Can the same NPC be both an Ally and Enemy to a PC?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by hal

Being an enemy isn't gauged by how nice/nasty he/she/it is at any given time - it is about what their intentions are and how they're going about it.

Being an Enemy in GURPS terms is about the frequency and severity of them making life difficult for the PC.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Being an Enemy in GURPS terms is about the frequency and severity of them making life difficult for the PC.

Yeah, so hal's example might count as a GURPS enemy if the ostensible friend secretly caused problems for the PCs along the way. They might not know that he was the source of the problems, but mishaps happen, ambushers have good intel, the inn burns down, the wine sours, etc. This might be a fun way for the GM to handle an unknown enemy (B135).

If it's a long campaign arc sort of thing where a lot of time passes before anything bad happens, then that's just an NPC doing his nasty thing. PCs don't get new disadvantages every time they are double-crossed by an NPC.

Having said that, I guess I have rarely "awarded" an official enemy disadvantage to a PC, but that feels different than the usual array of antagonistic factions and individuals. It's usually a group penalty for an adventure gone awry or an individual penalty for an ill-thought-out action ("I pickpocket the king!"). Hmm. Do others add lots of enemy disads to the PCs over time?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Hmm. Do others add lots of enemy disads to the PCs over time?

In my game PCs tend to have a lot of enemies, but not Enemies. The distinction being that an Enemy:

1. Has a defined Power relative to the PCs, and thus gains experience and power as the PCs do.
2. Has a frequency of appearance.

For lower-case enemies, I don't forget about them, but it's more like PCs have a single Enemy of 'random people I ****** off in the past, as powerful, 9-'.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Being an Enemy in GURPS terms is about the frequency and severity of them making life difficult for the PC.

I wanted to mull over my response to this comment - hence the delay.

You bring up a valid point in the sense that there is a difference between "Enemy" and "enemy". Those gained through game play vs those that the player started off with.

How exactly does one handle the issue of "Secret Enemy"? Does the GM tell the player "oh, by the way, take extra points for your character, because he has a secret enemy"? Does the player tell the GM "hey, I want a secret Enemy, make one up for me but don't tell me anything ok?"

What of those enemies that the player acquires during game play? Every time they appear in the story is a function of their "activation" value, so my question then is, what is the difference between an acquired enemy whose frequency value is 9, who acts as a Benefactor in lieu of his planning outright malicious acts - all to set up the player character for the final utter betrayal - and one whose frequency is 9, who LIVES to make life difficult for the player character?

In the end? I can see where you are going with this line initially, but it just doesn't feel right. In a GURPS FANTASY campaign, if the secret enemy hates the guts of the player character and the empathy advantage is used on the secret enemy, or know emotions - the hatred would still be there behind all of his surface thoughts. Even if the NPC weren't actively thinking about betrayal, his emotions would still end up betraying his real thoughts overall.

So - I can respect your take on it, but - as a GM who has had to think on the issues for his own players, this one feels more in line with what the "reality" of the circumstances are, and the best fit of the rules. Every single time the hidden enemy helps his planned victim, secretly, he wants to rip the eyes out, stomp on the man's most pain inducing locations, engage in slow torture, etc - but out loud he says "Sure thing" with a smile and does his best to keep the unsuspecting victim in the dark.

[hal]

One more thing while I'm thinking about it...

I almost never allow "Ally Group"where all allies in the group are identical. Say what? Likewise, I keep every enemy separate instead of lumping them together in a group. Why? They are acting out of concert with any other enemies. Their efforts aren't coordinated. As a consequence, that bit of the SJGames rules for GURPS is "modified" by my "house rule" mentality. ;)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by hal

How exactly does one handle the issue of "Secret Enemy"? Does the GM tell the player "oh, by the way, take extra points for your character, because he has a secret enemy"? Does the player tell the GM "hey, I want a secret Enemy, make one up for me but don't tell me anything ok?"

A secret GM-assigned Enemy is usually a campaign hook, and is accounted for in the starting point budget, not as a distinct disadvantage. A secret Enemy on the character sheet will typically have some details, describing the type of trouble the enemy causes for the PC, it just doesn't clearly identify who the Enemy actually is.

Originally Posted by hal

What of those enemies that the player acquires during game play? Every time they appear in the story is a function of their "activation" value

Enemies acquired during play don't normally have an activation value.

Originally Posted by hal

, so my question then is, what is the difference between an acquired enemy whose frequency value is 9, who acts as a Benefactor in lieu of his planning outright malicious acts - all to set up the player character for the final utter betrayal - and one whose frequency is 9, who LIVES to make life difficult for the player character?

The first is usually a plot seed, but if it needs game mechanics, it's a patron or ally plus potential disadvantage (lose ally, gain enemy); GURPS doesn't have an explicit potential disadvantage, but based on things like Secret it's generally half value, so ally [X] plus potential disadvantage (lose ally, gain enemy [X]) has a net point value of [0]. The second is a regular enemy.

Enemy or ally is based on actions, not feelings. A Unwilling ally (B38) is often an Enemy based on feelings.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Actually the more I think about it more I think that you just can't have an Enemy who is also an Ally because the whole point of an Ally is that paying the points for a (self-willed) Ally is paying for a guarantee that the character will never turn on you unless you turn on your Ally first. . You can have an Enemy who seems to be friendly to you, maybe even one who will be genuinely friendly to you when it hasn't rolled it's appearance as an Enemy but it's not your Ally because an Ally can be relied upon.

From recent fiction, have a look at Captain America: Civil War, or the relationship between Punisher and Daredevil.

A GURPS Enemy doesn't have to be someone who hates you (although that's the simplest approach), but someone who interferes in what you want to do. If you're the Punisher, the No-Kill Pacifism Daredevil will show up to stop you dropping bodies, but then fight by your side when the whole city is being threatened. Likewise for Captain America- Iron Man is your buddy, until some maniac tells him that your other buddy killed his mother.

Enemy could also be a teen superhero's parents who would ground him if they found his superduds, or even worse if you follow some of the X-Men character backgrounds.

[coronatiger]

Originally Posted by hal

As I considered the question from the original poster, I got to wondering - how would one classify an individual who appears to be the nice guy, who is doing everything he can do to be the perfect ally. Yes, there is more to this question because...

The "nice guy" is really working his way into the inner circle of "trusted friends". His intent is to be the ultimate betrayer who will make you pay for some misdeed - something along the lines of killing/enslaving/damaging every single child you shall ever have, every woman who ever loved you, and destroy your reputation for all time.

In all aspects, he seems to be the perfect ally. But his intentions are complete, utter destruction from the vantage of a "trusted one".

To me, that's an enemy by intent, even if he acts like an ally 99.99% of the time. Being an enemy isn't gauged by how nice/nasty he/she/it is at any given time - it is about what their intentions are and how they're going about it.

In the end? As GM, it is up to you to make a ruling you feel comfortable with - not only as a GM, but also as an audience to the improvisational theater that your players put up there for you to enjoy ;)

As a GM, I would never allow this "ally" as a player-suggested Advantage/Disadvantage. That would undermine the secrecy of the eventual betrayal. If I wanted such an NPC in my campaign, I would let the players interact with the NPC during one or more sessions, and if everything goes according to plan, I'd say something like: "Alice, since you've been so nice to Slim Jim since you met him, he now considers you a true friend. Add him as a 5-point Ally on you character sheet and adjust your point total. Bob and Charlie: He likes you too, but since I only want to make one appearance roll each adventure, only Alice writes him down. He'll help everyone when the roll succeeds." When the players discover the betrayal: "Slim Jim has betrayed you! Alice, change him from Ally to Enemy with these characteristics..."

After character creation, giving a player an Ally or Enemy doesn't affect the character's other stats. It's not like they can get a -10 point Enemy and add +1 ST at the same time. (Like they can at character creation.)

Since RPGs are cooperative games (at least when I am the GM), Allies and Enemies are helping/hindering everyone. If for instance Alice's character needs to hide in an attic for a week while her Enemy searches for her, many of her skills and Advantages will be unavailable to the rest of the team for that duration.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Enemy or ally is based on actions, not feelings. A Unwilling ally (B38) is often an Enemy based on feelings.

The difference between an Unwilling Ally and Willing Ally is not "feelings" as you put it, but the fact that the Ally has no choice. What ever reason the unwilling ally is your ally, stems from the fact that once the coercive restriction is removed, he is no longer your ally, and may even become able to act as an enemy.

Having someone who has the trait "Dependents" and then holding the dependents hostage, forces the individual with dependents to become an unwilling ally. Remove the hostage situation, and the individual may be free to attack the person who coerced such behavior. If he's a pacifist, then he will simply think "What goes around comes around, I hope you get yours someday soon" and then leaves.

But again, it boils down to each GM having their own perception of what they think is human behavior, and what rules within GURPS BASIC SET CHARACTERS best fits.

The real problem if you will, is this from page 36:

Many fictional heroes have partners – loyal comrades, faithful sidekicks, trusted retainers, or lifelong friends – who accompany them on
adventures. These partners are “Allies.”

It goes on to discuss what Player Characters are relative to "Allies" as defined in GURPS as an advantage. It uses the word "Unreliable" - which when you get right down to it, is a defining aspect of "Ally". They are if nothing else, RELIABLE. But note too, that the rules for Ally include something VERY specific - you may not earn bonus character points if you betray or attack your ally. So an ally who is also your enemy - what then? It then goes on to state that blatant abuse or betrayal of the trust results in the loss of the Ally. Hell, the moment the ally is your enemy, should be grounds then and there to state "He's not your ally"!

As for Enemies, you're right. Enemies actively work against you during the adventure(s). But here is the tricky part in all of this. GURPS has Allies as an all or nothing affair where they are absolutely trust worthy. The original Poster was asking about what happens when the relationship between a player character and an NPC is somewhere between absolute white and absolute black (so to speak). From my read, Allies as an advantage precludes one from attacking the other - or the trust vanishes.

In all, a grey area that the original poster was well within his rights to question. My read is - no. Either the ally is an ally, or he isn't.

Now, what happens if/when, an ally finds himself in a position where he is being coerced into acting against the best interests of his friend? What then? Initially, if the player character is unaware of the coercion, he may take it as a betrayal and the trust is gone. Later, upon discovery of the circumstances, as a TRUE friend, he may forgive his buddy for the betrayal saying something like "I understand why, and it is what I'd have done if I were in your shoes". But I largely suspect what would have to happen is that what ever it was the coerced the erstwhile ally into becoming a temporary enemy - be removed from the picture. Worse? That implicit trust has been replaced with "yeah, I know that I can't trust him implicitly, because if he ever gets blackmailed/coerced again, I can expect him to turn on me". That seems to violate the actual belief as stated in the description for Ally. <shrug>

So, I try to keep an open mind for alternative interpretations where I can concede they're "viable" (aka honestly held beliefs). As it happens, my "belief" based on the wording, is that no, you can't have an Ally who is also an enemy.

But - as you so succinctly pointed out, my interpretation of an enemy who is in the long haul, going to be the ultimate betrayer doesn't quite fit the description of "actively plotting and causing problems" either. So, my "grey area" circumstance doesn't entirely fit the description of a false ally per the GURPS description.

I did note (as a nod to Daigoro) the fact that some "Allies" will at times, cause problems, but Allies try to talk you out of a course of action they feel is wrong. They can argue with you. They can get you into trouble. In the Captain America thingie (I don't much follow comics - so forgive me on that!) - having a Superhero who interferes with you simply killing in a wanton fashion - but does so without attacking you outright, seems to be in keeping with what GURPS stipulates. Now for the $64,000. If a player character suffers from Berserk, does the act of attacking the berserker in an effort to immobilize him from causing irreparable damage/death - qualify as undermining the implicit trust feature of the "Ally" description? I largely suspect the answer is "No" - but hey, that's just me playing the devil's advocate. ;)

[FenrisLoki]

How about modeling this as an Enemy with a Limitation (not while the world is under threat). You'd have to figure out a frequency of that, maybe use the guides in Power Ups 8.

The problem with this approach is that you have just one frequency of appearance.