[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

By now, an assortment of books provides a spectrum of 'permanence' or 'stickiness' for social (and other) traits. There's the One Use Ever traits at 1/5 cost; there's the Informal -50% modifier that makes losing the trait simpler; then there's the normal, unmodified trait; and finally, for cases where the trait in question is linked to a specific job, there's Tenure to keep a hold of it with a better 'grip'.

However, I wonder about some nuances of those adjustments, and where the lines are drawn between them. Let's say the social trait in question is Legal Immunity.

For a One Use Ever trait, does that mean that the trait kicks in as soon as the PC commits (and is caught in) an act that is normally illegal, but covered by the Legal Immunity? Or does it mean that the PC may opt to get out of jail free when seems appropriate once?

Informal, -50%: just how likely it is that the trait would be revoked? Obviously a Legal Immunity that is revoked at the first ethically dubious act is useless, OTOH it's not clear how far it can be pushed? Tenure is an even more curious case here, since Tenure basically is a form of immunity to sudden revocation of a certain privilege (a job).

Normal trait: how hard is it to lose a normal social trait by default in the course of a campaign? E.g. G'Kar lost his Legal Immunity when Narn was conquered by the Centauri; that's essentially a loss of 20 points through no fault of G'Kar's.

Tenure + position that provides Rank / Immunity / etc.: my GM okayed this idea of 'cementing' a trait like that when I presented it, and I would 99% likely okay this combination in my campaigns too, unless there's something we overlooked. Did we?

Thanks in advance!