I have a question involving the scion game rules for relics.  According to the books a relic has to be tricked or forced to be used by someone other than the owner of the relic.  My question is, what dictates the change of ownership?  If a scion kills another scion, can he take the fallen scion's relics for his own?

what about a stolen relic?  how long must the thief have possession of the relic before it becomes him?

it also leads to questions of discovered relics.  Items like the golden fleece are legendary for being quested for and found, which means it is a relic that has a new owner.

I'm just trying to gauge how difficult it should be too obtain new relics, especially from fallen opponents, or discovered.  What if a character enters a museum and finds a relic of another pantheon in the collection, for instance.  How is it determined who officially owns the item?

In most cases Scion specific relics belong to them unless changed by their parental Deities or killed in battle. If killed they will change alliances to the next person to pick them up if the God parent did not already take it. as for stealing a relic only another god can easily control the relic another scion will always have a chance of it going badly.

Found relics have ben lost to the ages so long they don't have allegiances. however some pantheon specific ones will have a hard time working with someone without the divine blood associated with who created them.

this is just how I have interpreted it.

I could have sworn I saw something in one of the books about scions (and bad guys) stealing relics to use for their abilities. If a sword is used to access the War purview and it is taken by another scion with the War purview then they can use it. If the relic inherently grants, for example, the first dot in Time, then anyone picking up the relic gets the benefit of it (if they know how to activate it).

It makes for much more interesting stories if a relic can be taken and used by others, even mortals: you have relic hunters, accidental usage, the drama of "should I/shouldn't I" if a friend needs it for a quest, and it keeps players on their toes... Anything that benefits role playing and plot development should be permitted.

the rules given in the book talk about relics that are owned by someone else, that are stolen, ie the stolen wings of Daedalus taken from Donnie by Sly.  I was more wondering about relics such as the weapon of a scion the group just killed, or the amulet of a scion that had been buried for 400 years and has been discovered.  Making them struggle to use it seems to fit in some circumstances, but also means that "loot" is much harder to come by.

I know it's mostly up to interpretation.  Just wondered if anyone else had house rules about it.

If there's any reason the relic would "refuse" the new user, then have them struggle with it. As you said, sometimes it may be fitting. Otherwise, if you want to give them loot, just give them loot. There is no reason every single relic needs to turn into "Use Magic Device" from D&D.

I think the struggle aspect is most relevant when you've got a cross-pantheon issue.  If a Scion of Thor picks up a sword made for a Scion of Ares, then the sword might inherently fight the scion from a different pantheon.  That would mean, tho, that a Scion of Ares finding a sword that once belonged to a different Scion of Ares 1,000 years ago might be easier for the Scion to use.

And any relic that was sentient should automatically be able to make up its own mind about who it serves (at least willingly).

There's really no restriction unless it's one of its powers. However, I've always ruled that (like magic items in Pathfinder) characters don't know what it does unless they experiment or study it.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 7):

What he said with the caveat that if it is an item with a legend attached to it then the players have a better chance to figure it out.