Could hand signals be considered part of a language?

[Dalebert]

Think about the the really familiar and common hand signals that people use, like waving your hand toward yourself or curling your finger to say "Please come here", or making a slash motion across your neck while pointing at something to say "Kill that". Would it be reasonable to consider them part of a common dialect? Mindless undead under your control are supposed to understand your commands, as long as they're basic, regardless of what language you use. Would things like this count?

[Eldariel]

Think about the the really familiar and common hand signals that people use, like waving your hand toward yourself or curling your finger to say "Please come here", or making a slash motion across your neck while pointing at something to say "Kill that". Would it be reasonable to consider them part of a common dialect? Mindless undead under your control are supposed to understand your commands, as long as they're basic, regardless of what language you use. Would things like this count?

Well, they're a part of a sign system that's mostly symbolic in nature; beckoning somebody to come to you is a fairly universal sign (since it's composed of essentially movement directed towards you, the meaning is fairly uniform; this of course doesn't work for the more abstract signs such as nodding or shaking your head, which mean different things for different people).

That said, most languages don't really contain signs as a part of speech; people use them to assist delivering their message but they don't codify meaning nor does their omission change what you're telling. They are generally an auxillary channel of communication in lieu of speech that serves to convey things in another way so as to offer the recipient support in understanding your message in case something serves to muddle it. Many such signs are also fairly universal; it is possible to communicate purely with physical signs to a certain degree even with people who you do not share a language with (though again, the digression above about more abstract meanings stands).


I'd classify them as a separate language or a pseudo-language; it's not really codified and it isn't entirely uniform. In D&D-terms I do think tying a part of them to specific languages and a part to having a language (and largely similar brain functioning; I can imagine e.g. Beholders having trouble understanding humanoid signs) is the most sensible approach. It's certainly not something codified by the default rules tho.

On the other hand, it's kinda possible argue they're tied to each language; after all, most human languages that aren't even genetically related share certain words such as ones describing family relationships or universal meanings like negation (these terms can be traced to certain proto-languages and are key tools in linguistic research). That doesn't make the languages the same. So you could argue sharing some universal signs doesn't make the sign languages the same. I'd personally allow undead with the ability to perceive them (that is, ones with vision or acute enough blindsense/sight to detect them accurately) be able to be programmed to receive orders through them.

[Corinath]

In RL?

Sign Language is general species specific. Ergo, making a "throat cutting" symbol to another animal, even one with basic sign language understanding like an ape/monkey, won't make sense to the animal, unless the animal was specifically trained to understand that signal.

So I'd initially say no.

That being said, you ARE magically controlling something that is deceased. You could just as easily say that, while bringing it to life, you programmed these signs in their undead mind. Or something like that.

[Greenish]

Spend two skill points to learn Drow Sign Language and only ever reanimate dark elves.


Also, is there any evidence that there is a set of commonly shared words in unrelated languages that they couldn't have picked up via contact?

[Benthesquid]

Depends how you'r controlling them. Animate Dead explicitly causes the zombies and skeletons created to obey your spoken commands, while Control Undead and the Command Undead feat specifies that you can command them by voice. Given that the creatures are mindless, I'd say it makes a certain amount of sense- they're not understanding and choosing to obey general command, but the same magic that raised them them lets you command them with your voice. The Command Undead spell, meanwhile, specifies that the creatures must be able to hear you, which they obviously can't if you're not speaking. Or bugling. I don't see any reason you couldn't issue orders with a bugle. Or some sort of clapping/stomping percussive based command system.

So much for RAW.

That being said, I personally would allow zombies and skeletons that had been animated with a Silent Animate Dead spell or undead controlled by the Command Undead spell, which doesn't specify verbal commands, to be controlled with hand motions.

[Kudaku]

It should be noted that hand signals or even body language is not necessarily universal. For instance I was completely mystified the first time I saw the Indian "head wobble", which is a body signal that isn't easily translated into western culture. In a broad sense it can mean anything from "yes" to "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "thank you" to "I understand".

So... It would help if the undead you are animating are from a similar culture I guess... I forgot where I was going with this :smallredface:

[Eldariel]

Also, is there any evidence that there is a set of commonly shared words in unrelated languages that they couldn't have picked up via contact?

In short, yes (well, they're theorized to be remnants from a common proto-human language, the existence of which is of course contested, back when humans first created a verbal language; alternatively they've been acquired millenia back). Contact between e.g. Finnish and Japanese hasn't existed until fairly recently (let's say 1500's) but the negation in both languages is created from [i] and [e] ([ei] in Finnish, [i:e̞] in Japanese). Many Indo-European languages likewise exhibit forms like 'nie', 'nej', etc. English 'no' can be considered an exception in this regard, though its roots are fairly clearly in the same forms. It's not always the only term for negation (e.g. Mandarin Chinese has 'Wú', but it also has 'Jùjué', which is a close approximation of [i:e̞] in pronunciation), but it's present almost universally.

EDIT: Another easy example off the top of my head is water; the "akwa"/"aqua"-form exists in most European and north African languages as well as in Native American Indian languages. Of course, old word, probably predates the Native Americans reaching America.

[Greenish]

Interesting. Though Eurasia doesn't have significant barriers of movement, so Japanese and Finnish might share an influence.

[AlltheBooks]

Note that what is described in the OP is an urban ACF and is covered by the rules already.

[danzibr]

Yeah, there's Drow sign language... and also Diabolus tail language.

I think yes, hand gestures are part of a language. Take English versus Spanish. In Spanish it's very rude to hold your palm up and wiggle your fingers to call someone (since that's how you beckon animals).

[Drachasor]

Yeah, there's Drow sign language... and also Diabolus tail language.

I think yes, hand gestures are part of a language. Take English versus Spanish. In Spanish it's very rude to hold your palm up and wiggle your fingers to call someone (since that's how you beckon animals).

But we are animals!

[Slipperychicken]

I would model the difficulty of doing this with the Deliver Secret Message function of Bluff.


Delivering a Secret Message (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm)
You can use Bluff to get a message across to another character without others understanding it. The DC is 15 for simple messages, or 20 for complex messages, especially those that rely on getting across new information. Failure by 4 or less means you can’t get the message across. Failure by 5 or more means that some false information has been implied or inferred. Anyone listening to the exchange can make a Sense Motive check opposed by the Bluff check you made to transmit in order to intercept your message (see Sense Motive).
This one also accounts for the possibility of making the wrong sign, or your minions misinterpreting your gestures.


If you specifically trained for it, I would say the directions you're talking about would fall under Combat Signs/Battle Signs (Heroes of Battle), which is basically a sign language which allows users to easily and non-verbally communicate combat and tactics-related instructions. Since it's equivalent to a language, I would say that one could use it to communicate quite complex strategies and tactics relatively quickly.

[Duke of Urrel]

Since it's easy to cure deafness by magic in the world of D&D, there probably isn't a well-developed standard sign language, at least not in most places.

However, I have often thought that some kind of sign language must exist on the Plane of Pandemonium, where the ceaseless howling wind makes all inhabitants effectively deaf.

I was also going to say something about how sign language might be a part of Bluff skill used to send a secret message, but Slipperychicken beat me to it!

[Eldariel]

Since it's easy to cure deafness by magic in the world of D&D, there probably isn't a well-developed standard sign language, at least not in most places.

Well, a whole sign language is distinctly different from the minute signs we all use daily; for English-speakers for instance, nods, headshakes, beckoning, pushing away, non-verbal communication in general (as repeatedly stated here, cultural differences are extremely common). There's really no need for deafness to even exist for these to exist.

[Bakeru]

Since it's easy to cure deafness by magic in the world of D&D, there probably isn't a well-developed standard sign language, at least not in most places.No regular "let's talk about the weather"-languages, but there's always a need for silent communication: Either, yes, when there's a lot of noise, but more importantly whenever you don't want anyone to hear you, like during hunting or ambushes.

The Faerûn-setting has the drow sign language (if you try to ambush people in the (under)dark, it's obviously better if they don't hear you whispering), and... some book, I forgot which, has "combat gestures" or something.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Greenish
Though Eurasia doesn't have significant barriers of movement, so Japanese and Finnish might share an influence.

Have you tried walking from Finland to Japan? :smalltongue:

Look at Vitus Bering and his voyages. In his case, just getting to the right ocean took solid years of travel, and that was with a massive baggage train, thousands of men and horses. Hard slog every step of the way.

Not saying diffusion couldn't happen; entire phrases of intelligible Sanskrit made it into Japanese culture. But Finland to Japan is quite a road trip.


Originally Posted by Eldariel
Another easy example off the top of my head is water; the "akwa"/"aqua"-form exists in most European and north African languages as well as in Native American Indian languages. Of course, old word, probably predates the Native Americans reaching America.

Any citations for a reconstructed lineage on this?

There are only so many phonemes to go around, and false cognates are common enough even among closely related languages. You're talking twenty, thirty thousand years back.

Again, not saying it's not possible, but I'd like a few recent papers to browse.

:smalltongue:

.

[Greenish]

Since it's easy to cure deafness by magic in the world of D&D, there probably isn't a well-developed standard sign language, at least not in most places.150 gp is a non-trivial expense for many people. A trained laborer only makes 3 sp/day, and then there are living expenses and (possibly) taxes to make. So a sign language could develop in a big enough city/area among the poor.


That is, if thieves or adventurers hadn't developed one yet. Drow can't be the only ones to have realized the utility of silent communication.

[GilesTheCleric]

Looks like the playground came up with a "yes" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208167).

[MonochromeTiger]

150 gp is a non-trivial expense for many people. A trained laborer only makes 3 sp/day, and then there are living expenses and (possibly) taxes to make. So a sign language could develop in a big enough city/area among the poor.


That is, if thieves or adventurers hadn't developed one yet. Drow can't be the only ones to have realized the utility of silent communication.

a form of sign language would be a necessity for any race incapable of speech and telepathic communication. it's also astoundingly useful in hunting or military societies as it allows a means of communicating between each other without alerting a potential target. really the uses for a non-verbal means of communication far outweigh the downside of "talking is easier".

[Greenish]

Have you tried walking from Finland to Japan? :smalltongue:

Look at Vitus Bering and his voyages. In his case, just getting to the right ocean took solid years of travel, and that was with a massive baggage train, thousands of men and horses. Hard slog every step of the way.Ideas travel easier than men.


But Finland to Japan is quite a road trip.Finnish (language, at least) originates somewhere around the Urals, area certainly within influence of Mongols (or their predecessors). Should the root word originate in Mongolian (even if it has since been replaced, hiding the link), it could well have influenced both Finnish and Japanese.

Just as an example.

[Duke of Urrel]

Think about the the really familiar and common hand signals that people use, like waving your hand toward yourself or curling your finger to say "Please come here", or making a slash motion across your neck while pointing at something to say "Kill that". Would it be reasonable to consider them part of a common dialect? Mindless undead under your control are supposed to understand your commands, as long as they're basic, regardless of what language you use. Would things like this count?

With my last posting, I was really addressing the question of a common dialect of sign language. If such a thing exists, it might be enough to issue very simple commands to Undead under your control (provided that they have line of sight to you, of course), but it would fall far short of a whole language.


Well, a whole sign language is distinctly different from the minute signs we all use daily; for English-speakers for instance, nods, headshakes, beckoning, pushing away, non-verbal communication in general (as repeatedly stated here, cultural differences are extremely common). There's really no need for deafness to even exist for these to exist.

There's no need for deafness to create some sign language, but there is a need for deafness to create a complete system of signs that is as expressive as a spoken language. This is even more necessary for that system of signs to be widespread, rather than an ad-hoc invention that differs from one locality to another. Moreover, any sign language that goes beyond a handful of very basic concepts has lots of very abstract and arbitrary signs that must be specifically learned; you don't automatically understand them just by looking at them. I guess what I want to say is: Don't expect sign language to be universal just because it's sign language. There are even different varieties of standard sign language in our world, as you may know: American Sign Language differs from the European, for example.

[Eldariel]

Have you tried walking from Finland to Japan? :smalltongue:

Look at Vitus Bering and his voyages. In his case, just getting to the right ocean took solid years of travel, and that was with a massive baggage train, thousands of men and horses. Hard slog every step of the way.

Not saying diffusion couldn't happen; entire phrases of intelligible Sanskrit made it into Japanese culture. But Finland to Japan is quite a road trip.

Contact-induced language shift requires fairly frequent interaction anyways. Even if the trip were made once or twice, I highly doubt whoever did so would assume the term for their own idiolect and bring it back where it would in turn be used in the local dialect and later the language.


Any citations for a reconstructed lineage on this?

There are only so many phonemes to go around, and false cognates are common enough even among closely related languages. You're talking twenty, thirty thousand years back.

Again, not saying it's not possible, but I'd like a few recent papers to browse.

Well, I read about this in William Croft's "Typology and Universals" (2003, Cambridge University Press). Specifically, there were mentions of attempts to reconstruct proto-human languages with some examples. However, I share the scientific community's opinion of this being pseudo-scientific; there simply are no materials from far enough back to reimagine those languages with any sort of accuracy, and language shift is as like to make the words unrecognizable as not.

However, in this case it's incredibly widespread to be a false cognate. False cognates usually occur between two languages but it's very rare for them to exist across dozens of languages of multiple language families. You can find forms similar to "akwa" in Native American languages, European North African languages, but you can also find it in Asia, e.g. Sanskrit "ap" for "water" or Hittite "akwanzi" for "they drink". On the Native American side of things, Tuscarora has "À:we", various words of the Wakashan languages like Haisaln "w'ap", Heiltsukian "w'apa", Nahualt "atl", etc. Of course, with hundreds of languages it's go through 'em all (there's, of course, a significant number of languages with a significantly less familiar form but that's only natural, both with language change and with there probably being a lot of words for 'water' in human languages). This site (http://www.native-languages.org/) is a nice resource if you wanna browse the Native American languages, at least phonetically.

[Dalebert]

I should have read command undead more carefully.

"Your commands are not telepathic. The undead creature must be able to hear you."

And control undead:

"You command them by voice and they understand you, no matter what language you speak."

My selective memory picked out the "no matter what language you speak" portion but not the other portion. :smallfrown:

[unseenmage]

Looks like the playground came up with a "yes" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208167).

Too bad they never got back to add those page numbers. Would be a nice little resource if they had. :smallfrown:

[Benthesquid]

Depends how you'r controlling them. Animate Dead explicitly causes the zombies and skeletons created to obey your spoken commands, while Control Undead and the Command Undead feat specifies that you can command them by voice. Given that the creatures are mindless, I'd say it makes a certain amount of sense- they're not understanding and choosing to obey general command, but the same magic that raised them them lets you command them with your voice. The Command Undead spell, meanwhile, specifies that the creatures must be able to hear you, which they obviously can't if you're not speaking. Or bugling. I don't see any reason you couldn't issue orders with a bugle. Or some sort of clapping/stomping percussive based command system.

So much for RAW.

That being said, I personally would allow zombies and skeletons that had been animated with a Silent Animate Dead spell or undead controlled by the Command Undead spell, which doesn't specify verbal commands, to be controlled with hand motions.


I should have read command undead more carefully.

"Your commands are not telepathic. The undead creature must be able to hear you."

And control undead:

"You command them by voice and they understand you, no matter what language you speak."

My selective memory picked out the "no matter what language you speak" portion but not the other portion. :smallfrown:

*cough*

:smalltongue:

[MonochromeTiger]

*cough*

:smalltongue:

in his defense your avatar may have tried to eat the information after he read it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by unseenmage
Too bad they never got back to add those page numbers. Would be a nice little resource if they had.

I compiled something like that a couple of years ago, with a slightly different focus. Dunno if it would be helpful to anyone.


Originally Posted by Greenish
Ideas travel easier than men.

These days, yes. Fourteen thousand years ago, it generally took a person to hold the idea in their noggin. :smallbiggrin:


Originally Posted by Eldariel
You can find forms similar to "akwa" in Native American languages, European North African languages, but you can also find it in Asia, e.g. Sanskrit "ap" for "water" or Hittite "akwanzi" for "they drink".

Very interesting, certainly, although I'd still be wary.

And what's the Finnish word for water? :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

And what's the Finnish word for water? :smalltongue:

Vesi, from the Uralic weti I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to the Indo-European words like "water", "Wasser", etc.

[Palanan]

I was indeed thinking one could make a case for a similarity with Icelandic vatn, Old English wæter, German Wasser, etc. The question is whether there's any real relationship there. It looks possible, but is the similarity alone evidence for a genetic relationship?

[Greenish]

These days, yes. Fourteen thousand years ago, it generally took a person to hold the idea in their noggin. :smallbiggrin:Ah, I hadn't realized that. So, who was the guy who brought the idea of gunpowder to Europe in his "noggin"? What about paper? Writing?

For that matter, the Mongol Empire reached from southern Karelia to the Sea of Japan at one point, so there's an idea that's made the journey.

I was indeed thinking one could make a case for a similarity with Icelandic vatn, Old English wæter, German Wasser, etc. The question is whether there's any real relationship there. It looks possible, but is the similarity alone evidence for a genetic relationship?I dunno what genes would have to do with it. Icelandic, English, and German are pretty closely related languages anyway, it's more of a surprise when they don't share vocabulary.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Greenish
Ah, I hadn't realized that. So, who was the guy who brought the idea of gunpowder to Europe in his "noggin"? What about paper? Writing?

My point being that the ideas and the men usually travel together.

In fact, you could easily argue that in some cases the ideas traveled more slowly than the men, since innovations sometimes require years or generations to become widespread in the new culture.

[Eldariel]

I was indeed thinking one could make a case for a similarity with Icelandic vatn, Old English wæter, German Wasser, etc. The question is whether there's any real relationship there. It looks possible, but is the similarity alone evidence for a genetic relationship?

No, diachronic research would need to be conducted into the etymology. This site (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=water) suggests it might derive from the Hittite "watar". The PIE on the site refers to "Proto-Indo-European language: Unlike the suggested Proto-Human Language, Proto-Indo-European Language is actually kind of a thing scientifically and there seems to be a decently strong consensus on the field that the reconstruction probably resembles the language reasonably closely.

[lsfreak]

Vesi, from the Uralic weti I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to the Indo-European words like "water", "Wasser", etc.

While consensus is pretty much that there's no clear evidence that Uralic and Indo-European are related, I think it's also safe to say it would be an utter shock if we found out they're weren't. There's too many similarities, especially in the core grammar (person markings, plural markings, fusion of case-number suffixes on nouns is essentially found no where else in the world), just not enough to absolutely say, yes, and here's our proof. (There's also the issue of what else is related at what levels; Turkic and the other Altaic languages [which, depending on who you ask, may include Japanese, but it's not a majority opinion], some of the NE Siberian languages, and Eskimo-Aleut all have a fair amount of similarities to Indo-European and/or Uralic).

My problem with "water" as a global phenomenon is that it's too broad. What are, by random chance, the likelihood of a word for water being broadly similar to akwa? Pretty damn high, as a and w are both extremely common sounds in languages (the former is effectively present in every know language, the latter not quite so but still extremely common), and in addition both are a common result of sound changes from many different starting sounds. I.e. any combination of [a/e/o]+[w/p/b/kw/gw/v]+[e/o/a/i/u] isn't unlikely to result is something that appear similar to "akwa" purely by change, and those are only a few of the possibilities.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldariel
Unlike the suggested Proto-Human Language, Proto-Indo-European Language is actually kind of a thing scientifically and there seems to be a decently strong consensus on the field that the reconstruction probably resembles the language reasonably closely.

Yup, my standard recommendation is The Horse, the Wheel and Language (http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age-Eurasian/dp/069114818X/). Great book, although he really bounces all over the place--everything from Neolithic settlement patterns to visiting vet schools to analyze bit wear on horses' teeth.


Originally Posted by lsfreak
My problem with "water" as a global phenomenon is that it's too broad.

My concern in a nutshell as well.



Also, going way back to the OP here...the issue of hand-signs and how they're used would be very DM-specific, but I'd think it's reasonable for a few simple hand motions to be obeyed. In the case of undead the caster has animated (rather than summoned) it's more than reasonable to simply take a few minutes to tell the undead what the hand-signs mean.

[Slipperychicken]

In the case of undead the caster has animated (rather than summoned) it's more than reasonable to simply take a few minutes to tell the undead what the hand-signs mean.

I agree, but only if the undead possess an Intelligence score over 3 (i.e. sentient) and can understand the caster. This is mainly because mindless undead are incapable of thought and cannot learn anything, to the point where they don't have feats or skill points because those represent some level of learning. If the undead has Int 1 or 2, then it should be more like teaching an animal a trick.

[Palanan]

Good point, that.

I usually play druids, so I don't have much RP experience interacting with undead.

:smallbiggrin:

[MonochromeTiger]

Good point, that.

I usually play druids, so I don't have much RP experience interacting with undead.

:smallbiggrin:

I still don't quite get why druids are expected to hate undead, if anything since undeath is a reflection of life (don't tell me it isn't, death is the absence of both, undeath is merely the cold negative to life's warm positive) they should be interested in understanding it. but then again I also take interest in things people seem to consider evil or disturbing so perhaps that's just my weird view on it.

but yeah controlling undead wouldn't work with sign language if the spells specify verbal commands.

[Averis Vol]

Not sure if it's a canon language in game, bu in the Erevis Cale trilogy, Cale and Riven constantly communicate through "Thieves Cant", a pseudo sign language that is used among thieves and assassins stalking a mark.

[TaiLiu]

Ah, I hadn't realized that. So, who was the guy who brought the idea of gunpowder to Europe in his "noggin"? What about paper? Writing?
At least for paper, I believe so, yes. Hardly a voluntary move, but it was forced out the the paper makers' noggins.

[Honest Tiefling]

I really don't want to be near a necromancer that gave his zombie a thumbs up.

[Eldariel]

Not sure if it's a canon language in game, bu in the Erevis Cale trilogy, Cale and Riven constantly communicate through "Thieves Cant", a pseudo sign language that is used among thieves and assassins stalking a mark.

Thieves Cant, and other alignment/profession-specific secret languages, is canon far as older editions go. In 3.X they were mostly omitted from Core-books (Druidic aside) though the 3.0 Innuendo-skill/3.5 Bluff Secret Message does a similar thing. Still, it's been canon and I see no reason not to have it exist in whatever game world you create; it's historical too.

[MonochromeTiger]

I really don't want to be near a necromancer that gave his zombie a thumbs up.

not even if he gave the zombie a dire ape's thumb for thumbs up?

[Dalebert]

*cough*

:smalltongue:

*sigh* Yes, Benthesquid. Your post is what made me go re-read the spell description.

[Honest Tiefling]

not even if he gave the zombie a dire ape's thumb for thumbs up?

That just makes it worse!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldariel
Thieves Cant, and other alignment/profession-specific secret languages, is canon far as older editions go.

That was one thing I really liked about the older editions; for some reason it just always seemed cool to have a separate language for the unsavory.

Also, Celestial is something of a professional language for 3.X clerics. And Draconic is almost a de facto language for wizards...though neither Celestial nor Draconic are "secret" in the same sense as Thieves' Cant.

[Honest Tiefling]

I am not sure how to feel about the idea that Rogues are better at keeping secrets then Wizards. On the one hand, it usually falls under their job purview regardless of alignment, on the other you would think that the classes that channel cosmic energy or what have you would learn to shut up occasionally.

[unseenmage]

I am not sure how to feel about the idea that Rogues are better at keeping secrets then Wizards. On the one hand, it usually falls under their job purview regardless of alignment, on the other you would think that the classes that channel cosmic energy or what have you would learn to shut up occasionally.

How can they shut up with all of those Verbal Components? Speaking of, one could consider those a secret arcane language.

No one knows exactly what they mean and they differ from Wizard to Wizard and spell to spell. Only way to discern their intent is through Spellcraft.

Sounds like a secret language to me. :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

I still don't quite get why druids are expected to hate undead, if anything since undeath is a reflection of life (don't tell me it isn't, death is the absence of both, undeath is merely the cold negative to life's warm positive) they should be interested in understanding it. but then again I also take interest in things people seem to consider evil or disturbing so perhaps that's just my weird view on it.


Thing is, Druids are all about nature, and the life cycle is crucial for that. Undeath produces unnatural anti-life energy which breaks the cycle, keeping living things shambling around forever without returning to the earth. Also, undeath pollutes the plane with negative energy, threatening to wipe out all life (which is very bad for nature) and replace living things with twisted mockeries of their former selves. Also, undeath most likely harms or traps souls (evident in that it prevents many forms of resurrection), which is a general reason to hate it.

[Greenish]

No one knows exactly what they mean and they differ from Wizard to Wizard and spell to spell.Doesn't sound like a language to me. :smallamused:

[Averis Vol]

Thieves Cant, and other alignment/profession-specific secret languages, is canon far as older editions go. In 3.X they were mostly omitted from Core-books (Druidic aside) though the 3.0 Innuendo-skill/3.5 Bluff Secret Message does a similar thing. Still, it's been canon and I see no reason not to have it exist in whatever game world you create; it's historical too.

Oh definitely. I use it in my games, I just wasn't sure if it was by the rules for 3.5. Honestly, I think it's a pretty cool little thing for underground communication.

[unseenmage]

Doesn't sound like a language to me. :smallamused:

Odd, it sounds precisely like the vast majority of languages to me. :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Slipperychicken
*good druidic rationale*

To follow up on that: druids understand, far better than any others, how fundamentally interwoven all living things really are, how the very substance of one creature is drawn and shaped from the substance of countless others, and they in turn as well, weaving together all the wildness of the world.

In the natural way of things, any creature that dies will return its substance to the life of the world--either immediately, in a brief sharp instant, or through a longer process of merging with the earth. Druids aren't heartless--they may mourn and grieve--but they also understand that life sustains life, and the droplets of individual lives must always return to the greater ocean.

The undead are a violation of this in every way, and most especially with their unnatural substance: neither alive nor sustaining life, but rather trapped in a corrupted half-state, incapable of returning to the wider living world. The undead are not only an animate violation of all that makes life sacred, but they steal from life and land as well. The more undead that are created, the more substance of once-living things is denied its rightful return.

Should this be allowed to continue unchecked, then the gathering undead would draw out the very substance of the living world, and all that makes life possible would cease. The green earth would become grey ruin, the soil choked to dust and ash, the rains parched from the bleaching sky. None who value the wealth of life could let that come to pass.