veneration to a deity when it best serves you should be considered the norm.
Constructing a city/building or signing a new business contract? Go show respect to Abadar, or even employ his followers to assist you in the financial and architectural design, which in turn donates to the church.
Need to organize a hunting party to root out troublesome predators around farmlands? Ask Erastil for protection by promising the animal pelts in payment, if he would want them.
Of course, this doesn't really make much difference for their related feats, since they are all implied to be used by their faithful who actually venerate the god and that god alone. What I'm saying is that those people are probably quite unusual outside of a god's organized church, which would include clerics, paladins and acolytes.
Oh, and since we have examples of cultures and organizations venerating multiple gods at once (Order of the Godclaw, many cultures in the Mwangi Expanse who venerate a combination of Desna and Gozreh called 'Shimye-Magalla'), it would be somewhat silly to say that you couldn't equally venerate multiple gods, particularly when it works best for you needs.
|
|
I was replying to someone saying they don't like people saying things like treating Fluff and Flavour as being separate to the rules...
Actually he was saying that he doesn't like those terms because they are used most of the time in a way insinuating that the contents behind it are somehow inferior to the rules content.
Unless it's not entirely mundane
Except it makes no sense in many situations for that flavour to be true. There is no reason why "I can do x mundane thing with my sword that normal warriors can do in real life without magical assistance" should be limited to a certain religion.
This seems like a situation where the fluff is insufficient, not that there's too much of it. If I had some idea why Sheyln's followers get special glaive techniques, or how exactly Desna's people can use their charisma to attack with starknives, it would be easier to rule whether or not that requirement could really be waived.
Since if the former was "You received training at Sheyln's temple; they're really into glaives there" then I buy it, but it probably shouldn't require active worship. As for "getting charisma to attack and damage" I just can't visualize how that happens, so it must be magical, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. The fluff that's in the feat is just "I am graceful in swinging my glaive" and "You must worship a specific god to know how to be graceful in said swinging". It doesn't necessarily not belong there, but the latter doesn't really make much sense.
You cannot complain about a contradiction that you are making. You are making this one by looking solely at the feat and not at the broader catagory of faith related traits, feats, and prestige classes. "You must worship Shelyn" implies more than a name written in the right spot on your character sheet, at least for the character. Pathfinder gods are real and (through their followers) ACTIVE. Choosing to follow one can grant you abilities even if you don't tip over into a full divine casting class.
You don't need to just practice with a glaive to do this. You need to LIVE with it. Sleep with it. Contemplate the artistry in yourself, the world around you, and the work of art you're holding in your hand all at the same time and take sublime joy in your movements.
If it was just a matter of training, and not a mater of at least mind set then the feat would still work if you left the faith and it doesn't . Aria the artist and Paul the poser can both do the same practice, but without belief paul can't take the feat. If Aria loses her way, the feat stops working.
All that "home brew" fluff is sitting there in the requirements section.
Any fluff that's not in the book has as much value as any other fluff that's not in the book. It's homebrew, worthy of merit in the right discussion, but not really in this one in my opinion.
So why is the homebrew idea that the feats can't make any sense of any value to this discussion?
The Weapon Master and Armor Master handbooks had several different combat style feats in them. There was a sidebar in those combat style section that explained where in Golarion the style originated and who tends to use said styles.
I think that's a good way of integrating Golarion flavor into feats myself.
You don't need to just practice with a glaive to do this. You need to LIVE with it. Sleep with it. Contemplate the artistry in yourself, the world around you, and the work of art you're holding in your hand all at the same time and take sublime joy in your movements.
That's still all just training. There are plenty of real world examples of people who train or live like that, from training in martial arts to cooking to making music. It doesn't necessitate divine influence or favor with a particular deity (though plenty in history have believed so I'm sure).