need some feedback/advice.

I have a Zabrak PC whose background is an escaped gladiator slave. As such I allowed him to choose the servitude obligation as he is still very much owned. He wanted to take on extra obligation for the XP so he took 5 obligation in Bounty to represent a bounty that the owner took out on him in order to get him back in the gladiator pits making him money. Both of these make sense and leaves him with a starting obligation of 5 servitude/5 bounty.

However, I'm starting to think that 5 servitude doesn't accurately represent the severity of the obligation. I'm thinking that if I make his obligation 10 servitude and just use things like bounties as part of the consequences of the servitude obligation.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

A low Obligation can also mean that his owner has other priorities right now. It doesn't mean being a slave isn't a big deal.

I would give an in-game reason to raise it. He takes a risk and does something high-profile? Sure, you got away with it, but add another 5 obligation. That fellow who took a good look at you in the spaceport went to some of your fights and knows your master.

Also, depending on where in the galaxy the characters are operating will help to determine the urgency of their individual obligations.

I would give an in-game reason to raise it. He takes a risk and does something high-profile? Sure, you got away with it, but add another 5 obligation. That fellow who took a good look at you in the spaceport went to some of your fights and knows your master.

Also, depending on where in the galaxy the characters are operating will help to determine the urgency of their individual obligations.

He already has the 10 obligation. I'm just trying to have it make more narrative sense.

So it's either Bounty (10) because he's an escaped gladiator slave or Servitude (10) he's still a slave can they have both when it sounds like they're the same obligation?

So it's either Bounty (10) because he's an escaped gladiator slave or Servitude (10) he's still a slave can they have both when it sounds like they're the same obligation?

Right.

Instead of having his obligation split 5 servitude / 5 bounty as he originally developed it, it seems to make more sense to give him a 10 servitude obligation and then use something like a bounty as a consequence of the obligation instead of the obligation itself. This makes the servitude obligation more effectual and allows more narrative freedom than tying to another specific obligation.

The fact that he's a slave going out and doing high profile things is really troublesome for a hutt; it indicates he doesn't have control over his property and I imagine that though the value in the slave isn't that great; a Hutt will do anything to pay back a slight. ANYTHING.

That nice cafe your fellow PC has a sangificant other in? One day the door gets kicked in and it's trashed with a note saying "Return my property immediately, or it will be their life next" and do something big and dramatic to make the party forced to deal with the obligation; either complying (thus giving up the PC), doing something to terrify/humlimate the Hutt (No hutt would ever admit to hummilion if they could otherwise afford doing so) or doing one, really high risk job; everyone gets paid aside from the slave who gets freedom (of course, any decent player would pitch in to share their contributions)