Kobal:
...
I'm not sure about passions myself, though I've never played a game with passions before. One the one hand, if they help flesh out the character, that's fine. On the other hand, if in practice they serve as a straitjacket of sorts to restrict role-playing, I'd be against it. Not everything needs to be quantified.
[slight rant alert]
Although I've never actually played a version of RQ involving passions, what I've read theoretically would lead me to concur: for me passions seem to be a rather mechanistic way of correcting bad roleplaying (if one does it well, the "passions" spring out of the character freeform because to act otherwise would be out-of-character; for example I the player did not want Hoskar to kill that wounded Sable rider, but to act otherwise would have made a mockery of his personality). Passions sort of put me in mind of "Investors in People" (which I have dubbed "Investors in Paper") and PDR processes: systematising what will happen naturally unless one has an incompetent manager.
It is no coincidence that one of my favourite business quotations (from an unnamed Harvard professor cited in the Times Higher 7th January 2010) is "Quality assurance is only needed when you don't have quality in the first place".
Having said that, I don't 'oppose' passions as-such, just don't think they're really needed. Rather like I have no plans to hit Jeremy Corbyn so there is no need for an injunction to stop me doing so.