Hi all,

Just about to start a new campaign. All of my PCs are in a row except one.

This player has created a lovely Chiss BH as per new EtU stats and is almost ready, but she and I are having trouble with her chosen Obligation

We are trying to make her addicted to violence. No complicated back story (she doesn't play that way). She chose the addiction OB, and wants to use violence as her drug of choice, thus her career as a BH (she didn't much care for Hired Gun).

How do I treat this? How does she increase her OB? How does she decrease it?

I know that I can do things like add increasing SB dice as the time lapse between combat encounters lengthens. I can give her SB dice or increased/upgraded difficulties in social situations where violence could be a possible progression or end result, as the party may be trying to avoid that, or as she may be trying to avoid that.

So...thoughts? Ideas?

Thanks in advance.

This might work better as an Obsession, but that's up to the player.

If the Obligation is triggered and the character doesn't indulge in it, the stress of not doing violence will wear at the character and can cause the Obligation to increase.

Resolving/reducing this Obligation is easy - indulge the need for violence. Don't be surprised if this gets you other Obligations.

Just my opinion, but I advise against having a bloodthirsty character like this. They tend to get really disruptive.

I'd say, if violence is some bizarre hobby to her, then Obsession would be the better choice; but if she's gripped by some uncontrollable urge, and suffers some kind of withdrawal symptom between brawls, then I think Addiction is the way to go.

The Obligation level ought to be a measure of how well she's managing her Addiction. I'd only throw the withdrawal symptoms at her when her Obligation triggers. With low obligation, she can go longer between fights; at high obligation, she'll be looking for a face to punch almost every session.

Paying it down can involve treatment of some sort (therapy, counselling, etc.) or it could be non-destructive outlets for her violent urges (registration in a pit-fighting tournament or the like).

I'd increase Obligation every time she "uses". That is, every time she initiates unnecessary violence or takes it too far. The run-of-the-mill violent encounters ought be treated as "quick fixes" to tide her over until the next big fight.

As long as she's attempting some semblance of control over her addiction, the character ought to be playable. If this is just an excuse to go murderhobo on every NPC who passes, then I'd agree with HappyDaze and recommend looking for an alternative.

I have a very negative, visceral reaction to increasing Addiction Obligation every time the subject character "relapses," since not relapsing has mechanical consequences as well. That's just my personal thing though. If the character wants to play an addict and risk life, limb, and creds for drugs, I think that's just as valid a choice as having a bounty hunter after them or a clingy family, and playing along with the Obligation shouldn't make that Obligation worse somehow.

If I had a player with an Addiction Obligation, triggering it would probably entail one's supplier getting pinched by the Empire and either having to bust them out or find a new dealer; one's stash of drugs turning out to be impurely made, necessitating the character get some medical treatment (above and beyond what their Doctor buddy might be able to provide) and then find a new source of purer drugs, maybe even getting even with their dealer in the process; being targeted as an addict for theft of the drugs by another party who wants to resell.

Unfortunately, none of these ideas really applies to an Addiction to Violence.

I have to think that the violence addiction thing is an excuse to play a murderhobo. I'm not inherently against characters who don't care about killing, but I don't know how the trigger of this would really come into play if the character can just go into any cantina bar, start a brawl, and get her "fix." Especially as a combat career, it sounds like a negative on paper only.

This is a situation though where i might tie one Obligation to another. Perhaps the character, in her violent past, badly injured or killed someone in a brawl who was much more connected than the average ganger. Perhaps they were some planetary noble's kid playing the rebel, perhaps their uncle is a local Moff and news about his nephew getting beaten up has made him lose face with his political rivals, i.e. "you can't even keep your family safe, how are you supposed to police this sector." The Empire's Violent Crimes Task Force or whatever could be tracking the character's indulgences to find a pattern and a perp to arrest. The injured party sends a bounty hunter to get even. Even worse if the injured party is human and alleges they were attacked by a non-human - the Empire would be less likely to just stand for that, and while the upper echelons are Sith, they all have an interest in maintaining law and order for the masses.

But to me, this is a lot less workable than an Addiction to glitterstim or booster blue, and it could very easily be an excuse to play chaotic stupid.

Yeah, this doesn't sound cool to me either. I don't like 'Obligations as Motivations' anyway, I think Obligations, if used, should be external forces.

An Obligation which dealt with the consequences of a previous psychotic bout, sure (Betrayal, Criminal, Bounty Hunters, etc).

But this just sounds like it would end up somewhere bad. Not many SW characters or bounty hunters are psychotic.

I had a character that was vaguely similar - his hobby was playing video games, knitting and murder. No - seriously, Kiran was a very broken, disturbed person who honestly liked killing Imperials of all stripes and figured that he was a person with limited shelf life, that there was a blaster was out there with his name on it and he might as well take as many with him as he could. Eventually, the other characters were able to reign in his darker side and focus all that destructive energy into something else. He'll still drop stormtroopers without blinking, but he's not quite as self destructive as he once was.

Mind you, this was under the D6 Engine and we didn't have obligation running his life. However, I could easily see Kiran having a 20 points of "Obsession: Murderous rage" and the therapy of the other characters (plus a girlfriend), dealing with a personal nemesis and finding purpose in life was the story arc that would have brought that down to the 5 points it now is.

You say that she doesn't like complicated back story - which is fine - but why is her character the way it is? Is it true Sociopathy, where something is wired wrong in her brain and she only gets her kicks hurting others? Or did something happen to her that made her lash out like that? If its just psychosis, there may not be a way to buy it down (aside from surgery? I'm not up on my sociopath treatments). But if it springs from something external, confronting that source would probably be the way to go.

Just my opinion, but I advise against having a bloodthirsty character like this. They tend to get really disruptive.

Hot ****. I agree with HD. Must be a xmas miracle.

Just a thought: This could be a player wanting to insure there's plenty of action in the session and hedging her bets.

A session full of library visits and civil conversation isn't for everyone. It sounds to me like you've got someone who wants to run and gun which is perfectly valid. This is Star Wars not Star Trek after all. If you can convience her that you will provide plenty of action, she might feel less inclined to have an obligation of violence.

Good responses so far, thank you.

A little context, perhaps.

We'll call this player...Susan. Or S'uus'aan, for the sake of the universe.

Susan is not a role-player. She likes the game. She loves playing. She enjoys the escapism and the adventure. She is socially awkward, and she is new to tabletop (less than a year). She is very creative on the battlefield and improvises well during combat. She is not an RPer. She creates characters who are socially awkward and don't talk much. Because reasons.

I have absolutely no problem with this, because week after week she shows up and has a good time. Week after week she escapes her reality of kids, job and a husband and real life. We all laugh and play and have a great time. We have RPers. We have a "face." She is the trigger, the sharp end.

Life is good. We came to the point where she had to create a PC and that was no problem, but when we got to obligation she presented me with this nugget of inspiration: her BH was addicted to violence. Based on the yes, and..." approach, I said sure!

My only problem is how do I deal with that? She is a creative person and a voracious reader, but cannot get the inspiration she needs to create a PC with a multi-dimensional background. So she identifies with the best thing she likes about RPGs: the combat. I don't think she is really trying to be the murder-hobo. She is happy if their is one combat encounter per session. She doesn't go out of her way to incite violence. She just wants a little excitement each week to balance out the investigation and plot. Am I making excuses? Perhaps, but it's the truth. Lucky for me, EotE moves quickly and so far, I have been able to get a good combat encounter in each week (context there is, we play once a week from 6-9pm at our FLGS).

So far, I agree with obligation as an external force. I like the plot hooks of past transgressions having a negative impact on current activities. I am still stuck on the idea that indulging the obsession/addiction lowers the obligation. As a negative force in the PCs life, shouldn't this raise the OB?

Seeking professional help, managing the problem. That could definitely go places...

Good call, Dbuntu. We were writing at the same time. See above, if you haven't already.

So far, I agree with obligation as an external force. I like the plot hooks of past transgressions having a negative impact on current activities. I am still stuck on the idea that indulging the obsession/addiction lowers the obligation. As a negative force in the PCs life, shouldn't this raise the OB?

Seeking professional help, managing the problem. That could definitely go places...

The rating of an Obligation is mostly about how it's weighing on you *right now*. That's why a Debt Obligation can rise and fall without the amount of the Debt itself changing. Because of this, giving in to the Addiction is like making good on paying towards the Debt, and this will help reduce the Obligation. Conversely, fighting against your Addiction is like trying to wriggle out of your Debt and is likely to cause the you more stress and this is represented by the Obligation increasing.

The 'negative force' here is that the Obligation drives the character to do things he might not want to do (if it's things the character wants to do, then it's most likely a Motivation). An Addiction to Violence (or an Obsession with Violence) is likely to drive the character to do things that, while they might make him/her feel better (thus keeping the Addition/Obsession in check), lead to picking up other Obligations (often Criminal).

My only problem is how do I deal with that? She is a creative person and a voracious reader, but cannot get the inspiration she needs to create a PC with a multi-dimensional background. So she identifies with the best thing she likes about RPGs: the combat. I don't think she is really trying to be the murder-hobo. She is happy if their is one combat encounter per session. She doesn't go out of her way to incite violence. She just wants a little excitement each week to balance out the investigation and plot.

Here, go take a look at this: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/86560-how-to-build-an-awesome-character-in-50ish-steps/

Now admittedly, having her answer all 50 questions is probably overkill - however, you could easily prune that list down to 15 or so questions that she should have no problem filling out. That might be enough for you to give you some background for to kick your GM brain into overdrive - especially if you focus on the nemesis and conflict questions and family details.

So far, I agree with obligation as an external force. I like the plot hooks of past transgressions having a negative impact on current activities. I am still stuck on the idea that indulging the obsession/addiction lowers the obligation. As a negative force in the PCs life, shouldn't this raise the OB?

Seeking professional help, managing the problem. That could definitely go places...

The rating of an Obligation is mostly about how it's weighing on you *right now*. That's why a Debt Obligation can rise and fall without the amount of the Debt itself changing. Because of this, giving in to the Addiction is like making good on paying towards the Debt, and this will help reduce the Obligation. Conversely, fighting against your Addiction is like trying to wriggle out of your Debt and is likely to cause the you more stress and this is represented by the Obligation increasing.

The 'negative force' here is that the Obligation drives the character to do things he might not want to do (if it's things the character wants to do, then it's most likely a Motivation). An Addiction to Violence (or an Obsession with Violence) is likely to drive the character to do things that, while they might make him/her feel better (thus keeping the Addition/Obsession in check), lead to picking up other Obligations (often Criminal).

The problem with this approach is the general assumption that characters will want their Obligations to end and work toward that goal. That is, in part, why some of the RAW Obligations can be really terrible in implementation, for the reasons Maelora often mentions. Especially with tangible vs intangible Obligations.

Paying down your debt sensibly will reduce your Debt Obligation. Killing or buying off bounty hunters or the person hiring them might sensibly reduce your Bounty Obligation. Paying bribes to keep your Criminal Obligation stalled in court and reducing it as the authorities start to care less about keeping it on docket makes sense.

Taking the drugs you're addicted to = reduction of Addiction Obligation? Makes no sense.

Helping your family = reduction of Family Obligation? Makes no sense.

Living up to your Oath of the Sith Code = reduction of Oath Obligation? Makes no sense.

Acquiring fancy speeders as part of your obsession = reduction of Obsession Obligation? Makes no sense.

Tending to your ancestral land as part of a duty = reduction of Dutybound Obligation? Makes no sense.

I will check out the link, thanks.

I think what I need to do is make an obsession/addiction obligation a gateway to a new addiction. Perhaps I can get her to find a new obligation as her character is played/developed. That way I don't ask too much of her at the front end, and she doesn't feel the stress of having to be as creative as the rest of the group (who BTW, are all fleshed out and very creative).

We can work toward a way of her decreasing the violent side of her PC, whilst inversely increasing some other aspect of how the PC takes on obligation. This would make use of the consequences of that way of life as posted earlier. Karma would rear its head and create criminal, bounty or debt obligations from past transgressions.

This has all been very productive, thank you. I have been wrestling with this throughout my quiet moments of the holidays, and finally had to ask for some outside assistance.

So to further the train of thought, how would you deal with some of Kshatriya's issues about some of the less tangible obligations?

Obviously, I found myself confronted by the addiction/obsession obligation, which seems to entice the sufferer into feeding into something that overall has a negative impact on a character's life.

Taking the drugs you're addicted to = reduction of Addiction Obligation? Makes no sense.

Helping your family = reduction of Family Obligation? Makes no sense.

Living up to your Oath of the Sith Code = reduction of Oath Obligation? Makes no sense.

Acquiring fancy speeders as part of your obsession = reduction of Obsession Obligation? Makes no sense.

Tending to your ancestral land as part of a duty = reduction of Dutybound Obligation? Makes no sense.

In all of your examples it does make sense if you remember that Obligation is how much the issue weighs upon you *right now*. So, for each of those, you've 'payed your dues' (or 'gotten your fix' in the case of drug addiction) so that issue can fade into the background for a time. It doesn't mean that the Obligation is gone, just that you're able to focus on other things for awhile.

Here is my advice, for what it's worth. Perhaps I will be lucky and that amount with end up with at least the 2 cents it is routinely given. The math I use will assume she has a 20 point obligation, though the amount used is mostly irrelevant as this will work with any amount of obligation.

Wait until an opportune moment in the fiction of the story (for example, she finds herself in an old school bar brawl in a cantina), and I would do the following:

Tell the player

"Boy, you guys completely trashed that cantina last night, which you remember (Barely) after waking on your ship with a hang-over. You find the action-light flashing on your ships computer. It's a recorded message from the owner of the cantina. You activate the message and over the static you hear the twi'lek's accented voice "man, you louts completely trashed my bar! half the tables are broken and even more of the chairs! You will be paying my damages, you brutes!

Then take "susan's" Obligation to Addiction to violence and cut it in half (after all, she is starting to see how random acts of violence cause trouble). Use the half you cut to add a new obligation: Debt. As a rule, I use (for monetary Obligations) the figure of 5,000 credits per point of Obligation. So here chart USE to look like this:

• 20 Point Obligation: Addicted to violence

Now her chart looks like this:

• 10 Point Obligation: Addicted to violence
• 10 Point Obligation: Debt (5,000 credits per point to pay off)

This is explained in the fiction. The character is realizing that her pention for violence leads her and her team into trouble, some they don't want to have to deal with, other forms they may not BE ABLE to deal with...yet. Further, they now have to pay the cantina owner for the mess they helped make of the bar.

Of course, first talk this stuff over with that player and make sure she is ok with it. Not only does it help "desolve" some of the original goal, but because you gave it a monetary value, she now will know what she can do to over come that part of the Obligation.

2 cents cashed in.

Here is my advice, for what it's worth. Perhaps I will be lucky and that amount with end up with at least the 2 cents it is routinely given. The math I use will assume she has a 20 point obligation, though the amount used is mostly irrelevant as this will work with any amount of obligation.

Wait until an opportune moment in the fiction of the story (for example, she finds herself in an old school bar brawl in a cantina), and I would do the following:

Tell the player

"Boy, you guys completely trashed that cantina last night, which you remember (Barely) after waking on your ship with a hang-over. You find the action-light flashing on your ships computer. It's a recorded message from the owner of the cantina. You activate the message and over the static you hear the twi'lek's accented voice "man, you louts completely trashed my bar! half the tables are broken and even more of the chairs! You will be paying my damages, you brutes!

Then take "susan's" Obligation to Addiction to violence and cut it in half (after all, she is starting to see how random acts of violence cause trouble). Use the half you cut to add a new obligation: Debt. As a rule, I use (for monetary Obligations) the figure of 5,000 credits per point of Obligation. So here chart USE to look like this:

• 20 Point Obligation: Addicted to violence

Now her chart looks like this:

• 10 Point Obligation: Addicted to violence
• 10 Point Obligation: Debt (5,000 credits per point to pay off)

This is explained in the fiction. The character is realizing that her pention for violence leads her and her team into trouble, some they don't want to have to deal with, other forms they may not BE ABLE to deal with...yet. Further, they now have to pay the cantina owner for the mess they helped make of the bar.

Of course, first talk this stuff over with that player and make sure she is ok with it. Not only does it help "desolve" some of the original goal, but because you gave it a monetary value, she now will know what she can do to over come that part of the Obligation.

2 cents cashed in.

If the characters have no personal connection to the cantina owner, they may simply not care about the damages they cause, and thus that 'Debt' isn't really a debt. The owner would be better off filing criminal charges (if he can) or sending whoever he pays his protection money to after the characters instead.

That's true, though basically it works the same. Perhaps the characters DONT care about the cantina or it's own. When that Obligation rolls doubles and a bounty hunter shows up to "collect a payment" the will care...at least they will eventually. But you could just as eaily replace "debt" with "criminal" (if official charges were filed or a variety of other things.

That's true, though basically it works the same. Perhaps the characters DONT care about the cantina or it's own. When that Obligation rolls doubles and a bounty hunter shows up to "collect a payment" the will care...at least they will eventually. But you could just as eaily replace "debt" with "criminal" (if official charges were filed or a variety of other things.

How much does that cantina owner make that he can soak up 50k credits in damages and then still pay a bounty hunter to hunt down the guy that wronged him? People make claims all the time about bounty hunters being sent after PCs, but most of the time it's just not going to happen. Only big names - corporations, governments (local and the Empire), and crime lords - are likely to have the option of calling on bounty hunters, and even then it needs to be economically feasible or else the guy you offended doesn't care about throwing away money, but that's less likely to happen with regularity.

For the most part, agreed. However, it was only meant as an example to our friend with the issue (original poster) as one possibility that I came up with off the top of my head which means there are dozens of other similar fixes for what he wants to accomplish, without needing to retcon anything, which I personally hate to do (though have a few times, just not in EotE...yet)

This has the potential to get wildly out of control, so use with caution.

Edit, TLDR version: When her Obligation is in the limelight, increase it if she's unnecessarily violent and decrease it if she has a chance to go berserk but doesn't.

Every time she gives in to her addiction, increase her OB score. Chances are, it'll increase at least once a session. If you want to reign that in a bit, only increase it when the roll indicates it's her OB triggering that session. Either way, her OB is going to be the bulk of the groups total. RP-wise, the rest of the party should be worried and preparing an intervention. Once her OB is 40-50% of the group's total OB, have the group weigh in and talk to her character, or to borrow from Firefly, have the Captain threaten to blow her out an airlock or burn her up in the atmosphere if she doesn't get herself under control. There's heavy potential for roleplay here, even if she isn't an RPer; just make sure she knows so she doesn't think the group is coming down on her personally instead of their PCs coming down on her PC.

I'm assuming she's not actively trying to railroad the campaign into the ground, so this should work. If not, then the potential detriment of hitting >100 Obligation (can't spend XP) should be enough to keep her from giving in to violence at every opportunity.

The problem is really in the suggestions posed to creating negative consequences for giving in to the Addiction mechanic. People re proposing giving in creating negative mechanical consequences, while not giving in does as well (multiple Setback dice). It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. I haven't seen anyone suggesting increasing the Addiction Obligation when it's triggered and you have to score some booster blue.

The trouble with an addiction to violence is that the violence has every potential to be inflicted on the party. A well chosen obligation will have the players group together to sort and solve, a poorly chosen obligation will distill distrust and form splits in a party.

Having an obligation trigger while the party is in their spaceship or alone, how does this create a situation for the players to solve as a group?

Besides, given that many adventures will involve violence, how meaningful is the obligation? OK group you killed 5 NPC's that session, so Sussan can reduce her obligation by 5 points. Obligation is meant to be increased, decreased, bought off and sold on.

I agree with whoever it was that suggested this be a motivation. Perhaps however, the intent is that she is more of a vigilante and will use violence against criminals and will be very helpful towards the victims of criminal acts. Helping a Wookie slave escape pursuit or a dancer who is being assaulted in the Mos Espa cantina are going to be adventure seeds.

These are valid points. It was posited earlier that instead of her "giving in" to violence increasing her addiction/obsession obligation, that it would start/increase a new obligation, for instance Criminal. This would reflect that by giving in to her problem for no reason/silly reasons, that it would have negative impact elsewhere, like Karma.

Therefore, holding herself in check in situations where violence is an unnecessary temptation would decrease her Addiction/Obsession obligation. This would reflect the evolution of her PC as she gets herself under control.

Starting with 10 OB in Addiction (or Obsession, haven't decided yet), after a few sessions it might look like 8 points of Addiction but add 3 points of criminal, as her violent ways draw the attention of local law enforcement

After a few successful sessions that might change further: 5 Addiction, 5 Criminal, and maybe even 5 Debt, as she might owe someone for getting her out of a jam she got the party into by "losing it."

Long term, that Addiction will disappear, as her PC evolves into an experienced Bounty Hunter Assassin who has taken a penchant for violence and channelled it into something more constructive. Mechanically, it is a subtle plan to be rid of an Obligation idea that has caused me no small amount of difficulty.

The benefit is, we all got to enjoy this enlightening thread, which helped me get right into the philosophy behind this wonderful and pivotal mechanic in the FFG Star Wars Universe!

Thank you all for your input.

The problem is really in the suggestions posed to creating negative consequences for giving in to the Addiction mechanic. People re proposing giving in creating negative mechanical consequences, while not giving in does as well (multiple Setback dice). It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. I haven't seen anyone suggesting increasing the Addiction Obligation when it's triggered and you have to score some booster blue.

I think a number of people here are just taking their real-world experience with addiction or addicts and performing the uncomfortable task of squeezing it into a game mechanic. I know at one point in recent history, I would have taken a black sharpie to the whole Addiction section and pretend it was never written; it just wasn't something I would have considered a fun roleplay scenario.

To your point, I do think that using booster blue (or any substance) increases Obligation. It might have the short term effect of removing the setback dice, but it also increases the risk that the addict will soon spiral out of control. The next time the Obligation triggers, there would be more setback dice, or maybe those harmful health effects start creeping in. At the third trigger, the PC reaches a crisis point; possibly rock bottom.

Ignoring the Obligation trigger, to my mind, amounts to quitting "cold turkey." It might be possible, but it ought to involve progressively difficult Resilience checks. Maybe, Hard for the first trigger, Daunting for the second, and Formidable for the third. Three successes means the PC was able to take a significant chunk out of that Obligation and things are pretty well under control.

The more direct (and probably easier) route to reducing Addiction Obligation ought to be spending credits on either treatment or settling the urges through non-destructive means. This could be medical treatment for a booster blue addict, or "socially acceptable" outlets for a violence addict.

I dunno, I think there are much more interesting things that can be done when an Addiction Obligation triggers than saying "you have a craving for your drug of choice." Though I'm starting to see how using could/should increase that Obligation's value, as it's just making the problem worse.