I was toying with the idea of adding a group obligation to the group I GM for because sometimes their ideas can be a bit reckless and result in what would have been given as obligation in EotE.

For example in my finale for the campaign this year they decided to set their ship on fire...however it wasn't really "their ship" it was actually belonged to a friendly NPC pilot that flies them around...and he just got it about 2 months ago (in-game) because his old one broke apart in the atmosphere when approaching Nal Hutta. Only one of the players set this up as a distraction, the rest of the group was very apprehensive about having him do it, but they allowed it and let it happen when it was set off.

I figured since he works with the Hutts and was very good at concealing illegal shipments, they might have helped him out by lending him a ship...providing he is now in their debt.

Since that ship has been blown up (and all of his worldly possessions along with it) the NPC is going to not only be devastated that he lost his home/possessions/and means of work, but also that he is now in the Hutt's debt and won't be able to give them their ship back.

I was thinking about assigning about 50-80 obligation to the group that they will have to work off by either earning money or by bartering or trading to get a replacement ship for the NPC. Do you think that is too much, not enough, a bad idea altogether since I already use morality? Thanks for any comments in advance!

TL;DR - PC's blew up a NPC's brand new ship which was his livelihood and where he lived. Thinking about giving 50-80 group obligation so they have to buy him a new one.

You don't need to use the full Obligation mechanic as written if you're worried about it. Plot wise you have a great idea to add to the drama of the campaign and make a more real world where choices have consequences, so I'd say do it, and maybe don't worry too much about the mechanics unless you particularly wish to include them.

You don't need to use the full Obligation mechanic as written if you're worried about it. Plot wise you have a great idea to add to the drama of the campaign and make a more real world where choices have consequences, so I'd say do it, and maybe don't worry too much about the mechanics unless you particularly wish to include them.

That sounds pretty good, I was thinking about adding it to the narrative and letting them deal with it but I don't want them to put it on the back burner and forget about it. I figured I would deliver a monologue as that NPC describing how he is grateful that they saved him, but they also destroyed everything he has. His first mate and love interest died during the last crash and this one might cause him to relapse into depression...I mean I would be depressed if everything in my world was destroyed.

Squirrelsan is right on the money. Use it as a plot hook, don't necessarily include the entire mechanic.

I run all of my games in edge of the empire but if players want to be force users they gain morality and all of that. The only thing I haven't done with that is roll to trigger morality; instead I choose to either present tough choices or leave things up to the players as far as what they do. Conflict I use as normal. Eventually, duty will be a part of some groups, as they are slowly moving towards aiding the rebellion.

I think if you use the morality rules, your players should have taken on some sizeable conflict... they may have just signed an NPC's death warrant in addition to destroyinghis livelihood and killing his lover.

You don't need to use the full Obligation mechanic as written if you're worried about it. Plot wise you have a great idea to add to the drama of the campaign and make a more real world where choices have consequences, so I'd say do it, and maybe don't worry too much about the mechanics unless you particularly wish to include them.

That sounds pretty good, I was thinking about adding it to the narrative and letting them deal with it but I don't want them to put it on the back burner and forget about it. I figured I would deliver a monologue as that NPC describing how he is grateful that they saved him, but they also destroyed everything he has. His first mate and love interest died during the last crash and this one might cause him to relapse into depression...I mean I would be depressed if everything in my world was destroyed.

That's easy enough. Have a representative of the Hutts track them down and demand repayment. They can cut a deal, maybe plead for some time for repayment, or offer services instead of repayment, or in other ways pay off the debt, or they can ignore the representative until bounty hunters kick down their door.

You can either allow this to be just extra fun for them, have exciting encounters and loot the Bounty Hunters for XP and new gear, or if you want to push them to actually do something about it then target their stuff. Smash or steal whatever ship they get next. Interrupt their other missions. Get at them in other ways than simply dropping a combat encounter they will probably win on them. I would personally do a bit of both.

Committing arson in F&D? Isn't that a Morality check? Wanton destruction of other persons property.

Committing arson in F&D? Isn't that a Morality check? Wanton destruction of other persons property.

That position implies The Force functions along moral absolutist or classic deontological lines. I think there is room for spirited debate on that front. I can see (and make) arguments for and against that position based on what we see in the films. In all likelihood, different gaming groups will draw different conclusions. Some people might also take motivations, circumstances, consequences, moral duties, natural rights, or social contractarian norms into account. For me, "acting from the light side" is more complex. Its rooted in proper motivations, an absence of injurious emotions, and careful evaluation of the consequences. This a slightly modified form of pluralistic deontology.

Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon:

• Duty of beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc).
• Duty of non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people).
• Duty of justice (to ensure people get what they deserve).
• Duty of self-improvement (to improve ourselves).
• Duty of reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them).
• Duty of gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us).
• Duty of promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth).

In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.

NPC puts bounty on the party, Hutts back this. Have fun facing Boba, the dude with the metal hat that is used as a shield, and the crazy chick with the shaved head but maintains a pony tail. Roll initative at a 5 purple cause no one saw/heard them coming.

It sounds alright, I usually wouldn't introduce obligation for one group value but in this case it seems appropriate as a machanical way of tracking obligation. If you want to be extra mean, then cause it rise slightly for every triggering of that obligation; forcing them to either do a lot of things or to reflect that the Hutt is more then happy to keep force users at his disposal, forever if needs be. XD Though if you were to adopt this approach, also give the PC's plenty of opportunity to reduce it. Or alternatively plan to kill siad hutt to erase the debt (hint, it could make the situation much worse)

I do question why actually setting fire to ones ship is effectve, I remember the only two cases where this happened with my group, the first time it was a PVP session that turned bitter between two players and one saught to wreak the ship so we would die in deep space, the second the pilot had willingly provided Black Sun with the details of a top secert operation which was sold to the empire. One PC handcuffed her to her signature fire spray cockpit and intended to have her fly over Kamino as a distraction, another player (turning darksider) shot the console so she couldn't fly as the rest bailed out in gliders, que one firespray shaped hole and no escape route off Kamino...

In the campaign we're running we use all the mechanics from all 3 books. But everything is on a personal scale rather than a team scale.