can you drop a benefit of an Ally to drop a drawback of a Dependent?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

What would even be the point of spending points on making an already rabidly devoted NPC into an Ally?

So the GM is obligated to put them in your next session if you roll your FOA.

You might not have to spend anything though, SE suggests it could just be given as a RP reward from GM, kind of like bonus CP that they've chosen how to spent for you.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. An Unwilling Ally is somehow coerced into service. How could the character not know that he was using some kind of blackmail or other means of coercion?

If it was a third party rather than the PC who coerced them.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

You can't afflict a social advantage.

Seems unclear if summonable allies still count as social due to "converts from social" phrase.

If that were the case, you could always afflict Modular Abilities and use the social modifier from Powers, unless that converted MA into a social advantage.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Being in love with who zombie used to be seems like the only reasonable way to treat it as a Dependant.

What if you were just friends with whoever the zombie used to be? Or they were your old employer/employee?

Or maybe neither: maybe necromancers just get fond of their newly created minions.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Plane

If it was a third party rather than the PC who coerced them.

Then they'd be the third party's ally, not yours.

Seems unclear if summonable allies still count as social due to "converts from social" phrase.

They don't, but they don't make sense as something to afflict on people either.

What if you were just friends with whoever the zombie used to be? Or they were your old employer/employee?

Then it wouldn't make sense that you still cared about their enslaved corpse. You need something really irrational.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Then they'd be the third party's ally, not yours.

Does "You have obtained your Ally through coercion" necessarily mean YOUR coercion though?

B38 uses the example of "reporting to a demon lord" so it seems like it might also cover the demon lord you serve coercing some lesser demon to serve it's human pawn, without the human pawn using coercion directly.

The lesser demon could still hate you and direct anger at you as that's easier than at the lord. It's hard to think of them as the Lord's ally (he's an NPC he can't even have an Ally) since the demon familiar is accompany the PC not the Lord.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

They don't, but they don't make sense as something to afflict on people either.

"Priest! I bestow upon you the power to call upon one of my lesser demons to fight your enemies when the situations suits it! I'm busy so I can't be bothered in future times of need!!"

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Then it wouldn't make sense that you still cared about their enslaved corpse. You need something really irrational.

I'm not sure why you couldn't just care slightly about a corpse. When I think about the end of Shaun of the Dead for example that could just be Friend rather than Loved.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Plane

I'm not sure why you couldn't just care slightly about a corpse. When I think about the end of Shaun of the Dead for example that could just be Friend rather than Loved.

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. That was one of the jokes.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. That was one of the jokes.

Seemed like more of a comedrama, like Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I think the point stands: if you can be fond of a spouse and not want to brain them as a zombie, you could be fond of a drinking buddy and not want to brain them as a zombie either. You might even want to avoid braining an acquaintance.

[Taneli]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. That was one of the jokes.

Nah, they're best mates, easily in the love-territory.

[Daigoro]

I'm not sure of the point of this tangent. We've shown that you can have zombie Dependents, if you want to go that way, why does it matter whether they're friends, acquaintances or loved ones? It doesn't change whether the game can handle them, just their point cost.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Then they'd be the third party's ally, not yours.

I don't see a problem with an Ally that's secretly compelled by a third party.

Sobbing princeling: "What? All this time I really thought you were my friend!"

Unmasked ally: "No, your father just paid me a lot to keep you out of trouble/has my mother in bondage/holds my soul in a box on his dresser."

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I don't see a problem with an Ally that's secretly compelled by a third party.

Sobbing princeling: "What? All this time I really thought you were my friend!"

Unmasked ally: "No, your father just paid me a lot to keep you out of trouble/has my mother in bondage/holds my soul in a box on his dresser."

Not having that happen is what you pay the character points for when you buy an Ally.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Where do I find this 'twice' thing? B131 says "you must make up the bonus points you got for him"

I don't have access to my books at the moment, but I thought Dependent worked similarly to Secret - permanent failure (Secret becomes public knowledge, Dependent dies and/or* decides they want you dead for neglecting them) means you lose the original Disadvantage and end up with lost Advantages/gained Disadvantages equal to twice the value.

*Jason Todd comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Plane

My point is more that it COULD so long as whatever traits you gained in play added up to 0.

A question: what purpose would this serve at the table? In what way would this improve the experience for the players and/or the GM? Because, really, that's ultimately the only reason to modify rules - to make things better, at least to the group currently playing.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not having that happen is what you pay the character points for when you buy an Ally.

On the other hand, the possibility of that happening is what you get a discount for Unwilling for - which was under discussion here, specifically a player buying an NPC as an Ally when Loyalty is too low. Personally, in that case, if I had already determined the NPC was working for someone else, I'd likely simply tell the player he couldn't take the NPC as an Ally (perhaps simply using the excuse I don't want to have the NPC beholden to Frequency of Appearance). If for some reason I did allow it, I either wouldn't charge full price (that is, I'd apply the discount for Unwilling) or, if I couldn't manage that without giving away the NPC's nature, might give the character secret Advantage(s) to make up the difference. If the character simply hadn't acquired enough Loyalty from the NPC, however, I certainly wouldn't make an Unwilling Ally - I'd either tell the player the NPC didn't trust the character enough yet, or I'd just let the expenditure of points cover boosting the Loyalty to an acceptable level (possibly even with a BFF-bonding-moment/mini-adventure/whatever).