Ok, there's one thing I'm not sure I've seen a clarification on with combining the three core books that I think really needs a clarification.

If a character has Obligation, Duty and Morality all for the same character, do they get to choose a XP/Credits bonus for each? Or are they limited to taking one of the three? To me, it seems like it would balance out, because for Obligation and Duty the balance would be the increase in the rating, and for morality, it's basically a freebie anyway.

Thoughts?

I use a character with both morality and obligation and i used both to get xp and credits for gearing up. My GM had no problems with that (he only reduced the credit allowace by 1/4).

I see no problem with that, but each Gm has to decide for himself.

I imagine Force and Destiny/Morality will have the same rules as in Age of Rebellion for running games with the different mechanics, and that's essentially that a character can takes Morality with Duty, or Obligation, or Both, but they can only alter one to get benefits.

So for Age of Rebellion, you could have a character with Duty and Obligation, but for the bonus XP/credits, you're only given the option to alter one of them to get bonuses.

So it'll likely be much of the same, so instead of being able to change the Morality score or getting the bonuses for just leaving it at 50, choosing to increase Obligation/Decrease Duty means Morality would be left at 50, with no credit bonus or experience boost.

If your character has a starting Obligation, Duty, and Morality (and gods save you for having all three at game start), then the bonus XP/Credits should never exceed what anyone with only one mechanic can start with.

So never more than any ONE of these during character creation...

• +10 XP
• +2,500 CR
• +5 xp & +1,000 CR
• +/- 20 starting Morality

To take anything more (example: +10 xp for taking +10 Obligation, +2,500 cr for taking -10 Duty, and/or starting Morality at 30 or 70) is WAY too broken.

Personally, I'd never start a character with more than one of these mechanics (Obligation/Duty/Morality). Those characters may earn the other two in play, but at game start it breaks the K.I.S.S. principle.

If just using one I'd rank it order of character priority using the following as my basic guideline

Is the character a force-user by virtue of career or do you intend to advance that as a primary skill? Yes, Morality. No, see next question.

Does the character owe a debt of some sort to someone or is otherwise beholden? Yes, Obligation. No, Duty.

I don't use the mechanics for any of these things, but it feels waaaay too messy to start with more than one.

I don't use the mechanics for any of these things, but it feels waaaay too messy to start with more than one.

A suggestion i read somehwere else was to roll the obligation and or morality before the game so you know if it's triggered at all, and whose obligation/morality is triggered, so you can plan the session inserting seamlessly a relevant encounter/situation.

The game I'm in that's blending all three books had the GM restrict the players to only taking one of the options, Obligation or Duty, when we started, with three PCs going for Duty and two starting with Obligation. It was done mostly to avoid any headaches for the GM (this was his first campaign running the system), and so far nobody's really dipped into the other mechanic.

When the GM let me do a minor re-spec of my character to account for Force and Destiny, he let me drop the Obligation I'd started with and use Morality instead, again wanting to keep the various mechanics separate (that and feeling that Morality was kind of pointless for a folks that weren't Force users).

But yeah, if the GM is going to let a player take all three, then I'd only let the PC choose one of them get the bonus from. Which in all likelihood is going to wind up being Morality (at least given how it's written) seeing as you can get the bonus XP, bonus credits, or a bit of both without having to adjust your starting value, unlike Obligation or Duty.

My campaign uses both Morality and Duty, I simply set everyone at 50 morality and let them modify their duty, as the campaign is an Age of Rebellion campaign.

A suggestion i read somehwere else was to roll the obligation and or morality before the game so you know if it's triggered at all, and whose obligation/morality is triggered, so you can plan the session inserting seamlessly a relevant encounter/situation.

I know I mentioned this on my blog; I've started rolling Morality (and Obligation and Duty) at the end of my games, so I know what to plan for in the next session. Start of next session, those PCs can expect something that relates to their character coming up.

Kinda like a "preview of the next episode".

A suggestion i read somehwere else was to roll the obligation and or morality before the game so you know if it's triggered at all, and whose obligation/morality is triggered, so you can plan the session inserting seamlessly a relevant encounter/situation.

I know I mentioned this on my blog; I've started rolling Morality (and Obligation and Duty) at the end of my games, so I know what to plan for in the next session. Start of next session, those PCs can expect something that relates to their character coming up.

Kinda like a "preview of the next episode".

That's an excellent suggestion. It gives the GM time to actually plan something in order to mesh the rolled mechanic into game play, rather than just throwing it in as an afterthought.

What I've been doing in our campaign is actually going one step further (or a few steps further) and ignoring Obligation and Duty completely as a roll-at-the-start-of-the-session mechanic. Instead, I've been planning entire adventures around each of the characters' Obligation and back story. I plan to do this for each character eventually.

Currently, we're on the Force-sensitive's Obligation adventure. She had been captured by the Empire and had nefarious experiments conducted on her in order to turn her into a Dark Side trooper of sorts, along with a group of other Force sensitives. One of her Obligations is to find and free the other abductees. I modified the excellent "Echoes of the Past" adventure, having the Dark Jedi as the one in charge of these experiments (Operation: Dark Raven). I added an adventure segment to the beginning at a secret base on Alzoc III, which they stormed and freed a young Togrutan girl, another victim of the experiment, who brought out the character's motherly instincts. Of course, the girl had been corrupted by the Dark Jedi and turned on the party during the climactic battle at the end of Act II, taking out the three main combat PCs with Force choke for the first two rounds of combat Now, she's basically River from Firefly and everyone's deathly afraid of what she might do in the future.

Other ideas I have for future Obligation adventures:

• Wookie Marauder : He receives a frantic and broken communication from the leader of his former mercenary company who freed the Wookie from a Hutt's gladiator pits. He's in trouble and being chased by... who knows what. Being fiercely loyal to this guy, the Wookie insists on the group going after him to help.
• Ewok Smuggler : A nostalgic trip back to the moon of Endor, meeting the family,and having what seems at first to be a nausiating Care Bear episode with all the cute and cuddlies... until something dark happens and the little runts' claws come out and the PCs must help vanquish some evil that's befallen them. Heck, it may shed some light on how they managed to defeat the Emperor's crack troops in the first place
• Zeltron Politico : The flim-flam man for a small colony before heading out on his own, he discovers his former bosses are being harrassed by a shady group of bad guys, bent on muscling in on the colony's main export (mining or whatever). Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg as the PCs get involved with... to be determined

If I was mainly just winging the adventures as they happened, I'd use Obligation and Duty rolls all the time to add fun and interesting conflicts. But as we mostly run planned adventures, I find it works better doing it this way, while still keeping Obligation as a big part of the game.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else find Ewoks a little scary? A primitive head-hunting cannibalistic society that has no qualms about hunting, killing and eating other sentient beings? Of course that really only applies to the ones kept away from the rest of galaxy, which is probably still quite a large percentage.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else find Ewoks a little scary? A primitive head-hunting cannibalistic society that has no qualms about hunting, killing and eating other sentient beings? Of course that really only applies to the ones kept away from the rest of galaxy, which is probably still quite a large percentage.

It's only considered cannibalism if you're eating your own species.

I thought they did according to some EU source, but maybe I misread or misremembered (it's been so long). Even without that side, still a bit scary. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about combining game mechanics.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else find Ewoks a little scary? A primitive head-hunting cannibalistic society that has no qualms about hunting, killing and eating other sentient beings? Of course that really only applies to the ones kept away from the rest of galaxy, which is probably still quite a large percentage.

Don't ask that around our group's Ewok. She'll claw your eyes out, man.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else find Ewoks a little scary? A primitive head-hunting cannibalistic society that has no qualms about hunting, killing and eating other sentient beings? Of course that really only applies to the ones kept away from the rest of galaxy, which is probably still quite a large percentage.

Don't ask that around our group's Ewok. She'll claw your eyes out, man.

Man-eating, viscous, short, savage... yeah the description is apt.

I thought they did according to some EU source, but maybe I misread or misremembered (it's been so long). Even without that side, still a bit scary. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about combining game mechanics.

Even if that's the case that it was in some EU source, I'd ignore it. Sounds like a bad writer trying to make Ewoks more "edgy" to compensate for their portrayal in Return of the Jedi.

They're still ambushing man-eaters in Return.

They're ambushing mammal-eaters in Return. So are humans.

They're primal little furry animal-people who wear bones and animal skins.

They're primal little furry animal-people who wear bones and animal skins.

The one in my campaign prefers padded armor and a blaster