Advice on Commune

[SnowDog]

Hi all --

I DM in a game where the PCs are finally reaching level 10 and are able to Commune. Both my players and myself are concerned about the spell for a number of reasons. In the end, it comes down to a concern that using this spell will rob the players of the enjoyment of watching the story unfold on its own. On the other hand, if this spell exists, it makes sense that the PCs would use it to get answers for some burning questions.

I started a House Rules thread about ways to fix it, and got few bites. Evidently people don't see a burning need to "fix" the spell.

So I'll approach it from another side. If you're using Commune, and not changing it via a House Rule, what advice do you have on running it in a way that contributes to a story instead of subtracting from it? In general, how has higher-level divination magic impacted the way you play your game and construct your campaign world?

 

[hong]

Well, it depends on what you mean by "contributing to a story". If you believe that the story (or at least the relevant bits of it) should consist of PCs travelling to NPCs and asking them for clues on to how to finish a quest, then yes, commune can short-circuit that.

But what is commune, really? It grants you the unique power to talk to your deity. What this means is that it effectively allows a PC spellcaster to take on the role of intermediary to the gods, a role that's very significant in many stories from folklore and legend. The priest, shaman, sage, oracle or medicine man who dispenses advice to the heroes is something that's a constant factor from one culture to the next.

Thus you can think of commune as an enabling factor, something that allows you _and the players_ to tell a story, without having to rely on the clunky mechanic of an introduced NPC. All the elements are at the PCs' disposal, they just need to know how to use them.

If you think that PCs shouldn't be given access to this level of power, consider that one of the other 5th level spells that a cleric can cast, besides commune, is raise dead. That should give an idea of how far beyond the mundane a 9th-10th level D&D character is.

So I don't think it's necessary to change the rules at this point. First, you should think of what _kind_ of story the rules facilitate, and then consider whether it's the kind of story you'd like to tell.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I don't know what world you play in, but in the FR it lists the limits on a dieties omniscience. I believe it also lists the limits on their omniscience in the Dieties and Demigods. When your players reach the level where they can use Commune or Contact Higher Plane, you should set the limits for what a particular god might know.

Remember, most fantasy worlds aren't monotheistic worlds with a fully omniscient god. D&D worlds are often polytheistic with distinct limits on the amount of information each god might have access too. I highly suggest you use the guidelines in Deities and Demigods or Faiths and Pantheons when governing the use of any spell that contacts a deity or higher power for information.

 

[Shallown]

To be honest I saw spells like commune and divination being an eventual easy out in the plot/story arc I was running. I wanted them to be useful but not answer all the questions so here are the rules I use for those spells. These are not game mechanic rules so they shoulod hopefully help.

Campaign wise.
The story arc has to do with demons/devils once ruling planet and they did that by making a deal with the Gods (who are not all powerful nor omniscient (SP?)). And one of the rules (the players think) is now that the demons/devils are gone but trying to return that the Gods can't actively stop their return so they can't answer all the questions directly that the characters reallly need answered. The "rules" exact nature is not known to the players/caharacters so they aren't sure what they can ask about.

In all my campaigns
Gods are focused on thier domains and that is the percpective they answer from.
The cleric in my group claims no one God over the others. He worships all equally except for the evil ones (of course) So he can cast his divinations/commune to which ever God he wants to. he always spends 1/2 an hour or so trying to decide who becuase he knows each will give a different answer depending on how the God would veiw the Situation.
This to me is the best and easiest way to deal with these type spells. If characters are unsure of the answers perspective (since Gods are inscrutible) than they still have to do the leg work. This can be used as a tool to save actual game time by directing them to the answers without giving them the answers.

Usually there is a failure chance so also hammer in a little that the answers are not divine inspiration without flaw. So they should trust the answers but not be blindly devoted to them

Also The answer may be perfectly correct but it is still a flawed person hearing it. Also known as the grape vine affect. If a person Divines take them off alone an answer them. The player will undoubtedly not repeat things back exactly as you told them. If they sight high wisdom or intelligence saying they would remember it exactly remind them it is a religous experience that they as weak mortals may not remember in its perfection. After all they did touch the Hand of God or at least their God.

Hope all this helps. Through a combination of ideas you can make these spells be what they are suppose to be. Useful/powerful magic but not a crutch.

Later

 

[shilsen]

4 words:

Read Piratecat's Story Hour

 

[Piratecat]

Maybe I can save you some time.

My PCs are high level, with one divine agent and one diviner. As a result, they use commune all the time. It's almost never been a problem.

The biggest advantage of commune is that the players have to ask the questions. They may not ask the important ones, and the information that they gain may do them more harm than good. My group recently found that the contracted child bride fiancee of one PC is actually a devil. They can't get any other good info out of the commune spell, though, and now they're just nervous.

Suggestions for handling commune:

- create plots where the group HAS to use commune in order to find out what's going on

- create misleading plots, similar to how a magician uses misdirection to make you look at the wrong thing. While they're asking about the obvious bad guy, the subtle one is going about his business.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

And who is to say a god will tell you the truth? As the saying goes:
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
I doubt that a god would want to really give any thought to some lowly mortal cleric who has not done any major service for him before asking any questions. The gods would probably see this as a waste of their time and might even react baddly, after all if you were a god would you like it if a minor follower interupted you while you were busy doing something important like creating a new artifact?

 

[Piratecat]

Uh uh, Cerebus. That's exactly the way I think you shouldn't handle it. If the players think that the spell won't give them the truth, then it's completely useless; better to just remove it from the game, in my opinion. The thing that makes it valuable is that it tells you the truth as your god sees things. If I was a player, the DM just randomly lying would simply infuriate me.

 

[Justinian]

A quick note on the concept of a god lying: I think that it's important to contrast the relative infallibility of commune with other, less capable spells such as contact other plane. In my opinion, commune should contact gods who always answer to the best of their ability, but are not all-knowing. This can lead to the use of contact other plane, invented spells, or other less-accurate divinations when a god doesn't know the answer. However, the players are choosing this option. Also, if different gods know different things, the players can "shop around" for a commune from the right people, as Shallown noted earlier.

Even an evil or chaotic god will probably help his clerics, after all.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Uh uh, Cerebus. That's exactly the way I think you shouldn't handle it. If the players think that the spell won't give them the truth, then it's completely useless

I think Cerebus is on to something, but not in the way he said it. What if the god only gives part of the truth? Rather, every thing the god says is true but it may or may not be all of the truth.

Ask who's responsible for a poisoned well and depending on the god's leanings you might get the stable hand who put the poison in the well, the druid who charmed him into doing it, or the local noble who's been hunting the wildlife to extinction.

Each answer is true but each answer is not the whole truth. Clerics, in theory, will be in agreement with their god's particular slant and shouldn't notice the difference most of the time. But those few times it is important it will become very important.