You keep presuming it is a form of being used. You have not actually established that. That's what I'm asking you to establish.
How is this using someone?
Since it's up to me to run the gods of my setting, I have established that they are being used trivially. The gods of my setting are very serious about what it is that they do and stand for. They embody aspects of the world and spend their focus on seeing those things done. Not being chatterboxes with their clerics about inane minor things like a Deck of Many Things.
How is this NOT the same as calling on your deity's power to heal someone else? You haven't established either of these things!
How is interrupting your deity over and over to ask him about an inane subject different from not asking your deity for anything when you cast healing spells? How are you not seeing the difference?
...I mean, other than that you're literally going to call down divine wrath on someone solely for a thing YOU think is somehow among the most offensive acts a cleric can commit (apparently!), meaning, you are very literally creating extreme, serious, harmful consequences because you presumed every player would always know exactly what YOU think is offensive.
That--that right there--is literally creating gameplay consequences because of an unstated presumption that all players always agree with you about a bunch of things. It is, in fact, a demonstration of the social contract being used to punish someone who could literally have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.
Because, as stated, I would not know. I would be caught unaware by that. You would be punishing me for doing something you consider horrendous, and which I consider so innocent I cannot conceive of how you would turn that into <you are now 100% obviously worthy of divine vengeance>.
This isn't some hypothetical. This isn't a position I'm ascribing to anyone else, it isn't me divining what someone else thinks, it isn't me distilling stuff said by others. It's my actual, real-world situation. I would have no idea that this is somehow enormously offensive to you.
You are letting your biases blind you to what I'm saying again.
First off, running my deities in a serious manner, and as such would be supper annoyed to be interrupted over and over in order to see if this shuffle of the deck is a good one, isn't a violation of the social contract. That's not being a jerk. It's simply a choice of how to run the gods of my setting.
Secondly, I said very clearly that it would not be some gotcha situation where I waited until they cast it multiple times, slammed them down, and yelled "Neener! Neener!" I was clear with you that I would let the player know how the gods feel and that interrupting them like that wouldn't go over well with his deity. If he then proceeded to engage the bad idea with full knowledge that the god would be upset, that's not on me. There is no being a jerk and violating the social contract going on.
Further, you claim that "they build irritation at being used that way into the spell", but they don't. The spell doesn't mention--at all--that you are contacting any deity. Both versions of augury merely refer to "an otherworldly entity", so the player would have no reason to presume they are specifically asking their god.
"
You contact your deity or a divine proxy and ask up to three questions that can be answered with a yes or no." Who they contact is not a player choice. They are communing with their god or a divine proxy, and since it's commune and a powerful priest involved, I don't do proxies. They are ringing their god.
This is also a setting decision and not a violation of the social contract. These sorts of setting decisions are not the DM being a jerk.
Perhaps they're asking some other functionary in the divine hierarchy. Furthermore, the 5.5e version specifically removed the "random reading" part--you just have a cumulative 25% chance per previous casting that day to get no answer at all, and after four casts (successful or otherwise) you'll just hear nothing.
I don't see any random reading in the 5e version of commune.
No irritation. No penalty. No reference to deities--which is wise, since druids and wizards can also cast it! None of the things you claim are present to back up your explanation are even remotely present.
No wizards or druids can cast commune. Druids can commune with nature, but nature isn't going know diddly about a very unnatural deck of cards.
If you're conflated my talking about commune as talking about augury, which it seems like you might have, augury isn't going to work either. It has no way of knowing what cards will be drawn. It cannot answer weal(good), since it might not be a good result. It cannot answer woe(bad) because it might not be a bad result. It cannot answer both weal and woe, since it might not be both. Nothing is the only remaining answer.
Augury is a 2nd level spell, not some uber divination spell. It can even be wrong if circumstances change things
"The spell doesn't take into account any possible circumstances that might change the outcome, such as the casting of additional spells or the loss or gain of a companion."
Random draws from a Deck of Many things is very much a possible circumstance that could change the outcome. That's how random works.
As for the random aspect. I've never used that. It always seemed like hokey result, so I just used silence when it failed due to the percentage roll.
