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?

Not yet. So far, you've only described the circumstances by which the Obligation came into being. You *haven't* described the circumstances by which the Obligation could be considered 'repaid'.

If your PC has to protect the other PC for the rest of his life, then yes. (Note: This is equivalent to the Wookie Life Debt originally being discussed)

If your PC has to save the other PC from certain death or slavery, then yes. (And this is probably going to be easier to repay, because typical PCs end up in all sorts of life-threatening situations over the course of a campaign.)

If your PC has to shine the other PC's shoes, then no.

Without a reasonably specific means by which the potential Obligation could be 'paid down', which is in sync with the rank assigned to said potential Obligation, you don't actually have the full Obligation yet.

Ah. Now I completely get it. Whew, you had me very troubled for a while there.

It's all much clearer now. You simply don't understand how Obligation works.

I couldn't figure out for the longest time why I was having so much trouble parsing your points.

Edit: Or maybe its that you don't understand what a Favor is? Hmmm...

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.

If you think I 'compromised' with my earlier post, then you misunderstood one or the other of the posts we're discussing now. You claimed that my follow-up post made my original one sound more reasonable. Since I didn't change anything I said in the original post as part of the follow-up post, then *obviously* you seem to have misunderstood *something*. I couldn't say whether it was my first post, or the follow-up. And at this point I'm beyond caring which it was that you misunderstood.

I didn't change my meaning. You thought I had. You misunderstood something.

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?

I'd say yes. That adds a lot of RP potential, and I think it would make for a great thing.

If you obligation got triggered, maybe you are worried that you weren't worth saving, and that he shouldn't have wasted his time. Maybe you are going to try extra hard to be helpful to that person. Maybe you randomly go up to him and say "Thank you," and it kinda weirds him out. Maybe you just keep asking him if he needs help with anything over and over again. Bam. That's annoying. Strain reduction. The end.

Want to pay it off? Save his life in a moment of need. Obligation goes down, or is perhaps negated completely. Now, the two of you are such good bros that you've decided to become blood brothers or something. Obligation: Kinship. 5 each.

Ta-da!

Remember everyone! The theme of this Star Wars narrative Role Playing system is "Yes, but..." IF the GM and the Players say "Yeah that sounds great!" then by the stars, do it. Instead of beating eachother up if they disagree, let's live and let live. I'll let my dudes have obligations to eachother if it seems relevant, and if they want to. If it doesn't or they don't, then I won't. Problem solved. And you didn't have to insult ANYONE to do it!

If you think I 'compromised' with my earlier post, then you misunderstood one or the other of the posts we're discussing now. You claimed that my follow-up post made my original one sound more reasonable. Since I didn't change anything I said in the original post as part of the follow-up post, then *obviously* you seem to have misunderstood *something*. I couldn't say whether it was my first post, or the follow-up. And at this point I'm beyond caring which it was that you misunderstood.

I didn't change my meaning. You thought I had. You misunderstood something.

I can certainly cede that I might have misunderstood.

So you *were* just simply being insulting rather than continuing to contribute to your discussion with anything meaningful. Gotcha.

Ah. Now I completely get it. Whew, you had me very troubled for a while there.

It's all much clearer now. You simply don't understand how Obligation works.

I couldn't figure out for the longest time why I was having so much trouble parsing your points.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that you think I'm saying something other than what I'm saying. I'd rather get to the bottom of the miscommunication than leave it hanging out there, so let me ask you this:

If a player says their starting Obligation (all 15 points of it) stems from the fact that they borrowed money from Jabba the Hutt, is that a good obligation?

What if, during the very first session, they say they're going to make the final, 5 credit, payment on that loan. Is that 'how Obligation works', or would that not be something you'd accept as a GM either?

I've moved us over to a basic, straight-forward, fully monetary Debt Obligation to avoid any of the wrangling over whether or not the basic proposed Obligation *can* exist or not, and keep things fully within the 'Is this a good Obligation?' question.

If you think I 'compromised' with my earlier post, then you misunderstood one or the other of the posts we're discussing now. You claimed that my follow-up post made my original one sound more reasonable. Since I didn't change anything I said in the original post as part of the follow-up post, then *obviously* you seem to have misunderstood *something*. I couldn't say whether it was my first post, or the follow-up. And at this point I'm beyond caring which it was that you misunderstood.

I didn't change my meaning. You thought I had. You misunderstood something.

I can certainly cede that I might have misunderstood.

So you *were* just simply being insulting rather than continuing to contribute to your discussion with anything meaningful. Gotcha.

No, that's you 'misunderstanding' again.

No, that's you 'misunderstanding' again.

No, if you think what you said, wasn't insulting, I skip the fact that you might intentionally spew fallacy in every argument and jump straight to the fact that you *might* just be stupid.

As a note, that wasn't meant as an insult, I'm just saying "might", so it doesn't count as an insult.

See how that works?

Want to pay it off? Save his life in a moment of need. Obligation goes down, or is perhaps negated completely. Now, the two of you are such good bros that you've decided to become blood brothers or something. Obligation: Kinship. 5 each.

Bingo. Thank you for playing along. I fear Voice is afraid to stand with his own argument because he knows it is holier than swiss cheese.

OK, so now we have a situation where my PC owe's Joe's PC for saving his life. Fair enough...

First session, we duck into a cantina hoping to hide from a group of Gamorrean thugs. I slip behind the bar. But Joe's PC botches an attempt to blend in with the locals. The pig-faces come in and immediately see Joe's PC. They bum-rush him. It's not looking good for Joe's PC. Not at all. He suffers multiple crits and is going down hard. All is lost for poor Joe's PC if someone doesn't do something. Stat!

Desparate to help my friend, I pop up and blast at the thugs, getting an amaznig roll and taking out most of them. Furious at the loss of their friends, they turn on me. But I finish off the stragglers and save the day.

So greatful for my saving his life, Joe's PC calls us even.

GM, please mark off that Obligation. Thanks.

As a GM, where is your power to declare Joe's PC doesn't consider them even?

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.

If the extent of the promise or loan would be worthy of Obligation between the PC and an NPC, then yes, it has the potential to go on the chart. If not, then no.

I've moved us over to a basic, straight-forward, fully monetary Debt Obligation to avoid any of the wrangling over whether or not the basic proposed Obligation *can* exist or not, and keep things fully within the 'Is this a good Obligation?' question.

So the position you've been defending this whole time isn't working, so you want to change it now?

I'll bite: Can a PC declare that they owe another PC 15,000 credits as their Obligation?

Want to pay it off? Save his life in a moment of need. Obligation goes down, or is perhaps negated completely. Now, the two of you are such good bros that you've decided to become blood brothers or something. Obligation: Kinship. 5 each.

Bingo. Thank you for playing along. I fear Voice is afraid to stand with his own argument because he knows it is holier than swiss cheese.

OK, so now we have a situation where my PC owe's Joe's PC for saving his life. Fair enough...

First session, we duck into a cantina hoping to hide from a group of Gamorrean thugs. I slip behind the bar. But Joe's PC botches an attempt to blend in with the locals. The pig-faces come in and immediately see Joe's PC. They bum-rush him. It's not looking good for Joe's PC. Not at all. He suffers multiple crits and is going down hard. All is lost for poor Joe's PC if someone doesn't do something. Stat!

Desparate to help my friend, I pop up and blast at the thugs, getting an amaznig roll and taking out most of them. Furious at the loss of their friends, they turn on me. But I finish off the stragglers and save the day.

So greatful for my saving his life, Joe's PC calls us even.

GM, please mark off that Obligation. Thanks.

As a GM, where is your power to declare Joe's PC doesn't consider them even?

Ok, I see the misunderstanding (I think). You think that one character actually saving the life of another character is the same as one character polishing the other characters shoes.

Ok, no that's probably not what you think. But that second one is the position I was arguing against.

As I stated in a post you already responded to, your new scenario where one PC owes his life to another PC and pays it down (or even off) by actually saving the other PC's life is a good Obligation. There wouldn't be any cause *not* to consider the Obligation paid.

If the players tried to metagame and call that same Obligation 'paid' with a shoe shine, I'd call shenanigans.

I believe I've been pretty clear about that. (Even explicitly stating such in an earlier post, to which you had already replied before posting this.)

The prosecution rests, your honor...

I've moved us over to a basic, straight-forward, fully monetary Debt Obligation to avoid any of the wrangling over whether or not the basic proposed Obligation *can* exist or not, and keep things fully within the 'Is this a good Obligation?' question.

So the position you've been defending this whole time isn't working, so you want to change it now?

I'll bite: Can a PC declare that they owe another PC 15,000 credits as their Obligation?

And, I was wrong. You appear to just want to be argumentative. I explicitly stated why I moved the discussion over to a more concrete and more easily discussed Obligation concept. I even did so in the very portion of the post you quoted, so there's no need to attempt to fabricate motives whole cloth.

Yes, a 15,000 credit Debt obligation to another PC is potentially a valid Obligation. (There are more details that matter. They always do.) If there were no consequences for failure to repay the loan, then it wouldn't pass muster as an Obligation. If it was, in turn, money that the other PC *could* have used to pay off their own loan to Jabba, then yes it would.

An 'obligation' without consequence, or without significance, to the game or story is not an Obligation.

Want to pay it off? Save his life in a moment of need. Obligation goes down, or is perhaps negated completely. Now, the two of you are such good bros that you've decided to become blood brothers or something. Obligation: Kinship. 5 each.

Bingo. Thank you for playing along. I fear Voice is afraid to stand with his own argument because he knows it is holier than swiss cheese.

OK, so now we have a situation where my PC owe's Joe's PC for saving his life. Fair enough...

First session, we duck into a cantina hoping to hide from a group of Gamorrean thugs. I slip behind the bar. But Joe's PC botches an attempt to blend in with the locals. The pig-faces come in and immediately see Joe's PC. They bum-rush him. It's not looking good for Joe's PC. Not at all. He suffers multiple crits and is going down hard. All is lost for poor Joe's PC if someone doesn't do something. Stat!

Desparate to help my friend, I pop up and blast at the thugs, getting an amaznig roll and taking out most of them. Furious at the loss of their friends, they turn on me. But I finish off the stragglers and save the day.

So greatful for my saving his life, Joe's PC calls us even.

GM, please mark off that Obligation. Thanks.

As a GM, where is your power to declare Joe's PC doesn't consider them even?

See, there's the issue. You're asking "How can I say no to this?" Instead, you should be saying "Wow, that's really cool thematically. I'm glad they did that."

You can't tell a PC how to act. But, you play the rest of the universe. You get to make the rest of the rules. As I said before, instead of asking how you can invalidate a legitimate situation that would resolve obligation, instead consider how you could thematically and sensibly make sure that these two guys still have at least 5 obligation. To do that, you just iced some dude's pig thugs, and prevented them from killing one of you. Suddenly, without their knowledge, a camera had caught footage of the whole thing, or a civilian made away as a witness and dropped your names to the crime boss that sent him. Now, he wants all of you to die. But he ESPECIALLY wants you two to die for ruining his plans first and foremost.

Or, as I said before, you could do that Kinship: Blood Brothers or Ally obligation. The world isn't a vacuum. It is nigh impossible for someone to truly get away with having 0 Obligation because everyone has something. Think of this as a system to ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT narration, NOT to dominate or control it.

Thanks to the Ignore option, I'm only getting half of the story here, but that's more than enough.

In my game I ruled that obligation needs to be tied to external forces. I'm. Just keeps the players honest.

Thanks to the Ignore option, I'm only getting half of the story here, but that's more than enough.

In my game I ruled that obligation needs to be tied to external forces. I'm. Just keeps the players honest.

I agree, mostly because as the GM, I can't force negative consequences on an obligation to a character not in my control.

In the current game I'm playing, I had saved one of the other players (a Wookie) from slavery by winning her from a semi-corrupt imperial quartermaster in a game of sabaac (along with some other Wookie slaves, and a ship that I gave to the Wookies to get away before anyone decided to round them bsck up). That I might have cheated in. (I'm a Twi'lek who was born a slave myself, and have an antislavery motivation, I normally play fair, but I was angry and played using every underhanded trick in the book).

The character decided to stick with me as a life debt. Her obligation though? Family. I had also saved some of her family that escaped on the ship I gave them. She has the motivation of Life Debt. Its a strain because the two are a bit in disagreement at times.

(On a side note, my obligation: The Imperial quartermaster's equally corrupt superior reported the Wookies dead to avoid investigation, but isn't about to let me off that easily. He reached out to his criminal contacts to put a bounty on my head)

I agree, mostly because as the GM, I can't force negative consequences on an obligation to a character not in my control.

Precisely. That's exactly the point.

The character decided to stick with me as a life debt. Her obligation though? Family. I had also saved some of her family that escaped on the ship I gave them. She has the motivation of Life Debt. Its a strain because the two are a bit in disagreement at times.

Bingo. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

And, I was wrong. You appear to just want to be argumentative.

...says the one who spent half a page arguing with someone else about what an argument is...

Yes, a 15,000 credit Debt obligation to another PC is potentially a valid Obligation. (There are more details that matter. They always do.) If there were no consequences for failure to repay the loan, then it wouldn't pass muster as an Obligation. If it was, in turn, money that the other PC *could* have used to pay off their own loan to Jabba, then yes it would.

Not only does a loan to another PC not have any consequences (no player is going to send a bounty hunter after another PC for lack of payment, get serious), but paying it off does nothing to diminish resources for the group (as I've pointed out several times, or were you not paying attention?).

Let's say you decide to go ahead and pay your shipmate his 15,000 cred. OK, now another member of the group has the same 15,000 cred as before. Net zero loss. Are you following the math OK so far? He can do whatever he wants with it. He could buy upgrades for the same ship they share. He could say, "Hey man, thanks for paying me back. But you know what, you really saved my bacon back there in the cantina the other day. Here, I want you to have this 15,000 credits. Think of it as a thank you gift for saving my life. I love you, man.". Now what, GM? What do you do about that?

An 'obligation' without consequence, or without significance, to the game or story is not an Obligation.

Yep. I would say, "Now you are starting to get it.", but I fear you never will. You see, there are no consequences or story significance to inter-party obligation. There is significance to inter-personal dynamics and role playing potential (hence, because--motivation). But that's about it. If a PC declares he's not going to repay his fellow PC friend, you as a GM have little you can do about it. Where as, were it an NPC owed, you as a GM immediatly have many tools you can bring to bear. There inlies the rub.

Yes, a 15,000 credit Debt obligation to another PC is potentially a valid Obligation. (There are more details that matter. They always do.) If there were no consequences for failure to repay the loan, then it wouldn't pass muster as an Obligation. If it was, in turn, money that the other PC *could* have used to pay off their own loan to Jabba, then yes it would.

Not only does a loan to another PC not have any consequences (no player is going to send a bounty hunter after another PC for lack of payment, get serious), but paying it off does nothing to diminish resources for the group (as I've pointed out several times, or were you not paying attention?).

Let's say you decide to go ahead and pay your shipmate his 15,000 cred. OK, now another member of the group has the same 15,000 cred as before. Net zero loss. Are you following the math OK so far? He can do whatever he wants with it. He could buy upgrades for the same ship they share. He could say, "Hey man, thanks for paying me back. But you know what, you really saved my bacon back there in the cantina the other day. Here, I want you to have this 15,000 credits. Think of it as a thank you gift for saving my life. I love you, man.". Now what, GM? What do you do about that?

An 'obligation' without consequence, or without significance, to the game or story is not an Obligation.

Yep. I would say, "Now you are starting to get it.", but I fear you never will. You see, there are no consequences or story significance to inter-party obligation. There is significance to inter-personal dynamics and role playing potential (hence, because--motivation). But that's about it. If a PC declares he's not going to repay his fellow PC friend, you as a GM have little you can do about it. Where as, were it an NPC owed, you as a GM immediatly have many tools you can bring to bear. There inlies the rub.

Wow. You go ahead and accurately *quote* my statement that an obligation without consequences isn't an Obligation. And then, in an attempt to 'disprove' my statement, you *ignore* the example I gave which *does* have consequences.

Yes, a 15,000 credit Debt obligation to another PC is potentially a valid Obligation. (There are more details that matter. They always do.) If there were no consequences for failure to repay the loan, then it wouldn't pass muster as an Obligation. If it was, in turn, money that the other PC *could* have used to pay off their own loan to Jabba, then yes it would.

You don't see the consequences there?

Jabba, who has his ear to the ground in regards to money made by the folks who owe *him* money, finds out that you passed up an opportunity to get the money you owe him. You think Jabba is going to be happy about that? You owe a *crime lord*, and ignore an opportunity to pay it down/off? That's trouble.

Oh, look! A consequence! Right there in the example I gave, and you quoted! Amazing!

How does it work in the story? Your buddy, who decided to 'call it even' for nothing, gets a visit from one of Jabba's bounty hunters, who expresses Jabba's 'disappointment' that you've chosen not to pay the money he owes, and that Jabba *knows* he had the opportunity to do so. He's not pleased, and he's reducing the time your buddy has to pay back the loan. Maybe he should 'rethink' his decision to ignore money he can use to do so. After all, "It's a nice ship, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Just as with any other Obligation which involves another person, the direct, immediate consequences don't necessarily have to accrue on the person with the Obligation. They can, instead, accrue on the person the Obligation is *to*. (e.g.: You have a family Obligation but ignore it, so something bad happens to a member of your family.)

Yes, a 15,000 credit Debt obligation to another PC is potentially a valid Obligation. (There are more details that matter. They always do.) If there were no consequences for failure to repay the loan, then it wouldn't pass muster as an Obligation. If it was, in turn, money that the other PC *could* have used to pay off their own loan to Jabba, then yes it would.

Partially because I'm bored, and because I think this is deserving of it's own post, I want to tackle this brilliant piece of circular logic. It deserves its own string of thought.

So, for you - and this is truly an awesome bit of malarky, a legitimate PC Obligation to owe another PC is valid if the other PC in turn has an Obligation to owe someone else. This is great.

PC A has a 10 point Obligation: Debt to PC B for 15,000 cred, because...

PC B in turn has a 10 point Obligation: Debt to PC C for 15,000 cred, because...

PC C also has a 10 point Obligation: Debt to PC D for 15,000 cred, because...

PC D has a (legitimate) 10 point Obligation: Debt to Teemo the Hutt for the same.

So everyone agrees to let PC A collect all the money earned as the adventure progresses, until he has amassed 15,000 credits. He gives it to PC B thus knocking off 10 points from of total Obligation.

PC B then immediatly turns around and hands that same 15,000 credits to PC C, there goes another 10 points of Obligation.

PC C then immediatly turns around and hands that same 15,000 credits to PC D, saying bye-bye to another 10 points of Obligation.

And finally PC D. He FedEx's that 15,000 credits to Teemo with a big thank you note. Yet another 10 points of Obligation gone just like that.

Good job, GM. I can see you have a handle on how Obligation works...

I soooo love hyperbole. It is such a useful tool for hammering points home to other tools.

How does it work in the story? Your buddy, who decided to 'call it even' for nothing, gets a visit from one of Jabba's bounty hunters, who expresses Jabba's 'disappointment' that you've chosen not to pay the money he owes, and that Jabba *knows* he had the opportunity to do so.

Bwahaha. So Jabba is eavesdropping on a private conversation being had by 2 PC's on their own ship in the middle of space? He's truly an awesome crime lord indeed! What omnipotent powah!!!

You don't see the consequences there?

Jabba, who has his ear to the ground in regards to money made by the folks who owe *him* money, finds out that you passed up an opportunity to get the money you owe him. You think Jabba is going to be happy about that? You owe a *crime lord*, and ignore an opportunity to pay it down/off? That's trouble.

Oh, look! A consequence! Right there in the example I gave, and you quoted! Amazing!

How does it work in the story? Your buddy, who decided to 'call it even' for nothing, gets a visit from one of Jabba's bounty hunters, who expresses Jabba's 'disappointment' that you've chosen not to pay the money he owes, and that Jabba *knows* he had the opportunity to do so. He's not pleased, and he's reducing the time your buddy has to pay back the loan. Maybe he should 'rethink' his decision to ignore money he can use to do so. After all, "It's a nice ship, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Just as with any other Obligation which involves another person, the direct, immediate consequences don't necessarily have to accrue on the person with the Obligation. They can, instead, accrue on the person the Obligation is *to*. (e.g.: You have a family Obligation but ignore it, so something bad happens to a member of your family.)

Wait... in your games Hutts are clairsentient? They can sense credits passing between hands anywhere in the universe? Holy hell they are bad ass in your game. I think this is where much of the misunderstanding comes... you play in a super hero game and we are playing Star Wars.

In your world, Hutts know instantly when PC's hand each other credits in the middle of space, aboard their own ships, in a private deal between two people. More so, they can focus out there visions from the quadrillion living beings they monitor at all times down to just the two people exchanging credits at that very moment. That is impressive indeed.

More so, on top of that, in your games, they *know* that any money exchanged between two people in the dead of space was instinctively *their* money, even though the obligation roll involving them never came up. ****, I am really wishing I could be in your games now. I want to play young Magneto.

Sadly, both sides of this arguement have some good points and food for thought, but it's so buried under all the veiled insults and campy over the top retorts that no one will ever be able to dig them out and use them.

I suggest we let this thread die and fade away instead of bumping it to the top of the list constantly where it might detour other people from having civil conversations here.

My threads always have the best of luck. xD