My group are currently putting together their characters for the start of a new campaign, and I have a player who wants to take obligation to another player for freeing him from captivity.

I can't see anything in the rules that prevents obligation being owed to another player, however I don't want to allow this for two reasons: Firstly I don't want one PC to have undue influence over another, and secondly I can't see a narrative way to make this obligation cause strain to the group.

What are your thoughts? Has anyone else had intra-group obligation?

I only allow external ties for Obligation. Allowing ties internal to the party allows for some very inappropriate dismissal of Obligation, or worse.

Since the party is hit by Obligation as a group, it wouldn't make sense to try to hold such things against your fellows as it directly comes back to harm you.

This said, I consider Obligation inferior to Duty because of the issues that come with an "all stick" mechanic. I'm still not entirely satisfied with the "all carrot" Duty, but its the best we have until FaD.

I wouldn't care if part of Character A's backstory is "Character B rescued me and I owe him." However I would not allow that to translate to a mechanical Obligation effect. I think it creates too many complications and possible intraparty strife.

If Character A wants that backstory and role-plays it, great, but I'd say put your Obligation somewhere else. If Character B rescued Character A from a debt, or a criminal sentence, or slavery, or whatever...that underlying "thing I was rescued from" is more appropriate for the Obligation.

I think intra-party obligation can work for very specific circumstances:

1. It has to have some method of being dismissible but...
2. It has to not be easily dismissible by the other party members and...
3. It has to have a mechanism and a suitably disadvantageous narrative outcome for being triggered.

Obligation is no good if you can never pay it off, it lacks impact if the person you "owe your life to", so to speak, releases you from your obligation in the first session. It's very easy to mistake Motivation for an Obligation so make sure the player knows that this is something that is undesired. Obligation is "the monkey on your back" and not "the wind beneath your wings."

Emotional instability could be a suitable intra-party obligation.

• So-and-so saved you when your village was firebombed and now you're frightened of the thought that you might lose your one-and-only-savior. Your dedication borderlines obsession and everyone is worried for you.
• You and one or more party members were the only survivors of an Imperial attack and every now and then, the thought of battle sends you into a panic-induced rage. No one is spared from your inopportune attacks.
• Etc.

Paying down the obligation can represent the character's journey through healing and regaining stability—learning to love again, learning to trust again, etc.

Otherwise, I am in agreement with HappyDaze and Kshatriya and I would likely encourage extra-party obligation whenever possible unless the player(s) come up with something awesome.

Obligation is no good if you can never pay it off

Per the rules, there's always at least a part of it that you can never pay off...

To be fair, any particular Obligation can theoretically be completely paid off. But something will have to pop up to replace it if you have no other Obligation withstanding.

For example, if you have Debt 5 and Addiction 10, you could conceivably manage to wipe out your debt completely.