SOD: My girl back home.

[jason taylor]

In real life "adventuring cultures" there is a tragic yearly separation when people who have adventurous jobs leave their families behind.

This could be made to work well for Gurps in almost any genre. Give a character a strong SOD or dependant to an NPC who is not present. For instance he might feel a strong duty to survive. Or he might bring a toy back for his daughter or a piece of jewelry for his girlfriend. Or make sure he brings back enough money to justify the travail . Or be torn in loyalty between the rest of the PCs and the "girl back home". Or he might be motivated not to do certain things he might otherwise do like violate the mores of his home culture while he is away.

[The_Nightwatch]

Definitely. Add in a disadvantage guaranteed to make the situation even worse (Lecherousness, Compulsive Gambling...) and you can make your PC thoroughly tormented!

[carllarson]

Hmm, GURPS Con Air

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by The_Nightwatch

Definitely. Add in a disadvantage guaranteed to make the situation even worse (Lecherousness, Compulsive Gambling...) and you can make your PC thoroughly tormented!

Agent Smith was right.

[Kale]

Nice idea. You could create some interesting character concepts based on that.

[Mark Skarr]

I never thought of this as an original idea. It's been a standard fixture on many of our character, throughout the years, to have an NPC as a dependent (on a 6-) not be physically present for most of the campaign. This works very well as a reveal that a character may have more on their plate than they're letting on.

The idea of taking a SOD to protect a person not present seems a bit more like munchkining since that person will never be directly threatened. However, taking a Vow (stay chaste, return home, etc.) seems valid.

[Kale]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

The idea of taking a SOD to protect a person not present seems a bit more like munchkining since that person will never be directly threatened. However, taking a Vow (stay chaste, return home, etc.) seems valid.

I think maybe a low frequency dependent would be a more appropriate way to model it. It would depend on how crippling the character's behavior would be. If you have to pull out Vow then it should be fairly restrictive. A SOD to one person isn't worth much, so that's reasonable. Also, the low-frequency dependent isn't worth a lot so should still give the character a fair bit of leeway. I think it just depends on how much the character must worry about his dependent, even if he/she/it isn't there.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I never thought of this as an original idea. It's been a standard fixture on many of our character, throughout the years, to have an NPC as a dependent (on a 6-) not be physically present for most of the campaign. This works very well as a reveal that a character may have more on their plate than they're letting on.

The idea of taking a SOD to protect a person not present seems a bit more like munchkining since that person will never be directly threatened. However, taking a Vow (stay chaste, return home, etc.) seems valid.

Does SOD have to include protecting someone from physical harm when physical harm is an irrelevant consideration? There are other things to protect someone from.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

The idea of taking a SOD to protect a person not present seems a bit more like munchkining since that person will never be directly threatened. However, taking a Vow (stay chaste, return home, etc.) seems valid.

It sounds alot like a quirk to me, but then again, SoD to one person is only -2 points, so it's not a big deal either way, IMO.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Does SOD have to include protecting someone from physical harm when physical harm is an irrelevant consideration? There are other things to protect someone from.

But for a traveller about all you can do is send money home. And not that if you are in the Trojan Wars or something.