This will all be cleared up soon in my upcoming expansion and adventure "Dirty Laundry: The Scoundrel's Socks" which will feature full rules on how long it takes to completely wash, clean and dry clothing, armor and other garments, and a full encyclopedia, with stats, on the various types of washing powder available to those living life on the run in the Outer Rim.

Good argument. It's wrong at the core though, because the GM decides when and how Obligation can be paid down, and how much it is worth. If your player's proposed Favor Obligation *could* be paid down by shining shoes once (or even daily for a decade), it probably isn't worthy of being considered an Obligation, because there's not much (if any) room for such a Favor to drive drama. On the other hand, Chewbacca's Oath (life debt) to Han can't be paid down so easily, and does have the potential to be an Obligation.

Favor (polish shoes) isn't much of an Obligation, any more than Oath (say hello at least once), Duty (pay that 5 credit parking fee), Family (make sure your brother gets on the school bus), or Betrayal (forgot to send the Emperor a gift card on his birthday). As such, the GM shouldn't give, or let a player pick, those as an Obligation in the first place.

Except that you are exactly explaining why you shouldn't. While simultaneously downplaying how Obligation actually works.

A PC wouldn't have Obligation (polish shoes). And you very well know it. He would (if you allowed PC-to-PC Obligation) have Obligation: Favor (Joe's character freed mine from slavery). And now that you've let a fellow PC dictate what that favor is or isn't worth, Joe could very well dismiss it as having the other guy polish his shoes. Then all he has to say is, "We're even.".

How do you, as a GM, keep that player from feeling he has been adequately paid back? You cannot. So do you leave it on the Obligation chart anyway? Even though both the ower and owee of the favor both consider it resolved?

Because that's why.

So, I'm confused in this... Voice, you are saying it was Chewies obligation that came up, which knocked *another player* out of the game?

"Sorry, Chewies obligation came up, your character is effectively dead."

Because if it is an obligation, Chewie can just ignore it and take the two strain, give Han the finger and move on. Now what? Han is going to raise that obligation to 10? Send bounty hunters after Chewie? Make his life difficult somehow? No, because you killed his PC and removed him from the adventure.

Sounds like an awesome game you have going there.

You guys need to calm down. You're both right, to an extent.

Motivations are INWARD. What your character believes in, and how it shapes their reactions to the outside world.

Obligations are OUTWARD. They represent external forces that shape how the character must react to survive.

A Life Debt can honestly be both a Motivation AND an Obligation simultaneously. He swears the Oath (Obligation) to serve and protect at any cost, but also becomes very close friends and companions with him, and wants to protect him (Motivation). That way, you get bonus EXP if you work to protect that person above and beyond the call of duty, and you also fulful your own obligation.

With triggering the Life Debt Obligation, you could actually trigger something imperative to the Life Debter. Perhaps you receive an anonymous message that just says "They're coming for him. -S" or something. Perhaps he does something that you think is dangerous and reckless (like, for example, he's sitting around spinning his gun on his finger, he drops it, and it discharges and vapes a ration bar or something), and you start freaking out and going all overprotective mode on him, and it stresses everyone out. No one needs to be penalized more than any other motivation or obligation, and in this case, no one needs to be wrong.

And as a GM, if someone tried to do that, they would clearly be metagaming, and I would immediately replace their Favor obligation that they owed the other player with one that was +5 more than the Favor one that fit thematically with the story, based on someone they pissed off or someone else they owe a favor to. Problem solved. Don't let metagamers ruin chances for good roleplaying.

So, I'm confused in this... Voice, you are saying it was Chewies obligation that came up, which knocked *another player* out of the game?

"Sorry, Chewies obligation came up, your character is effectively dead."

Because if it is an obligation, Chewie can just ignore it and take the two strain, give Han the finger and move on. Now what? Han is going to raise that obligation to 10? Send bounty hunters after Chewie? Make his life difficult somehow? No, because you killed his PC and removed him from the adventure.

Sounds like an awesome game you have going there.

Sure, if your obligation comes up you can 'just ignore it'. But you seem to be assuming that you've got a table full of assholes. But, if your character has an Obligation, you'd *better* deal with it, or eventually it's going to build up to the point where nobody gets to spend XP. If your game is player vs. player to that degree, then you've got *much* bigger problems than what Obligation somebody picked.

I'm saying that Chewie's obligation came up, and the GM went in a direction that had Han not 'in play' for a few encounters, about half of which he wasn't going to be involved with anyway (Luke vs. Vader), and then he got brought back in pretty quickly at the start of the next session. Think about it what occurs between Han's freeze and thaw. Remember, also, the party had already been *captured* at this point. They're in the control of the enemy, and without outside help (Lando), they're not going anywhere. This is the session where Lando gets introduced, and the group establishes why this 'new guy' is joining the party.

You've got Luke & Vader. You've got the escape from Cloud City. And you've got the rescue of Luke *during* the escape. That's the end of the session. Then, at the start of Jedi, You've got the bit with the droids, you've got Leia & Chewie trying the 'clean' route, of getting in and sneaking Han out. And at that point, Han's character is active again. Probably about 1 to 1.5 hours of actual table time involved, over the course of the two sessions.

If a character's Obligation is linked to their ship, and their obligation comes up, something is going to happen that's centered around the ship. If a character's Obligation is linked to their sister and it comes up, something is going to happen that's centered around the sister. if a character's Obligation is linked to another PC, and it comes up, something is going to happen and it's going to be centered around that PC. There's no difference.

If Chewie's player decided to just *ignore* the fact that his Obligation was being triggered, then it's not Han who raises the Obligation, it's the GM. Exactly the same as when someone else in the party decides to ignore the fact that their character owes Jabba a few hundred grand. Or when someone else decides to ignore their Family Obligation when their little brother gets picked up by the Imps.

Additionally, you've got to be a serious putz to *intentionally* leave a player in the lurch like that. You seem to think it's par for the course, but I think that says more about the people you game with than anything else.

Having the source of the Obligation be another PC doesn't change one *bit* of how the Obligation mechanic works. In *all* cases, it's the GM who decides just how much, if at all, any given action will increase or decrease the Obligation score.

if a character's Obligation is linked to another PC, and it comes up, something is going to happen and it's going to be centered around that PC. There's no difference.

So, if Player A has an Obligation tied to Player B. And Player B has an external Obligation of some sort, Player B gets screwed when either of their Obligations comes up? Yeah, that sounds totally fair.

Understand, that under the circumstances you propose, I would never allow another PC to pin their crap on me by making me their Obligation. I don't need the extra trouble.

Good argument. It's wrong at the core though, because the GM decides when and how Obligation can be paid down, and how much it is worth. If your player's proposed Favor Obligation *could* be paid down by shining shoes once (or even daily for a decade), it probably isn't worthy of being considered an Obligation, because there's not much (if any) room for such a Favor to drive drama. On the other hand, Chewbacca's Oath (life debt) to Han can't be paid down so easily, and does have the potential to be an Obligation.

Favor (polish shoes) isn't much of an Obligation, any more than Oath (say hello at least once), Duty (pay that 5 credit parking fee), Family (make sure your brother gets on the school bus), or Betrayal (forgot to send the Emperor a gift card on his birthday). As such, the GM shouldn't give, or let a player pick, those as an Obligation in the first place.

Except that you are exactly explaining why you shouldn't. While simultaneously downplaying how Obligation actually works.

A PC wouldn't have Obligation (polish shoes). And you very well know it. He would (if you allowed PC-to-PC Obligation) have Obligation: Favor (Joe's character freed mine from slavery). And now that you've let a fellow PC dictate what that favor is or isn't worth, Joe could very well dismiss it as having the other guy polish his shoes. Then all he has to say is, "We're even.".

How do you, as a GM, keep that player from feeling he has been adequately paid back? You cannot. So do you leave it on the Obligation chart anyway? Even though both the ower and owee of the favor both consider it resolved?

Because that's why.

You're the one who made the argument that the Favor Obligation in question *could* be paid off by polishing the shoes. That was *your* argument. I just pointed out the fact that it's a piss-poor Obligation, and the GM should never have allowed it.

My point is wrong because your custom-crafted straw-man argument is so full of holes that *you* disagree with it? Really?

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with. Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han) isn't so easily dismissed, so your straw-man isn't even on point.

Your argument revolves around your claim that Obligation can't be tied to another PC because you say that Obligation can't be tied to another PC. That's all you've said at this point. It can't because it can't.

You guys need to calm down. You're both right, to an extent.

Motivations are INWARD. What your character believes in, and how it shapes their reactions to the outside world.

Obligations are OUTWARD. They represent external forces that shape how the character must react to survive.

A Life Debt can honestly be both a Motivation AND an Obligation simultaneously. He swears the Oath (Obligation) to serve and protect at any cost, but also becomes very close friends and companions with him, and wants to protect him (Motivation). That way, you get bonus EXP if you work to protect that person above and beyond the call of duty, and you also fulful your own obligation.

With triggering the Life Debt Obligation, you could actually trigger something imperative to the Life Debter. Perhaps you receive an anonymous message that just says "They're coming for him. -S" or something. Perhaps he does something that you think is dangerous and reckless (like, for example, he's sitting around spinning his gun on his finger, he drops it, and it discharges and vapes a ration bar or something), and you start freaking out and going all overprotective mode on him, and it stresses everyone out. No one needs to be penalized more than any other motivation or obligation, and in this case, no one needs to be wrong.

And as a GM, if someone tried to do that, they would clearly be metagaming, and I would immediately replace their Favor obligation that they owed the other player with one that was +5 more than the Favor one that fit thematically with the story, based on someone they pissed off or someone else they owe a favor to. Problem solved. Don't let metagamers ruin chances for good roleplaying.

Exactly.

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with.

Who gets to decide when a favor is repaid? If it were an NPC, the GM. But once you put the power in the hands of a fellow PC, then please explain how you intend to enforce it.

Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han) isn't so easily dismissed...

So "life debt" should be the only Obligation that should be tied to another PC, then? Because-life debt? Is that your argument? Really?

Should a PC be allowed to owe another money as an Obligation? - "Here's that money I owe you, Joe. Now you can buy those ship upgrades we wanted with it. No more obligation! And kool stuffs! Cha-ching!"

What about having an addiction to another PC? - "I don't know how to quit you. So it sure is a good thing we always seem to hang out together."

Can 2 PCs who are brothers take the Family Obligation for each other? - "Brother, I need your help. I'm calling on you as family to come over here to this side of the room and help me beat up these badguys!"

Except that you are exactly explaining why you shouldn't. While simultaneously downplaying how Obligation actually works.

A PC wouldn't have Obligation (polish shoes). And you very well know it. He would (if you allowed PC-to-PC Obligation) have Obligation: Favor (Joe's character freed mine from slavery). And now that you've let a fellow PC dictate what that favor is or isn't worth, Joe could very well dismiss it as having the other guy polish his shoes. Then all he has to say is, "We're even.".

How do you, as a GM, keep that player from feeling he has been adequately paid back? You cannot. So do you leave it on the Obligation chart anyway? Even though both the ower and owee of the favor both consider it resolved?

Because that's why.

You're the one who made the argument that the Favor Obligation in question *could* be paid off by polishing the shoes. That was *your* argument. I just pointed out the fact that it's a piss-poor Obligation, and the GM should never have allowed it.

My point is wrong because your custom-crafted straw-man argument is so full of holes that *you* disagree with it? Really?

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with. Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han) isn't so easily dismissed, so your straw-man isn't even on point.

Your argument revolves around your claim that Obligation can't be tied to another PC because you say that Obligation can't be tied to another PC. That's all you've said at this point. It can't because it can't.

Voice, while I disagree with most everything you posted in general about this (and am honestly glad I am not one of your players [how miserable of a game that must be...])

I would feel remiss if I pointed out that you have used the Straw Man Fallacy claim multiple times with CCarlson but don't actually seem to understand what *it* means either.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

He has refuted your original position and has created examples of such in support of his refutation. He did not "create" your position so that he could then attack it. You should probably stop using the term incorrectly, it looks silly.

All this gets even more absurd once play begins and Obligation ebbs and flows.

Do you, every time one PC makes a promise to another PC, place that on the Obligation chart? What about if a PC loans another some creds to buy something? Do you toss that on the Obligation chart?

I can see your PCs hiding themselves in a box, afraid to interact with each other (let alone the galaxy at large), under fear of being Obligationed into Oblivion for roleplaying.

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with.

Who gets to decide when a favor is repaid? If it were an NPC, the GM. But once you put the power in the hands of a fellow PC, then please explain how you intend to enforce it.

Given that I've explicitly answered this at least twice *before* you asked it, I'm just going to ignore this part of your post. If you want the answer, go back and actually read my posts. It's in there. It's *explicitly* called out more than once.

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with.

Who gets to decide when a favor is repaid? If it were an NPC, the GM. But once you put the power in the hands of a fellow PC, then please explain how you intend to enforce it.

Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han) isn't so easily dismissed...

So "life debt" should be the only Obligation that should be tied to another PC, then? Because-life debt? Is that your argument? Really?

Should a PC be allowed to owe another money as an Obligation? - "Here's that money I owe you, Joe. Now you can buy those ship upgrades we wanted with it. No more obligation! And kool stuffs! Cha-ching!"

What about having an addiction to another PC? - "I don't know how to quit you. So it sure is a good thing we always seem to hang out together."

Can 2 PCs who are brothers take the Family Obligation for each other? - "Brother, I need your help. I'm calling on you as family to come over here to this side of the room and help me beat up these badguys!"

Other than your circular argument of "You can't have an Obligation to another PC because you can't have an Obligation to another PC", what possible reason would there be to *disallow* a Family obligation to another PC?

If you want an example of something like that in action, check out Simon and River Tam from Firefly. Simon *definitely* has a Family Obligation to River. River, on the other hand, has the Bounty Obligation, because she's wanted by some secret Alliance project folks, and they'll do pretty much anything to get her back. Even kill their own *just in case* she's managed to spill the beans with her babbling.

A simple, monetary Debt Obligation to another PC? You better believe that if I approve it as GM, it's not going to be any easier to pay off than any *other* Obligation with a similar score. And the players are going to know it in advance.

A 10,000 credit Debt to Jabba the Hutt is probably worth more Obligation than a 10,000 credit Debt via a legitimate bank loan. The bank will send people out to reposess your stuff. Jabba will send people out to kill you and take your stuff, and the stuff your family & friends own to pay it down, and sell them into slavery just to round things out. But, if you keep making your payments, with either one, you'll be in pretty good shape. (The bank loan almost certainly has an easier payment schedule, and a lower interest rate, though.)

The only semi-legitimate argument that's been made against other-PC Obligation revolves around the idea that your players are all metagaming douchebags. If that's the case, then by all means, keep strict reins on what Obligations you approve. If that's not the case, you've got nothing to worry about.

Good lord, man, maybe give it a rest?

You're not going to agree, you both have your own opinions, maybe everybody just chill and move on?

Except that you are exactly explaining why you shouldn't. While simultaneously downplaying how Obligation actually works.

A PC wouldn't have Obligation (polish shoes). And you very well know it. He would (if you allowed PC-to-PC Obligation) have Obligation: Favor (Joe's character freed mine from slavery). And now that you've let a fellow PC dictate what that favor is or isn't worth, Joe could very well dismiss it as having the other guy polish his shoes. Then all he has to say is, "We're even.".

How do you, as a GM, keep that player from feeling he has been adequately paid back? You cannot. So do you leave it on the Obligation chart anyway? Even though both the ower and owee of the favor both consider it resolved?

Because that's why.

You're the one who made the argument that the Favor Obligation in question *could* be paid off by polishing the shoes. That was *your* argument. I just pointed out the fact that it's a piss-poor Obligation, and the GM should never have allowed it.

My point is wrong because your custom-crafted straw-man argument is so full of holes that *you* disagree with it? Really?

Again, if the proposed 'Obligation' was so easily repaid that it can be done with absolutely nothing more than an hand-wave, it wasn't an Obligation to begin with. Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han) isn't so easily dismissed, so your straw-man isn't even on point.

Your argument revolves around your claim that Obligation can't be tied to another PC because you say that Obligation can't be tied to another PC. That's all you've said at this point. It can't because it can't.

Voice, while I disagree with most everything you posted in general about this (and am honestly glad I am not one of your players [how miserable of a game that must be...])

I would feel remiss if I pointed out that you have used the Straw Man Fallacy claim multiple times with CCarlson but don't actually seem to understand what *it* means either.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

He has refuted your original position and has created examples of such in support of his refutation. He did not "create" your position so that he could then attack it. You should probably stop using the term incorrectly, it looks silly.

No, I understand the straw man fallacy quite well. He didn't create examples that support his refutation, because the examples he created are so obviously not worth of being ranked as Obligation in the first place that they don't even begin to address the Life Debt example he's claiming *can't* be done.

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

And, for the record, that's no different than a Betrayal Obligation where the 'pay down' happens when the PC hunts down and kills the person who betrayed them. If a PC had *that* Obligation, and tried to say it was 'paid down' when the guy who betrayed him polished his shoes and lent him a fiver, I'd call *exactly* the same bull I'm calling on CCarlson's straw man. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the character tied to the Obligation is a PC or NPC. There is *literally* no difference in how I'd handle that Obligation, and there's no reason *to* handle them any differently.

You have a dizzying intellect, to be sure. I would suggest you filter your claims of circular arguments through your own tendency to do the very thing, but I fear it is a lost cause.

I have given no less than half-a-dozen concrete examples to defend why you should not allow it. Chosing to ignore them only makes you look foolish. Or dense. Or both.

I can see why several other prominant posters around here have chosen to put you on their ignore list.

(And I am choosing to ignore your silly asurances that you "know" something is *definite* about some fictional character in a movie not supported by these rules. Yikes. Talk about a "straw man"...)

The only semi-legitimate argument that's been made against other-PC Obligation revolves around the idea that your players are all metagaming douchebags. If that's the case, then by all means, keep strict reins on what Obligations you approve. If that's not the case, you've got nothing to worry about.

This Fallacy is known as Argumentum ad Hominem and is also a fallacy in your stance. (Attack the person not the argument)

You should examine your position perhaps. Generally when people start turning to fallacy in the argument, your position is too weak to sustain itself on position alone. Just a thought.

No, I understand the straw man fallacy quite well. He didn't create examples that support his refutation, because the examples he created are so obviously not worth of being ranked as Obligation in the first place that they don't even begin to address the Life Debt example he's claiming *can't* be done.

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

And, for the record, that's no different than a Betrayal Obligation where the 'pay down' happens when the PC hunts down and kills the person who betrayed them. If a PC had *that* Obligation, and tried to say it was 'paid down' when the guy who betrayed him polished his shoes and lent him a fiver, I'd call *exactly* the same bull I'm calling on CCarlson's straw man. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the character tied to the Obligation is a PC or NPC. There is *literally* no difference in how I'd handle that Obligation, and there's no reason *to* handle them any differently.

You are arguing now that you understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is by giving an example of what a Straw Man isn't, but claiming it is? Gotcha.

...the Life Debt example he's claiming *can't* be done.

Yet I've said many times that Chewy *does* have a life debt to Han. You should listen better. It's just not an Obligation. It's a Motivation.

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

So again, I see you refuse to answer: Are you saying a life debt is the only reasonable Obligation you would allow a PC to have for another?

I will ask plainly and bluntly this time. And let's see if we can break this down into easy-to-swallow chunks:

Can a PC have their starting Obligation (Favor) be applied to another PC?

The only semi-legitimate argument that's been made against other-PC Obligation revolves around the idea that your players are all metagaming douchebags. If that's the case, then by all means, keep strict reins on what Obligations you approve. If that's not the case, you've got nothing to worry about.

This Fallacy is known as Argumentum ad Hominem and is also a fallacy in your stance.

You should examine your position perhaps. Generally when people start turning to fallacy in the argument, your position is too weak to sustain itself on position alone. Just a thought.

Not at all, I'm not attacking him. I'm pointing out that his supporting argument; that metagaming douchebag players might try to 'buy down' the Obligation by 'calling it even' in exchange for a shoe polishing; only holds true if his players are, indeed, metagaming douchebags.

In fact, I called that out right in the very post you quoted. But players willing to metagame to that level are equally willing to metagame and claim that *any* Obligation they owe anything non-concrete to, or are *owed* anything non-concrete can be paid off with trivial, meaningless actions, like his shoe shine straw man.

Not at all, I'm not attacking him. I'm pointing out that his supporting argument; that metagaming douchebag players might try to 'buy down' the Obligation by 'calling it even' in exchange for a shoe polishing; only holds true if his players are, indeed, metagaming douchebags.

In fact, I called that out right in the very post you quoted. But players willing to metagame to that level are equally willing to metagame and claim that *any* Obligation they owe anything non-concrete to, or are *owed* anything non-concrete can be paid off with trivial, meaningless actions, like his shoe shine straw man.

This is an example of Argument of Moderation (fallacy)... Now you pretend to be reasonable and in a "compromising" position based upon your previous fallacy, all the while still being insulting to him and his game group.

...the Life Debt example he's claiming *can't* be done.

Yet I've said many times that Chewy *does* have a life debt to Han. You should listen better. It's just not an Obligation. It's a Motivation.

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

So again, I see you refuse to answer: Are you saying a life debt is the only reasonable Obligation you would allow a PC to have for another?

I will ask plainly and bluntly this time. And let's see if we can break this down into easy-to-swallow chunks:

Can a PC have their starting Obligation (Favor) be applied to another PC?

Here, allow me to post the *entire* section of the above quoted post which already answers your first question:

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

And, for the record, that's no different than a Betrayal Obligation where the 'pay down' happens when the PC hunts down and kills the person who betrayed them. If a PC had *that* Obligation, and tried to say it was 'paid down' when the guy who betrayed him polished his shoes and lent him a fiver, I'd call *exactly* the same bull I'm calling on CCarlson's straw man. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the character tied to the Obligation is a PC or NPC. There is *literally* no difference in how I'd handle that Obligation, and there's no reason *to* handle them any differently.

And, yes, a Favor Obligation to a fellow PC which is, in and of itself, worth Obligation is a valid Obligation. A 'favor' which can be repaid with a shoe shine, however, is not, in and of itself, worth Obligation to *ANYONE*, and thus would not be a valid Obligation regardless of whether it was tied to another PC or Darth Vader himself.

If you can hand-wave away your Obligation, it was never an Obligation to begin with.

Is that clear enough for you?

Not at all, I'm not attacking him. I'm pointing out that his supporting argument; that metagaming douchebag players might try to 'buy down' the Obligation by 'calling it even' in exchange for a shoe polishing; only holds true if his players are, indeed, metagaming douchebags.

In fact, I called that out right in the very post you quoted. But players willing to metagame to that level are equally willing to metagame and claim that *any* Obligation they owe anything non-concrete to, or are *owed* anything non-concrete can be paid off with trivial, meaningless actions, like his shoe shine straw man.

This is an example of Argument of Moderation (fallacy)... Now you pretend to be reasonable and in a "compromising" position based upon your previous fallacy, all the while still being insulting to him and his game group.

I didn't 'compromise' anything. I simply restated my original argument, and pointed out where you had misunderstood me. If you think that my argument sounds more reasonable now that you know what you misunderstood, then I suspect my argument actually *was* more reasonable than you had initially supposed when you misunderstood it.

And, yes, a Favor Obligation to a fellow PC which is, in and of itself, worth Obligation is a valid Obligation.

Excellent. We are finally making a little headway. OK, now...

Let's say, by your "standards", the Obligation needs to be "worthy". Whatever arbitrary benchmark you set, let's try one:

My PC owe's Joe's PC for saving his life. My PC was in a bad situation. A lowly slave toiling away on Tatooine. Being beaten ruthlessly every day by his cruel master, an Aqualish thug. My PC would have surely died eventually from the continued abuse. Joe's PC came along one day and killed the Aqualish, and rescued my PC. Now my PC owes him bigtime.

The simple question I am looking to have answered at this time:

Is that "Favor" enough for you that I can take it as a starting Obligation during character creation?

No, I understand the straw man fallacy quite well. He didn't create examples that support his refutation, because the examples he created are so obviously not worth of being ranked as Obligation in the first place that they don't even begin to address the Life Debt example he's claiming *can't* be done.

Chewie's Life Debt to Han can't be paid off by polishing Han's shoes. Nor can it be paid off by buying him a burger when he's hungry. In all likelyhood, that's an obligation that *can't* be paid off until either Han or Chewie is dead, or rendered utterly incapable of fulfilling it.

And, for the record, that's no different than a Betrayal Obligation where the 'pay down' happens when the PC hunts down and kills the person who betrayed them. If a PC had *that* Obligation, and tried to say it was 'paid down' when the guy who betrayed him polished his shoes and lent him a fiver, I'd call *exactly* the same bull I'm calling on CCarlson's straw man. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the character tied to the Obligation is a PC or NPC. There is *literally* no difference in how I'd handle that Obligation, and there's no reason *to* handle them any differently.

You are arguing now that you understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is by giving an example of what a Straw Man isn't, but claiming it is? Gotcha.

Let me spell it out for you.

The original Obligation being discussed was Chewie's Oath (life debt to Han).

The straw man was the 'Obligation' which could be paid off in exchange for a shoe shine.

If you can't see the straw man, and you think the shoe shine is anything *more* than just superficially similar to a Wookie Life Debt, then I can't help you. The only thing they share is that someone has labeled the shoe shine an Obligation in an attempt to shore up an unsupported claim that a Life Debt *can't* be an Obligation if it is linked to another PC.

There's absolutely nothing else they share in common. It's akin to claiming that no one can drive faster than 30 MPH in a 'horseless carriage' because no horse-drawn carriage can reach those speeds. (There actually was a time when people believed that you'd be killed by the forces involved in driving 30 MPH or more.)

I didn't 'compromise' anything. I simply restated my original argument, and pointed out where you had misunderstood me. If you think that my argument sounds more reasonable now that you know what you misunderstood, then I suspect my argument actually *was* more reasonable than you had initially supposed when you misunderstood it.

Now this *is* actually a straw man fallacy, because you have created the position that I misunderstood something, then assert yourself to be correct by arguing that your made up assumption is correct in the first place.

I clearly understood what you wrote, in fact of the two of us, I might be the only one that understands what you are writing it seems.