I'm starting a mixed campaign in a couple days. I'm quite sure I'll have one to two force users and two to three non force users. I know I should use obligation for the non-Force users. I know I need to use Morality for Force users. What are peoples opinions of using both for the Force users.

I like to think that obligation can be acquired by anyone. If a character loves to travel uncharted worlds, and he takes a questionable loan out to do so, then subsequently gains the Debt obligation. Does it make much difference if the character is an Explorer or a Seeker?

I would give *everyone* the baseline obligation, and allow the non-force users to expend additional obligation for bonuses, and the force users can use morality for bonuses.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Indeed. I just use it all. All of my players have Obligation, one has Duty, and the force user has Morality.

What's the theme? Sorting out issues and running jobs for the local Hutt, or a spiritual journey to learn the ways of the force?

I definitely have a theme running but I don't know how to put it into words. The players will be thrust into a mystery involving Jedi artifacts, trying to survive as the Hutts and the Empire chase them down. For the Force users the spiritual journey thing is definitely right on the money. There are ruthless gangsters, bounty hunters, and inquisitors at play. One of my players wants to play a heroic Hutt character. I plan to make him he son of crime lord that's after them. He'll have his strained paternal relationship thrust to the forefront.

Is it still wise to give everyone obligation when the main focus of the story, even for the non-force users, concerns pursuit of the legacy of the jedi?

Would using Obligation derail things, forcing the party off on tangents that aren't what the players signed up for? Or would it provide desirable color and context?

Is it still wise to give everyone obligation when the main focus of the story, even for the non-force users, concerns pursuit of the legacy of the jedi?

Would using Obligation derail things, forcing the party off on tangents that aren't what the players signed up for? Or would it provide desirable color and context?

I think it's based on the GM, players, and campaign.

In my opinion, it'd provide color and context, but my campaigns are typically a mix of all three products. If your campaign was very clearly focused on the Jedi, it wouldn't be appropriate.

I also tend to run obligation a little bit differently than the book describes: I track obligation for the party and individuals separately. Basically the group has some obligation made up of the baseline that the group would have at the start of the campaign, and then individual obligation is what PCs take for additional starting goodies (XP and $$$). In my hybrid campaigns, I prorate the "group obligation" by the number of players with EotE careers.

I'm in a game using all three lines, with force sensitives, and we only use obligation. It isn't a big deal. Now, the two force sensitives in the group (I'm one of them) are barely aware of it (we recently got a holocron that made us realize it) and we aren't using flashy force maneuvers and lightsabers. The focus of the game has been on our obligations and how we deal with them and the story. However, as the game moves on, we will begin the Chronicles of the Gatekeeper story, and as a result of delving into the GM has told us that the two force sensitive, as they develop their connection to and understanding of the force, will develop moralities.