|
Does the charmed person have free will or are they simply enamamored by whatever you do or say.
They have free will per the 2nd paragraph.
Since you are a "dear friend" and the people they are fighting with may just be aquaintances, would the charmed person turn on his former allies and fight them?
Not with the 2nd paragraph.
Could you take the character into doing a favor for a good friend that might be harmful to them?
Not with the 2nd paragraph.
If you or your friends threaten them, do they react or just assume the best intentions of a dear friend.
It breaks the spell per the 2nd paragraph.
Everything in the 2nd paragraph is about what you can't do, or what you would have to do in order to do something that would be allowed if you just stopped at the first paragraph.
I think the spell can be summed up as
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
Except in the situations outlined by the 2nd paragraph.
This thread is getting lame.
I asked every single member of the two gaming groups I play in. 5 young kids who have only been playing since 3.5 on the one hand, and 4 adults who have been playing for close to 20 years on the other.
I made a reasonable effort not to tell them what my position was while letting them decide, and to ask them individually or in as small groupings as possible to try to find out what they really thought, without too much outside influence from myself or the majority view of the group.
I asked 3 of them as a trio, 2 as a pair, 1 individually and 3 individually by email.
All 9 categorically agreed with the interpretation Ciretose and I have been representing in this thread.
That's good enough for me for now.
|
I will admit that "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming" are extra restrictions for use with the spell. I agree that "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders" is a restriction for use with the spell.
However, giving orders and making commands are nothing like "talking someone into something" or "asking him to do something". What's the point of saying in the spell "you can give orders with certain restrictions" if the charmed creature is under no obligation to carry out the orders? How is that at all different from the standard course of interaction? Why doesn't it say "The requests you can make of the charmed creature are limited by these restrictions"?
I'm not saying that you can use Charm Person to force people to kill their wives, kill their kings, or jump off cliffs. I'm saying that you can tell the charmed creature to make a sandwich for you, or anything else that isn't restricted, and if they don't normally want to do it and fail at the opposed charisma check, they go and do it, because they decide they want to.
Oddly enough, after this many pages I haven't seen a middle ground that always seem to fit into my interpretations of the rules. Perhaps I glossed too quickly over somebody's response and missed it, but I'll try to offer what I feel is fair and accurate to the rules as I understand them.
For once, I mainly agree with ciretose. The spell is not powerful enough to let an opposed Charisma check order an attack on an ally on it's own. The difference being that he keeps turning an opposed Charisma roll into a Diplomacy check. I simply see these as two separate things, with one being much more difficult.
To keep this fresh on everybody's mind:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
First up, everybody agrees that the target is Friendly. This has not been debated, so accepted and moving on.
Secondly, all charmed characters are subject to social rules as normal. You can roll Diplomacy or Bluff on a charmed character just as easily as you could attempt these rolls on a non-charmed character. In fact, it would be easier now that they are friendly. I'm not certain I've seen anybody disagree with this.
Example,
"Hey, would you kill your wife for me?" Diplomacy roll. Failed
"No way!"
"But, you're actually dreaming right now. That's why you can fly (cast fly). The spirit croc told me that the key to beating ol' Banjo Greg in his fishing contest is deeply lodged in your dream wife's throat" Bluff roll. Success!
"Wow... weird dream"
"So, would you go shove your hand down your dream wife's throat? She only drops the key when she dies." Diplomacy roll. *insert dramatic suspenseful result*
Third, and the real rub that seems to be debated, there is a possibility of an opposed Charisma check. In my mind, as all opposed Charisma, this represents an attempt to force your will upon somebody through sheer personality. This is not the same as a Diplomacy check, but also, there are many stipulations.
You cannot use this ability to order obvious harm. You CAN use this ability to make them do something against their nature. Against your nature is not necessarily harmful.
For example, the target HATES cake,
"EAT CAKE!" Opposed Charisma check. Success
"Oddly enough I feel compelled to eat this horrible horrible cake."
However,
"KILL YOUR WIFE!" Opposed Charisma.... no... wait... automatic failure due to obvious harm clause
"What? No!"
You can easily use this ability to unwittingly use a charmed target to find traps as long as he doesn't feel that it will cause harm, which would be difficult as he views your words in the best possible way("Hey, go over there", "Hey, pick up and read that parchment").
In the end, you can mix and match them. Use Bluff to convince the target that he's dreaming and his wife won't actually die. THEN, you can try to order him to kill his dream wife. The obvious harm clause is no longer in effect, yet you are still ordering him to do something that he wouldn't normally do. Even killing dream wife has gotta' be weird enough to be against his typical actions.
The cost though is that it requires multiple checks as well as time in order to convince the target through the normal mundane means before the "force of personality" opposed charisma check is even possible to attempt.
For once, I mainly agree with ciretose.Come to the dark side. We have vodka, an XBox and a Wii hooked up to a projector with surround sound, and FIOS for watching movies on the big screen.
It's pretty sweet.
EDIT: And my gaming table is also a full sized pool table.
But my sheet will get all wet!
Eehhh.. it's already covered in beer and Chinese food stains. >.>
|
|
For once, I mainly agree with ciretose.Come to the dark side. We have vodka, an XBox and a Wii hooked up to a projector with surround sound, and FIOS for watching movies on the big screen.
It's pretty sweet.
EDIT: And my gaming table is also a full sized pool table.
But my sheet will get all wet!
Eehhh.. it's already covered in beer and Chinese food stains. >.>
Spilling vodka, that's a paddling...
We have a good Chinese restaurant that delivers Sushi.
|
|
Note that GrenMeera's interpretation allows you to force the subject to eat cake, even if he hates cake.
I say you can take 10 as long as you aren't allergic to chocolate.
Same outcome, different path.
I'm not saying I agree 100%, I'm saying it's close enough for government work, so not worth arguing since we get to basically the same place 95% of the time.
Should I re-enter a debate where I'll just be smashing my head against a wall? No, no I won't.
Suffice to say, I think Ciretose's belief on how Charm is very much so, wrong. An order, is an order, is an order, is an order. Someone can just say no to Diplomacy, but when I've got magic up in your head scrambling your brains, that changes how things work.
I could convince someone to do something via Diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they will do it. I can order someone to do something via Charm, and if I win the roll, they will do it because Magic is brainwashing them.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Seriously though, if a developer has even read this thread, could you at least pop in and mention if you guys will even clarify this for us? If you're not going to clarify this, just lock the thread so we can move on and play it however we want to.
This is going to sound antagonistic, but what's the point of even having a FAQ option if the Developers have decided to stop issuing FAQs? Just take the option away so we don't have to sit here hoping for a Developer to clarify a question. We can just know it's not going to happen and take the advice of other posters into consideration and choose the best advice we like.
I mean, I'm sure there's a number of people who have read this thread and are waiting on an 'official' decision, and haven't posted anything. They may have their own opinion, and may even agree with different people here, but they'll play how the Developers rule. But if you guys aren't going to be issuing FAQs anymore, then there is no point in keeping a thread dotted hoping for a ruling, when it won't be happening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think their silence is telling. We don't need them to hold it for us while we go.
You know statements like this really annoy me. They serve no purpose but to intimate that I'm a weak-willed little kid that needs someone to guide my every step. Maybe I just want clarification. Obviously this spell isn't as clear as people would think, since we've got some 400 posts arguing about it with no one side clearly in the right.
I'm perfectly fine playing the game however I decide to play it. But that doesn't mean I don't like the input of the Developers on how they say it should be ran.
But to post such a statement as you did, is, in my opinion, rather insulting to myself and others who use the FAQ button.
Some times it takes 1,000 posts before a response is given. True story.
|
|
I think their silence is telling. We don't need them to hold it for us while we go.
PaizoCon just happened, GenCon is coming up, and they are going to discuss this before providing a ruling. And it may even rise to the level of errata since the spell is written in such a way that many reasonable people have come to different many different conclusions and even some reasonable people have concluded their conclusions are broken so they house rule it...
Patience grasshopper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PaizoCon just happened, GenCon is coming up, and they are going to discuss this before providing a ruling.
Not to rain on your parade, but...
You might have noticed a pronounced decrease in rules replies from the devs and/or FAQ updates after the 'Flurry of that blows' incident a couple months ago.
So we seem to have reached a pretty solid majority consensus.
If we need anything faq'd now it would only be on the questions of
+whether situational modifiers should be applied to the opposed charisma check,
+whether to do so would be GM Fiat, a house-rule, or just the way the spell is intended to be handled,
+whether it is reasonable, because of the similar wording, to refer to the diplomacy skill for guidelines on what modifiers to apply to the opposed charisma check, and
+what constitutes "obvious harm"
Right?
Oh wait, that's where we already were in the other thread, so that's what the first post in this thread should have looked like.
Incidentally how do they handle this in PFS?
Incidentally how do they handle this in PFS?
I was recently made aware that PFS GMs will tell Witch players to not use their hexes to defeat opponents easily; which means it's probably not used at all in any version.
Could you expound on that, Ash? I'm not (well, not exactly) giving you enough rope to hang yourself with, but from what little you described there it sounds to me like PFS GMs would be fine with "Charm as magical Diplomacy," but not with "Charmed into killing your wife and kids."
I certainly haven't seen a notice that Charm Person is such a contentious spell that they won't allow it in PFS play.
Well, it probably doesn't come up in PFS because you can't play evil characters, and the characters that will be charming, probably have the text describing how they use charm.
So Charm Person isn't going to be used to make anyone kill their wife or anything, instead, it's more likely to be used to force someone to reveal information. Somethings I've noticed in watching others play PFS, is that, because they are tailored to be so 'generic' a lot of the encounters are rather easy.
In fact, the most difficult encounter I've ever actually seen, was one that had a Bard with Charm Person and used Charm Person to order victims to 'run away'. The GM only managed to hit 1 person with Charm Person successfully, (the other two made their save or won the Charisma Roll), so his character was effectively taken out of the fight as he 'ran away' for a number of hours. The one that won the opposed Charisma roll, started dishing out non-lethal damage, but the Bard was killed shortly after, then they had to beat down their ally, who was still Charmed and now angry that his allies killed his friend so he stopped using non-lethal damage. The decision to 'stop being nice' was the players, and it's fortunate that he was the one to be Charmed because he was the Rogue. I think the one that ran was also a Rogue (party of a Witch, Cleric, Fighter Rogue and Rogue), and they tended to tag team people together, while the Fighter handled others with help from the Cleric as necessary an the With debuffing.
Anyway, PFS isn't going to have much of an issue with Charm Person because the PCs have to be good or at least neutral, and the people that will use it maliciously, either use it off-screen, or will have Charm outlined in their tactics. At least, this is how it's worked out in my experience.
Could you expound on that, Ash? I'm not (well, not exactly) giving you enough rope to hang yourself with, but from what little you described there it sounds to me like PFS GMs would be fine with "Charm as magical Diplomacy," but not with "Charmed into killing your wife and kids."
I certainly haven't seen a notice that Charm Person is such a contentious spell that they won't allow it in PFS play.
Eh, I think Ashiel was being sarcastic. Someone mentioned that they didn't like the possibility of Charm being used to 1 round a boss encounter, so said they wouldn't allow it to be used that way.
Was rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.
Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Eh, I think Ashiel was being sarcastic. Someone mentioned that they didn't like the possibility of Charm being used to 1 round a boss encounter, so said they wouldn't allow it to be used that way.Could you expound on that, Ash? I'm not (well, not exactly) giving you enough rope to hang yourself with, but from what little you described there it sounds to me like PFS GMs would be fine with "Charm as magical Diplomacy," but not with "Charmed into killing your wife and kids."
I certainly haven't seen a notice that Charm Person is such a contentious spell that they won't allow it in PFS play.
Actually it was based on a poster in a thread on the boards about playing a Witch. The poster had the slumber hex and was using it on as many enemies as she could to help the party defeat them. The GM told her to stop using the slumber hex because it was being too effective.
I'd have hit that GM with a book on principle. A heavy book. Maybe Moby Dick...EDIT: Hard bound, collector's edition, in large print, on thick paper, with metal rims. Yeah...that would be about right.
Was rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Heh. Well that's pretty much the "GG" isn't it? It's been fun. Looks like the thread is over. :P
|
|
I'd have hit that GM with a book on principle. A heavy book. Maybe Moby Dick...EDIT: Hard bound, collector's edition, in large print, on thick paper, with metal rims. Yeah...that would be about right.
That cruel, cruel, GM. Adjudicating rules differently for their home game to create the style they want.
That's a paddlin'
|
|
Was rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Actually it references charm OR OTHERWISE MAGICALLY CONTROLLED.
Geas, dominate, etc...
I'd have hit that GM with a book on principle. A heavy book. Maybe Moby Dick...EDIT: Hard bound, collector's edition, in large print, on thick paper, with metal rims. Yeah...that would be about right.That cruel, cruel, GM. Adjudicating rules differently for their home game to create the style they want.
That's a paddlin'
I actually read that thread. The GM was running a PFS scenario at PaizoCon and asked the player to stop putting his bad guys asleep. Apparently, the fighters cried foul or something, because they wanted to charge all up in there; being a bad ass and taking damage but at the same time, ripping the heads from the mooks and showering in the spray of blood as it rained down in the air.
Only for the Witch to use the Slumber Hex and put them to sleep.
Here's the actual post:
At low levels the Slumber Hex is unbeatable!Witches are awesome. I would go with 20 int,as both casting and spells are based on int. Int also gives you more skills. You don't need str or charisma.
Hexes-slumber is awesome, as coup de grace is awesome.
A different point of view: slumber hex is terrible within the PFS environment. Why? While powerful, it's save-or-suck and can 'ruin' fun for others.
I played a bit of my slumber witch at PaizoCon and only used the slumber hex twice. The first time I used it, it made the two fighterish types cry as they had just moved and jostled to get into flank and killing position. (Here I was, thinking I was being helpful.)
The second time I used it, against a mook in the first fight of another mod, the GM said to me 'Please don't slumber every enemy.'
Trust me, there are better, funner options in PFS play.
Fortune, Misforture, Evil Eye, & Ward are more teamworky (and fun multiplers) and keep you involved with others which makes them MUCH better in the social PFS metagame.
Don't be like me. Be a good player instead.
Love and Snots,
Princess Isis
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the Fighters were the one being bad players. They were putting themselves over the Witch who was using her abilities to assist them, and instead wanting to do it all themselves. The witch was using teamwork and cooperation, and the Fighters were being drama queens.
At least, that's how it sounds to me. YMMV.
hat cruel, cruel, GM. Adjudicating rules differently for their home game to create the style they want.
You could at least try to read a post before you respond to it.
Was rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Actually it references charm OR OTHERWISE MAGICALLY CONTROLLED.
Geas, dominate, etc...
Please read. It's not a grammatically difficult sentence. It clearly is describing a charm as being a situation that can produce the specific occurrence. It wouldn't need to call out charm if it could not be used to create the associated condition.
EDIT: In fact, geas doesn't even apply because you do not gain new saving throws to resist a geas. Charm and dominate are effects that produce the condition, but geas does not.
|
|
Yes, because if you are ordered to harm or otherwise oppose an ally in several spells, you get an additional saving throw.
But with charm "A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend)."
and
"If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether."
But either wives and children aren't allies by your reading...
|
|
In my opinion, the Fighters were the one being bad players. They were putting themselves over the Witch who was using her abilities to assist them, and instead wanting to do it all themselves. The witch was using teamwork and cooperation, and the Fighters were being drama queens.
At least, that's how it sounds to me. YMMV.
hat cruel, cruel, GM. Adjudicating rules differently for their home game to create the style they want.You could at least try to read a post before you respond to it.
Don't be mad because you are hypocritical in your condemnation of others house rules while you expose yours as "the way".
Glass houses.
In my opinion, the Fighters were the one being bad players. They were putting themselves over the Witch who was using her abilities to assist them, and instead wanting to do it all themselves. The witch was using teamwork and cooperation, and the Fighters were being drama queens.
At least, that's how it sounds to me. YMMV.
hat cruel, cruel, GM. Adjudicating rules differently for their home game to create the style they want.You could at least try to read a post before you respond to it.Don't be mad because you are hypocritical in your condemnation of others house rules while you expose yours as "the way".
Glass houses.
And you still don't understand why what you're saying is so silly. You keep touting private game, house rules, and so forth; further illustrating you haven't read anything you're talking about. Normally I would get upset with that sort of thing, but actually, please continue. It's giving me a real laugh this time. Like, my gut is twitching with giggles, and it's kind of nice. <(^o^)>
|
|
The GM said "Please don't slumber every enemy". Not "That is wrong!" because it was apparently causing problems at the table and...and I know this will be a strange concept but bear with me...A GM is there to make the game fun for the whole table and not just one player, particularly at paid events.
Hex is pretty powerful, but it also requires the witch to be within 30 feet of the attacked, making them fairly vulnerable if it fails.
Were it my home game, I would tell the fighters to suck it up and wait for the failed save where the witch is now 30 feet away from something that is awake.
But considering presumably 4 people paid to sit down at a table, and 3 were unhappy, having a DM say "Please don't slumber every enemy" is fairly good table control.
The fact you think it is cruel to ask one player to be mindful of the fun of the other three speaks volumes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sees all the rising tempers* But... but... loooove!
The language is getting harsher, and it's a slippery slope guys.
Don't make me type... words at you... crap... I have no power.
Anyway, to the topic at hand!
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.
Honestly, I may have to say the same as ciretose on this point too. This sentence structure is:
"verb or verb, but if variable... then outcome."Because of this, you can't automatically assume that the variable option logic applies to all possible starting conditions. Summarily, this doesn't necessarily dictate that Charm can be used to order said harm since Dominate can fulfill all conditions to make the sentence true and workable.
Since the wordage of a completely different spell requires an assumption in order to negate the specifics of that spell itself, I'm still going to refer to the specifics of Charm, which dictate that "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders".
Was rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Ok. So if you order the charmed creature to harm or oppose a true ally, it's so far outside the bounds of the spell that the command not only will not be obeyed, but the charmed creature will think its so weird you asked he will get a saving throw to shake off the spell completely. That's how that reads to me. Or in the case of unbreakable heart he rolls the save twice.
Heh. Well that's pretty much the "GG" isn't it? It's been fun. Looks like the thread is over. :PWas rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Ashiel what's GG? Good game?
Ashiel what's GG? Good game?Heh. Well that's pretty much the "GG" isn't it? It's been fun. Looks like the thread is over. :PWas rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Yes it is, actually. It's a shorthand used by many real time strategy game players, and it a show of respect and good sportsmanship. Kind of like shaking hands. By being able to say "good game", whether win or lose, it keeps a positive attitude on the competitive spirit.
Ok. So if you order the charmed creature to harm or oppose a true ally, it's so far outside the bounds of the spell that the command not only will not be obeyed, but the charmed creature will think its so weird you asked he will get a saving throw to shake off the spell completely. That's how that reads to me. Or in the case of unbreakable heart he rolls the save twice.
How would it ever come up then? Since casters should definitely know how their own abilities work, why would you ever command your charmed minion to harm or oppose an ally and thus allow them the saving throw if there was no chance they would do it anyway?