Are Rokugani and Common the same language or not?

[Katie Boundary]

The OA entry on Humans more or less states that Rokugani and Common are two different languages, with humans from OA speaking the former and humans from all other settings speaking the latter. Other playable OA races definitely speak one or the other; Hengeyokai, for example, are given Common as an automatic language, while Nezumi are given Rokugani. But then certain monsters are described as speaking "Rokugani (Common)", implying that they're the same language...?



Though, I admit that the idea of civilized humans being unable to speak Common is pretty silly.

[BWR]

Short answer, it depends.

'Common' isn't necessarily a specific language. It is, unsurprisingly, the most common language in a given area. It can be a uni/multiversal language if you want to play/run that sort of game, but that interpretation is not valid for all game or D&D settings. There are settings where what is considered Common varies from place to place, e.g. Mystara - if you live in Thyatis, Thyatian is the Common language even if there are several other languages spoken by various ethnic groups. In short, the insanely limited languages introduced in the PHB are for those who don't like to play with a **** ton of lanaguages (crazies), and to provide some basic tools to work with for generic campaigns (there is no real point in introducing all the varied tongues of Mystara or FR if you don't play in those settings).

Rokugan is not a D&D setting originally, and the OA adaptation is rather crappy. During most time periods, everyone living in the Emerald Empire will speak Rokugani of some variety, so in that sense it is the common tongue.
So when OA says that Common and Rokugani are two different languages, they seem to be saying that the the generic languages of the PHB (Common, Elven, Dwarven, etc.) are not the same as the specific languages of L5R (Rokugani, Nezumi, Naga, Senpet, Mekhem, etc.), and that is as it should be. If they then go on to say that Common is spoken elsewhere in the world of L5R, that is not canonically true. I suspect it's written that way if you want to add Rokugan to an existing D&D world.

[Katie Boundary]

In a D&D setting, "Common" is in fact a specific language, possibly created specifically to be an international trade language like Swahili, or possibly just whatever language Humans were speaking when they decided to start spreading out all over the world and shagging everything on two legs, taking their language with them.

[weckar]

It's... Really not. Faerun common and Eberron common would sound nothing alike. They are both still common, though.

[BWR]

In a D&D setting, "Common" is in fact a specific language, possibly created specifically to be an international trade language like Swahili, or possibly just whatever language Humans were speaking when they decided to start spreading out all over the world and shagging everything on two legs, taking their language with them.

I already covered this. It depends on the setting.

[Kelb_Panthera]

OA is as much a setting book as it is a supplement for the core game. Rokugani is the common language of the Legend of the Five Rings setting that OA is supposed to be presenting. Those entries mean that those creatures are intended to be present in the Lo5R, Rokugan setting and know Rokugani. If you instead port them to some other setting, change it to common. If you have a blended setting, the Rokugani Empire is part of a larger setting, choose one.

[Katie Boundary]

It's... Really not. Faerun common and Eberron common would sound nothing alike. They are both still common, though.

{scrubbed}

[BWR]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Why do you have this opinion?
I suspect there is something you are misunderstanding or you lack some relevant information.

Because to us it seems like you posed a question because you didn't know the answer, then proceed to dismiss part of the answer for what is to us inexplicable reasons.

[GrayDeath]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}


Why do you have this opinion?
I suspect there is something you are misunderstanding or you lack some relevant information.

Because to us it seems like you posed a question because you didn't know the answer, then proceed to dismiss part of the answer for what is to us inexplicable reasons.


THis.

Since all references to Common" and other Languages come from Settings, it is obviously setting dependant if "COmmon" is the same Language.

As I expect the huge mess that are 1st to 3rd party books never got a coherent ruling about it, I would say:

"All Settings that are on the same world and made by the same publisher mean the same thing if the say common, all others: YMMV".


I mean it should be obvious that 2 totally isolated human societies on different worlds that have no common origin except being human do not use the same lingua france. ^^

[HeraldOfExius]

In a D&D setting, "Common" is in fact a specific language, possibly created specifically to be an international trade language like Swahili, or possibly just whatever language Humans were speaking when they decided to start spreading out all over the world and shagging everything on two legs, taking their language with them.

I think that "a D&D setting" is too broad of a category for any absolute rules like this. If Pathfinder and its default setting count (and it was originally "a D&D setting" before splitting off into its own game), then there's two languages called "Common" on opposite sides of the world: Taldane in fantasy-Europe, and Tien in fantasy-Asia. Of these two Commons, Taldane is a trade language, but Tien is just the language that was used by a continent-spanning empire and was widely used enough to stick around. "Common" isn't the actual name of a language as much as its how people describe the language that's the most, well, common where they live.

Now if your claim is that there exists at least one setting in which Common is a universal human language which was possibly manufactured for that purpose, then I can't prove you wrong. But it all comes down to setting, and OA assumes that people from completely different cultures will speak completely different languages.

[Ashtagon]

Think of it this way. In Faerun, they speak Louisiana English. In Rokugan they speak Newcastle English. In Krynn they speak a Caribbean patois that is still technically English. In Mystara they speak something that is way weird mixture of Australian "strine" slang and Cockney rhyming slang.

It's all technically English. And for m̡̞̠̪̙̺o͏̜ͅṣ̯̞̩̲t̯̫̭̺̤ ̺p̧r̲̭̟̳͍͇̜͝a̛̲̼͉͖͈̘c͎̪t͈̪̺͓̪i͙͝c̭̀a̺̼̩͈l̵͕̣͙͓ ̥͍̰ ͙ͅp̹̪̱̟̟̝u͈̼̼̞̦r̟p̸̹o̺͉s҉͇̼̼͍̼̮e̪̤̭̼͎ș̵̮͈͍,̼͞ ̠̲̩ ͙͠a҉̬̳͕ḷ̨͖̦̪̬l m̶̧͎͍͔̩̳̪̠̗̔́͆̇ͫ̔ͭ͡ų̷̞̪̗̙̰̪̖̈ͭ́̋ͯͧ͂̓ͤͪ̐ͬͪ̒̀̚͘͡t͊̋ ̼̞̥̭̦̘͉ͥ̕͢͝u͂̔ͣ͋͑͗̂ͯ̾̂͂́ͤ̀̓̀҉͡͏͇̦͈͙̥͉̝̲͖̞̭ǎ̇̽ͬͫͨ͒ ̨̦̰̹̝͖̺̬̘͈̃̂ͬ̐͐͒͘͟l̸̶͈͙̥̤̼̪̳͔̗͚̫͆ͦͭͦͮ͋̿ͮ̇͌̓ͧ̀̿̐̿͒̋ ̭̺̥̜̤ĺ̴̮̺̙͚͕̼͙̱̘̜̓̋ͧ̍̇͌ͯ̓̓ͧ͟y̏ͨͮ̋ͪ̓ͦ̀͗ͦ͏̶̬̟̜̩̳͚͖̮ ͙̺̪̲͚͓̗̪͔ ̟̜͚͚͎͉̼̟͊͗͋̿͒ͮ̀̕͜u̴̝̣͈̱̝͔̰̺̬͉̭͓͛̏͒͜n̷̴͐̌̌̈̽̑̌̿̊̋ͧͪ ̨̗̰͚̳̜̣͘i̶̸̷̛̲̠̻̪̱̠̣̼̣̩̩̦͇̾̒ͤ̈́ͬͅn̶̔̀̍ͥ̄́ͯ̓̄ͤ̽̂̒̚͟͝ ̯̩̞͖͓t̠̦̳̪̗͖̭̣̱̱̭̘ͪ̎ͨ̍̔̃ͣ̒̏̆́͠ͅễ̷̦͈̗̬ͦ̋̔͂̂̋̚͝lͮͬ ̢̱̬̭̥͈͙̠͈͈̭̤͇̮̥̅̀̎ͣ͒ͮ̈͌̇̄ͬ̃̒ͪͪ̒̔́̀́͘ļ̷̢̣̰̭̤͈̺͐̃͑͜ ̺̟̩̳̭͓̰̩͎̺͔̟͔į̙̫̝̰̥̖̇ͮ͋̕g̡̙̥̠̯̗̀ͫ͂́͢į̧̓͑̆̄ͮͣ͑́͘̕ ͎͈̮͈͔̙̬̝̩̝̙b̢̮̮̙̼͚̮͇̉ͬ̉͂͗ͦ̾͛͑ͤ͊ͣ̿͢͠lͭ̑̎ͤͦͮ̓ͧ̈͌ͤͬͥ̒ ̯̪͕̘̥̝̜̝̗̀͘͞ͅe̛̜͙̤͖͙̹̘̘͓̭̺̩̤̰͐̋̉̈͋̀ͣ̄̊ͮ̂̐͂̍ͬ̈́̐͜͜͞͡ ̟̖̰̰̩.̡̃̏̂̑̎̿́̃̈̿ͧͯ̆͏̨̨̠̹̝̻̥̹̥͎͕̠͈̦͈̲̘̤

[Asmotherion]

Real world example: in antiquity "common" for europe was Greek and Latin. That was not the case for Asia though. in the modern age "common" is univerasly English.

if your DM wants to enforce Language Bariers he will create distinctions between what language is common at each local. Because a fairly small effort (a single spell really) is needed to overcome this most DMs don't bother with it and assume an universal common language for ease of play.

[Biggus]

Didn't Spelljammer have people travelling between different settings? Does anybody know what that said about languages?

[Katie Boundary]

Let me put it this way: Thri-kreen are from Athas. Warforged are from Khorvaire. Kender are from Krynn. If my party includes a warforged, a Kender, and a Thri-kreen, they'll all be able to understand each other, because they all speak Common. If this wasn't the case, and "common"was actually a half-dozen different languages from different settings, then it would be impossible for people to play D&D because their characters wouldn't be able to talk to each other, which defeats the whole point of having a common language.


I mean it should be obvious that 2 totally isolated human societies on different worlds that have no common origin except being human do not use the same lingua france. ^^

Except we're talking about fantasy settings where the normal rules of probability do not apply.


https://i.imgur.com/82hn09B.png

Behold the greatest computer glitch of all time

[Recherché]

Let me put it this way: Thri-kreen are from Athas. Warforged are from Khorvaire. Kender are from Krynn. If my party includes a warforged, a Kender, and a Thri-kreen, they'll all be able to understand each other, because they all speak Common. If this wasn't the case, and "common"was actually a half-dozen different languages from different settings, then it would be impossible for people to play D&D because their characters wouldn't be able to talk to each other, which defeats the whole point of having a common language

Why do you believe that it's expected that a halfling from Athas and a warforged from Eberron should be in the same party and able to talk to each other? It's not assumed that these two people should ever be able to meet let alone talk to each other. It's far from impossible to play D&D with the assumption that Common is different languages in different worlds, as long as you also assume that people from different prime material planes almost never talk to each other.


Something to note is that "Common" in both Faerum and Eberron have a history, language family and dialects. They are completely different from each other. Either two different languages with two different histories and dialects somehow ended up being exactly the same or they're different languages.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Common

https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Common

[QUOTE=Katie Boundary;24199067]Behold the greatest computer glitch of all time[/QUOTE.]

That's not a glitch, it's a trick with the text that Ashtagon did intentionally.

[weckar]

Frankly, if 3 people so separated by space and time can share a language, why use the language system at all?

Some of us actually enjoy playing the language barrier game.

[BWR]

Let me put it this way: Thri-kreen are from Athas. Warforged are from Khorvaire. Kender are from Krynn. If my party includes a warforged, a Kender, and a Thri-kreen, they'll all be able to understand each other, because they all speak Common. If this wasn't the case, and "common"was actually a half-dozen different languages from different settings, then it would be impossible for people to play D&D because their characters wouldn't be able to talk to each other, which defeats the whole point of having a common language.



That is one way to do it.
Another is that communication is hard until everyone learns at least one language the others know.

Some of us prefer having a ****load of individual languages and tracking them.
And some settings, like Rokugan, don't really have this problem because in almost all circumstances there will be exactly one language around.

[GrayDeath]

Let me put it this way: Thri-kreen are from Athas. Warforged are from Khorvaire. Kender are from Krynn. If my party includes a warforged, a Kender, and a Thri-kreen, they'll all be able to understand each other, because they all speak Common. If this wasn't the case, and "common"was actually a half-dozen different languages from different settings, then it would be impossible for people to play D&D because their characters wouldn't be able to talk to each other, which defeats the whole point of having a common language.



Except we're talking about fantasy settings where the normal rules of probability do not apply.



Bolded for Emphasis.^^

What makes you think that different Settings, realistic evolution aside, use the same "common" if they dont even actually exist as seen from other settings?

The only way for your definition to Common making any sense (and even then only mechanically/meta, not "rationally") would be if you play a Planescape Campaign and whoever DMs it declares ALL Settings to exist within Planescape.


Sidenote: (aside from the fact that "Fantasy Setting" and "all normal rules need not apply for entry"^^ are not synonimous.
Yes, a lot of "normal Rules" dont apply in a lot of settings of the big Genre "Fantasy", but at least I do only know of one that ignores all normal "rules" and Laws (Nobilis).

[rediridesence]

isnt rokugani like a naga language or something? iirc in the OA book certain creatures such as the greensnake naga/etc speak it, while other races speak common.

if that is the case wouldnt that make them different?

[BWR]

isnt rokugani like a naga language or something? iirc in the OA book certain creatures such as the greensnake naga/etc speak it, while other races speak common.

if that is the case wouldnt that make them different?

Rokugani is not naga language. It is the language of the human empire of Rokugan. Some naga speak it in order to communicate with those upstart weird naked ape thingies that popped up while they were sleeping.

Part of the issue is that OA introduced more than just Rokugan, and tried to juggle 'generic' Asian creatures as well as specifically Rokugani stuff in the same book, leading to some weirdness. So it makes more sense to say that Rokugani is common since most people will be playing a humanocentric L5R game. Again, if Rokugan was meant to be dumped in the middle of an existing campaign, it would make sense to say that Common =/= Rokugani, and in a straight L5R campaign it doesn't matter.

[Sutr]

Thread makes me think crisis on the materials game where common isn't the same but orc and goblin is might be fun.

[RatElemental]

The only way for your definition to Common making any sense (and even then only mechanically/meta, not "rationally") would be if you play a Planescape Campaign and whoever DMs it declares ALL Settings to exist within Planescape.


Well you could go any route that has all settings existing at once, whether they're within the setting you're actually playing or the one you're in is just another one within the meta-setting. Spelljammer was an attempt at this I believe.

[Jay R]

Like most questions about the setting, this is entirely up to the DM.

In the last game I ran, Common was Old English.

[One Step Two]

What an odd supposition, that the Common language should be the same across different settings. I know for a fact I speak English, but if I go to Yorkshire in England, where they too speak English, I will have have a hard time understanding everything they are saying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au2h-otia64). We use the same words, but context changes due to regional differences and slang. We have a Common enough understanding to be able to talk though, because of a shared history and lexicon.

Two different Material Planes of existence would certainly have a "Common" language for trades, but their history and how they came to be would be something unrecognizable to each other unless they had a split timeline. Even the the languages Orcs and Goblins speak across different settings would almost be unrecognizable to those racial groups.

The one example I have from play where languages differences were enforced was when my group was playing a 3.5 game set in the Roman Empire around Magic awakening again, our party spoke Common, which for us was Latin. We encountered magical creatures, who were mostly bestial but when we encountered Elves for the first time we tried to communicate. the Egyptian court magician (a wizard) became the translater because when we found that the language of Magic was something both races could understand. In game mechanics terms the Draconic Language and the Atlantean Language (which the DM granted to all Arcane casters) were very similar.

[weckar]

That's really cool. For me, in plane-hopping games, only the languages of the traditional outer planes are in any way universal.

[NNescio]

Think of it this way. In Faerun, they speak Louisiana English. In Rokugan they speak Newcastle English. In Krynn they speak a Caribbean patois that is still technically English. In Mystara they speak something that is way weird mixture of Australian "strine" slang and Cockney rhyming slang.

It's all technically English. And for m̡̞̠̪̙̺o͏̜ͅṣ̯̞̩̲t̯̫̭̺̤ ̺p̧r̲̭̟̳͍͇̜͝a̛̲̼͉͖͈̘c͎̪t͈̪̺͓̪i͙͝c̭̀a̺̼̩͈l̵͕̣͙͓ ̥͍̰ ͙ͅp̹̪̱̟̟̝u͈̼̼̞̦r̟p̸̹o̺͉s҉͇̼̼͍̼̮e̪̤̭̼͎ș̵̮͈͍,̼͞ ̠̲̩ ͙͠a҉̬̳͕ḷ̨͖̦̪̬l m̶̧͎͍͔̩̳̪̠̗̔́͆̇ͫ̔ͭ͡ų̷̞̪̗̙̰̪̖̈ͭ́̋ͯͧ͂̓ͤͪ̐ͬͪ̒̀̚͘͡t͊̋ ̼̞̥̭̦̘͉ͥ̕͢͝u͂̔ͣ͋͑͗̂ͯ̾̂͂́ͤ̀̓̀҉͡͏͇̦͈͙̥͉̝̲͖̞̭ǎ̇̽ͬͫͨ͒ ̨̦̰̹̝͖̺̬̘͈̃̂ͬ̐͐͒͘͟l̸̶͈͙̥̤̼̪̳͔̗͚̫͆ͦͭͦͮ͋̿ͮ̇͌̓ͧ̀̿̐̿͒̋ ̭̺̥̜̤ĺ̴̮̺̙͚͕̼͙̱̘̜̓̋ͧ̍̇͌ͯ̓̓ͧ͟y̏ͨͮ̋ͪ̓ͦ̀͗ͦ͏̶̬̟̜̩̳͚͖̮ ͙̺̪̲͚͓̗̪͔ ̟̜͚͚͎͉̼̟͊͗͋̿͒ͮ̀̕͜u̴̝̣͈̱̝͔̰̺̬͉̭͓͛̏͒͜n̷̴͐̌̌̈̽̑̌̿̊̋ͧͪ ̨̗̰͚̳̜̣͘i̶̸̷̛̲̠̻̪̱̠̣̼̣̩̩̦͇̾̒ͤ̈́ͬͅn̶̔̀̍ͥ̄́ͯ̓̄ͤ̽̂̒̚͟͝ ̯̩̞͖͓t̠̦̳̪̗͖̭̣̱̱̭̘ͪ̎ͨ̍̔̃ͣ̒̏̆́͠ͅễ̷̦͈̗̬ͦ̋̔͂̂̋̚͝lͮͬ ̢̱̬̭̥͈͙̠͈͈̭̤͇̮̥̅̀̎ͣ͒ͮ̈͌̇̄ͬ̃̒ͪͪ̒̔́̀́͘ļ̷̢̣̰̭̤͈̺͐̃͑͜ ̺̟̩̳̭͓̰̩͎̺͔̟͔į̙̫̝̰̥̖̇ͮ͋̕g̡̙̥̠̯̗̀ͫ͂́͢į̧̓͑̆̄ͮͣ͑́͘̕ ͎͈̮͈͔̙̬̝̩̝̙b̢̮̮̙̼͚̮͇̉ͬ̉͂͗ͦ̾͛͑ͤ͊ͣ̿͢͠lͭ̑̎ͤͦͮ̓ͧ̈͌ͤͬͥ̒ ̯̪͕̘̥̝̜̝̗̀͘͞ͅe̛̜͙̤͖͙̹̘̘͓̭̺̩̤̰͐̋̉̈͋̀ͣ̄̊ͮ̂̐͂̍ͬ̈́̐͜͜͞͡ ̟̖̰̰̩.̡̃̏̂̑̎̿́̃̈̿ͧͯ̆͏̨̨̠̹̝̻̥̹̥͎͕̠͈̦͈̲̘̤







I thought Cockney is Planar Standard Common (AKA Sigilite).

[Tiktakkat]

I thought Cockney is Planar Standard Common (AKA Sigilite).

Sort of but not exactly.
The writers deliberately "tweaked" some definitions in order to slip things past the censors. There are some Siglian quotes in PS books that are outrageously filthy as a result. You might want to be careful about using it directly among people who know the real world slang.

As for "Common", perhaps consider the actual definition in linguistics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koiné_language
With particular reference to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
"Koine" means "common".

With that in mind, in regards to PCs communicating with each other, the "standard", both historically and in a good deal of fiction, is that characters speak multiple languages. Of course this can easily lead to putting skill points into languages becoming a skill tax. That can be complicated if dialects within languages are raised to the level of requiring skill points or skill checks to understand. The ultimate response to that is of course a tongues spell, or outright telepathy where socially acceptable.

[Katie Boundary]

Why do you believe that it's expected that a halfling from Athas and a warforged from Eberron should be in the same party and able to talk to each other?

Because that's what the players in the party picked for their races and oh look they all get "common" as an automatic language, except the Kobold, who will have to let the Wizard translate everything because the Wizard is the only one in the group who speaks Draconic.

BTW, I'm also assuming that Draconic is the same from one plane to another. And Elven is the same from one plane to another. And Abyssal is the same from one plane to another, and so on.


Something to note is that "Common" in both Faerum and Eberron have a history, language family and dialects. They are completely different from each other. Either two different languages with two different histories and dialects somehow ended up being exactly the same or they're different languages.

The five Elven subraces that you'll find in Dragonlance are completely different from the ones that you'll find in Forgotten Realms. Guess what? Elves are still all a single race (except for the Sea Elves; I think those guys might be an actual separate race just like Faerie Dragons aren't really dragons), and Elven is the same language on both planes.

Just accept the fact that fantasy settings don't give a rat's arse about probability, and take convergent evolution to an extreme.


Some of us actually enjoy playing the language barrier game.

Great! Then play as a race that doesn't get Common as an automatic language. There are plenty of those.


different Settings... dont even actually exist as seen from other settings?

{scrubbed}


The only way for your definition to Common making any sense... would be if you play a Planescape Campaign and whoever DMs it declares ALL Settings to exist within Planescape.

That's the assumption that I'm working with. How else do you explain Warforged and Thri-kreen ending up in Oerth?


What an odd supposition, that the Common language should be the same across different settings. I know for a fact I speak English, but if I go to Yorkshire in England, where they too speak English, I will have have a hard time understanding everything they are saying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au2h-otia64). We use the same words, but context changes due to regional differences and slang. We have a Common enough understanding to be able to talk though, because of a shared history and lexicon.

D&D already has an analogue of this. Githyanki and Githzerai are sometimes considered a single language (Gith), and sometimes considered two different but mutually intelligible languages.


Even the the languages Orcs and Goblins speak across different settings would almost be unrecognizable to those racial groups.

{scrubbed} Why? If that was the case, then they'd be assigned different languages.


As for "Common", perhaps consider the actual definition in linguistics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koiné_language
With particular reference to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
"Koine" means "common".

We're not discussing ancient Greece, nor are we discussing the real-world linguistic concept of "a common language" with a lowercase c. We're discussing the fictional language, "Common", with a capital C.

HUGE difference.




--





EDIIT: For the record, I'm coming into D&D from Magic: the Gathering, and expecting things to work more or less the same way linguistically. In MtG, there's a guy named Ura, who spends several thousand years cruising around the cosmos and making a mess of things, and in every single plane that he visits, from Phyrexia to Serra's realm, the inhabitants speak more or less the same language, though Urza himself is stated to speak with a "clipped Argivian accent". A while later, the Weatherlight crew (with members from Tolaria, Benalia, Urborg, Talruum, and a bunch of other places) decided to visit the plane of Rath, where everyone from the Skyshroud elves to the Rootwater merfolk spoke the same language that was in wide use in Dominaria. On their way home, they stopped by Mercadia, where once again everyone spoke the same language. In-universe, this is partially explained by the fact that the Phyrexian language is basically a dialect of the ancient Thran language, Rath is a Phyrexian outpost, and Mercadia was settled by refugees from Thran during their civil war that led to their split from the Phyrexians, but still... the rule was "Common is Common, no matter what plane you're on".

[Recherché]

{scrubbed}

[RatElemental]

EDIIT: For the record, I'm coming into D&D from Magic: the Gathering, and expecting things to work more or less the same way linguistically. In MtG, there's a guy named Ura, who spends several thousand years cruising around the cosmos and making a mess of things, and in every single plane that he visits, from Phyrexia to Serra's realm, the inhabitants speak more or less the same language, though Urza himself is stated to speak with a "clipped Argivian accent". A while later, the Weatherlight crew (with members from Tolaria, Benalia, Urborg, Talruum, and a bunch of other places) decided to visit the plane of Rath, where everyone from the Skyshroud elves to the Rootwater merfolk spoke the same language that was in wide use in Dominaria. On their way home, they stopped by Mercadia, where once again everyone spoke the same language. In-universe, this is partially explained by the fact that the Phyrexian language is basically a dialect of the ancient Thran language, Rath is a Phyrexian outpost, and Mercadia was settled by refugees from Thran during their civil war that led to their split from the Phyrexians, but still... the rule was "Common is Common, no matter what plane you're on".

I mean, that's all well and good and all, but why would you expect that to hold up in an entirely different game that has roots in entirely different things made by entirely different people?

[One Step Two]

Wow there's a lot to unpack here, but I am going to reply to this as it pertains to my posts at least to try and make it simpler.


D&D already has an analogue of this. Githyanki and Githzerai are sometimes considered a single language (Gith), and sometimes considered two different but mutually intelligible languages.

I agree with this, because the Gith are have a shared history even across the larger cosmology of the Planes, hence why I used a Yorkshire accent and my own Australian use of English as a shared language but a large difference can make it somewhat difficult to communicate. We have that shared history that gives us a base with which to talk to one another, whereas different planes of existence with a different origin story and their own Language is something else again, I will go over that later in my response.


{scrubbed} Why? If that was the case, then they'd be assigned different languages.

Namely here. The use of Goblins speaking Goblin even in different Planes is short hand, the Goblins of the Forgotten realms actually speak Ghukliak (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin_language), where in Eberron, Goblins speak what was once called Dhakaan. (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin_(language))


EDIIT: For the record, I'm coming into D&D from Magic: the Gathering....

That's M:tG's standards for what they consider common, but what I and others in this thread are trying to explain is that everyone has Common, but it's their version of Common what is native to their plane or homeland. Even in the Forgotten realms, what is common is divided based on where on Toril you're from changes what is considered common. If you come from Zakhara (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Al-Qadim) the common language is Midani (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Midani_language).
But to be specific to different planes, in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, Common is a Trade Language (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Common) derived from the old Thorass Language (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thorass_language), but in the Eberron Campaign setting Common is Galifarian (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Common), which evolved from the language humans spoke in Sarlona. (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Common) If you planeshifted from one to the other and didn't have the Tongues Spell, or Telepathy or any number of ways to obviate the language barrier (Because Magic), then they cannot understand one another.

[Katie Boundary]

Again, that can all be chalked up to convergent evolution taken to an extreme, which is the same explanation for how these exact same species evolve independently on multiple planes, except for the part about Midani, where you are conflating "a common language" with capital-C "Common".

EDIT: to clarify what I mean, if you choose to play as a human fighter or rogue, you can select Anauroch as your home region, which will result in you getting Midani as an automatic language in addition to Common. Ergo, while Midani may be "a common language", it is not the same language as Common with a capital C.

[One Step Two]

No, I did not make a conflation of common languages, I was showing that in the Forgotten Realms Common (Capital C) is a trade language of Thorass, and that in Eberron that Common (Capital C) is another name of Galifarian. I'm providing evidence that the use of the term Common is a short hand, instead off every entry for a race has something like Thorassian(Common) in FRCS, and Galifarian(Common) in Eberron. Even in your Opening post when you mentioned some monsters having Rokugani (Common) is evidence that different settings have different versions of Common as a Language. You can make the claim of a convergent evolution of languages, but some evidence would be appreciated.

[Tiktakkat]

We're not discussing ancient Greece, nor are we discussing the real-world linguistic concept of "a common language" with a lowercase c. We're discussing the fictional language, "Common", with a capital C.

HUGE difference.

Well, no. Zero difference.
Because if you read the definition of "Common", with a Capital C, in the game, it is rather the same as that given for "Koine languages". Indeed, the ancient Greek dialect called "Koine" is spelled with a capital K, which is the exact same meaning as "Common" with a capital C.

The reason Rokugani and Common are not the same language is the same reason why Common from one setting and Common from another setting are not the same language, and should be the identical reason why all Dwarves in a setting speak Dwarven, all Elves speak Elven, all Orcs speak Orcish, and so forth - they are the "Common" languages of those races in those settings.
In fact, some campaign settings even note that different areas of the world have different "Common" languages.
How can there be multiple languages called "Common"?
Because that is how the concept works in real life, and that concept is what was developed for the D&D game settings.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread re-opened.

[Katie Boundary]

BTW, the answer to my original question was "they're the same language". The proof is on OA Page 58, in a section labeled "new uses for old skills".


I was showing that in the Forgotten Realms Common (Capital C) is a trade language of Thorass, and that in Eberron that Common (Capital C) is another name of Galifarian.

Okay, but that's not evidence of anything except that Common comes about differently in different campaign settings. It has nothing to do with the grammar, vocabulary, or anything else related to the present-day state of the language itself.

Also, for the record, your first source has a big fat [citation needed] after its claim that "Inhabitants of different planes also speak different forms of Common [citation needed]", while your second does not mention a language named "Galifarian". It only states that, in Galifar, a language named "Common" evolved from one named "Old Common".


I'm providing evidence that the use of the term Common is a short hand

You have provided no such thing.


You can make the claim of a convergent evolution of languages, but some evidence would be appreciated.

The evidence is the fact that it's capitalized, which means it's a proper noun, means there's only one of it, just like there's only one Australia, only one Microsoft corporation, only one Captain Kirk, etc.


Because if you read the definition of "Common", with a Capital C, in the game, it is rather the same as that given for "Koine languages". Indeed, the ancient Greek dialect called "Koine" is spelled with a capital K, which is the exact same meaning as "Common" with a capital C.

I'm sorry but none of that has ANYTHING to do with D&D.

D&D is not Greece. Your argument is not only invalid but incoherent.

EDIT: the 3.5e player's handbook, page 12, says "THE language heard most, however, is Common" and "all characters know how to speak Common". It doesn't make any exceptions based on campaign settings or planes.

[BWR]

EDIT: the 3.5e player's handbook, page 12, says "THE language heard most, however, is Common" and "all characters know how to speak Common". It doesn't make any exceptions based on campaign settings or planes.

I figured this way of thinking was your problem.

That's not how D&D rules work. Specific trumps general. Setting ALWAYS trumps generic rulebook.
If a setting says dragons don't exist, then it doesn't matter if they are in the MM, they don't exist in that setting. It doesn't matter if dwarves are a PC race in the PHB, if the GM says they aren't, they aren't.

If a setting says that Common is not a specfic language but that there are a variety of common languages depending on where you are, then that is what is true for that setting.

D&D non-setting rulebooks are toolkits. They are not iron-clad strictures that force stuff for every setting or game, they give you tools to build your games, and specific settings or GMs may use or ignore them as they wish, and they may add new stuff that is not in the generic rulebooks as they wish.

[Katie Boundary]

If a setting says that Common is not a specfic language but that there are a variety of common languages depending on where you are, then that is what is true for that setting.

Okay. Name one D&D 3.x campaign setting which says that.

[Afghanistan]

Okay. Name one D&D 3.x campaign setting which says that.

My response to this depends on one answer: Do you considered Rokugan Campaign Setting as a D&D 3.x campaign setting?






Unlike other realms of similar size, it is extremely unusual when traveling in Rokugan to encounter any language other than Rokugani. This is understandable given the Empire's xenophobic view of other people and their customs. Other languages do exist in Rokugan, but they are exceedingly rare and spoken only in specific locations or circumstances. [...]

The text then goes on to say:




This is the language most often used by the people of the Empire. It is spoken by the peasants in the field, the guards in the barracks, the merchants in the city, and even in informal court settings. There are numerous dialects of the tongue, making it possible to determine where a particular individual might be from based on his dictation and enunciation. Most dialects are clan-specific, although some provinces throughout the Empire have developed their own variants.

And interestingly enough, there is text either implying or outright stating that non-Rokugani, non-Kami, non-Human languages (aka Common and Undercommon) are wholly foreign to the setting entirely.



The rarest of all languages in Rokugan are those spoken by the gaijin. The low number of outsiders in Rokugan means that very few such languages are ever heard, much less understood.

So the answer to your question here is that it appears in the Emerald Empire they:


Have a common language and that language is Rokugani
This language varies based on region to the point where they can tell where one is, or where one is from based on their dictation and enunciation.
It is uniquely called out as being different than common.


Otherwise carry on. I admittedly don't know much about the Rokugan or the L5R, but it is very, very interesting to watch discussions on the matter :smallsmile:

[Katie Boundary]

I just checked OA page 130, and it says nothing about languages. It's a table of arcane spells and their market prices.



It is uniquely called out as being different than common.

Where? Certainly not in any of the quotes you gave, which I could not verify the authenticity of even if they did.

[Afghanistan]

Where? Certainly not in any of the quotes you gave, which I could not verify the authenticity of even if they did.

It isn't in Oriental Adventures. It's in the "Rokugan Campaign Setting" published by the original owners of the L5R source material. It is an entirely independent piece of material that is not published by WoTC. Oriental Adventures was WoTCs attempt to convert the material from L5R into their D&D 3.x series of material.

Here (https://l5r.fandom.com/wiki/Rokugan_Campaign_Setting) is L5Rwiki article on it to prove that this book actually exists.

[NNescio]

Here (https://l5r.fandom.com/wiki/Rokugan_Campaign_Setting) is L5Rwiki article on it to prove that this book actually exists.

Eh, someone might still object. Fortunately the ISBN number exists (1-887953-38-8), which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the book was published.

(For reference, OA's ISBN-10 number is 0-7869-2015-7.)

Though, yeah, it's 3rd party content. (Since the rights have reverted back to AEG. But Rokugan was intended as a supplement to OA [for people running Rokugan instead of the other oriental settings], and there was significant coordination between AEG and WotC when releasing both OA and Rokugan, so it's kinda more official than most other 3rd party content.)

[RatElemental]

The evidence is the fact that it's capitalized, which means it's a proper noun, means there's only one of it, just like there's only one Australia, only one Microsoft corporation, only one Captain Kirk, etc.

There's also 23 Parises, in the US alone. Add Paris, France and you get 24, and I'm sure there's more besides. As well, there are 88 Washingtons in the US (not counting the state), 41 Springfields, 35 Franklins (though I'm sure if you were counting people instead of cities that number would be far higher), and so on.

Whether or not it's a proper noun proves nothing one way or the other.

[Liquor Box]

Though, yeah, it's 3rd party content. (Since the rights have reverted back to AEG. But Rokugan was intended as a supplement to OA [for people running Rokugan instead of the other oriental settings], and there was significant coordination between AEG and WotC when releasing both OA and Rokugan, so it's kinda more official than most other 3rd party content.)

Not sure where you think it stacks up against Rokugan, but the computer game Baldurs Gate was made under licence (with, I understand, significant coordination with WotC). It's set in Forgotten Realms but there's opportunity to meet characters from different campaign settings (Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance, and mean halflings from Darksun). You can communicate with them fine in common. So the interpretation (probably based on expedience as much as anything) there was that the different common in those different setting is the same.



I mean it should be obvious that 2 totally isolated human societies on different worlds that have no common origin except being human do not use the same lingua france. ^^

This doesn't really work very well logically.

It is even less likely (than them having the same language) that two isolated world would both have life that evolves to take the form of humanity with no common origin (not to mention all the other creatures in the Monster Manuals). If you are going to handwave away the amazing coincidence that life on different worlds evolved to nearly the exact same form, it's pretty easy to handwave the less amazing coincidence that the prevalent language evolved to be the same.


There's also 23 Parises, in the US alone. Add Paris, France and you get 24, and I'm sure there's more besides. As well, there are 88 Washingtons in the US (not counting the state), 41 Springfields, 35 Franklins (though I'm sure if you were counting people instead of cities that number would be far higher), and so on.

Whether or not it's a proper noun proves nothing one way or the other.

You are right that it being a proper noun does not prove that it is unique.

But Katie is right that Common being a proper noun means it is not merely a descriptive term denoting that the language is the one commonly used. It is the name of a specific language. It's true that there might be other languages with the same name - although much less likely than with places which tend to have the same name because they are named after the same thing, or each other. But it is still the name of a specific language, and there's not evidence to suggest that when the same name is used for a language on a different setting, that it is intended to be a different language.



If a setting says that Common is not a specfic language but that there are a variety of common languages depending on where you are, then that is what is true for that setting.


Sure, but if the language spoken in a setting is simply referred to as Common, and there is no differentiation of that from PHB Common, then there's no reason to think that it's a different language. Of course a setting can explicitly differentiate its language as different, but until it does it's fair to assume it's the same.

[EisenKreutzer]

This seems like a question whose answer is «this is up to the individual GM.»
This actually came up in my Pathfinder game, where one character is from Rokugan. My personal ruling was that Rokugani is indeed different than common, but «luckily» the character had picked up a smattering of gaijin common from encounters with the Unicorn clan.

Could you quote RAW endlessly back and forth to try and settle this topic strictly according to whats printed in the books? Of course, as this thread demonstrates.
Is that a valuable way to spend time and effort? Thats debatable.

[dancrilis]

Another example of Common being a language would be Ravenloft where Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk at the top of my head overlap without having an issue with Common.

[Chauncymancer]

Hengeyokai, for example, are given Common as an automatic language, while Nezumi are given Rokugani. But then certain monsters are described as speaking "Rokugani (Common)", implying that they're the same language...?



OA is as much a setting book as it is a supplement for the core game. Rokugani is the common language of the Legend of the Five Rings setting that OA is supposed to be presenting. Those entries mean that those creatures are intended to be present in the Lo5R, Rokugan setting and know Rokugani. If you instead port them to some other setting, change it to common. If you have a blended setting, the Rokugani Empire is part of a larger setting, choose one.



Rokugan is not a D&D setting originally, and the OA adaptation is rather crappy..
If they then go on to say that Common is spoken elsewhere in the world of L5R, that is not canonically true. I suspect it's written that way if you want to add Rokugan to an existing D&D world.



Part of the issue is that OA introduced more than just Rokugan, and tried to juggle 'generic' Asian creatures as well as specifically Rokugani stuff in the same book, leading to some weirdness.

the "Rokugan Campaign Setting" ...an entirely independent piece of material that is not published by WoTC. Oriental Adventures was WoTCs attempt to convert the material from L5R into their D&D 3.x series of material.


To summarize differently: OA is supposed to be the rules cyclopedia for a family of East-Asian themed campaign settings, including the Rokugan D20 campaign setting. However: The other OA settings don't appear to have ever been published (if they have I've never seen them) and the Rokugan campaign setting was published independently. The language listing would have ideally let you know at a glance if a monster was native to Rokugan "speaks Rokugani" was native to some other setting "speaks Common" or appeared in both "speaks Rokugani (common)".

[BWR]

Okay. Name one D&D 3.x campaign setting which says that.

I....I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have:
Rules are subordinate to setting. It doesn't matter which set of rules you use to run the game, the fluff remains the same. The generic rules are by necessity generic and simplified for maximum usefulness in building and running your own games.
Or do you assume that no other gods in other settings exist outside those in the PHB? Do all elves on Krynn suddenly worship Corellon (who doesn't exist in DL) rather than any of the actual Dragonlance gods? Do Mystra and the Weave not embody magic on Abeir-Toril because the only primary god of magic in the PHB is Boccob, with no mention of the Weave?
Any problems here are your misconceptions about how settings and rules work, not how they actually work.

But to humor you:
Forgotten Realms - "Common grew from a kind of pdigin Chondathan, and is most closely related to that language"

Dragonglance doesn't mention the origin of its Common, but since Chondathan doesn't exist there (being, you know, from another setting and all) I think it safe to assume it doesn't have the same origin.

Scarred Lands and Ravenloft explicitly operate without Common, they just have various regional languages.

Ptolus: Common (Imperial): a variation of old Prustan. Yet another setting unique language.

Kalamar: no Common, but there is a Merchant's Tongue which is a creole of setting specific languages (which, outside of the equally annoying issues with Dwarven, Elven, etc. do not contain any languages from other settings)

Nyambe: Kordo is the most commonly spoken language.

There was no proper 3.x release of Greyhawk (where the default information about gods and presumably languages in the PHB comes from), but 1e talks about "the local common tongue" in one box and have Common a mix of ancient Baklunish and Old Oerdian in another, neither of which exist in FR, DL, Eberron, or any other setting you care to name other than possibly SJ and PS.

Dark Sun common is descended from the ancient halfling language, again not obviously related to any other setting.

Rokugan is its own non-D&D campaign setting, and Common only shows up in the previously mentioned crappy mixed setting attempt they did for OA. It is not an official part of L5R. Use AEG's "Rokugan" for the correct d20 adaptation, and that as well as any edition of AEG's original R&K system books for information.

Golarion has at least two Commons, Taldane in the Inner Sea region and Tian in the GChinese area. Note how neither Taldane nor Tian exist in any other setting.


And finally, the 3.0and 3.5 PHB note that Common is spoken by all "who take part in the culture at large". If we are going to be stupidly literal about this there is only a single 'large' culture - whatever that means (basically human, it seems) - in any setting, which is patently false. Now if only someone had thought about the problems of 'common' before now....


[Common] is the spoken by all states in the central campaign area, but your referee may well have area where the common tongue is different from that which your character speaks.


"Speakers never call it the Common tongue"
Also notes how that is merely rulebook shorthand for 'the most commonly spoken language in an area', like how Thyatian would be Common in Thyatis.

2nd edition PHB doesn't even bother to mention normal languages in the PHB other than to note that a PC from one area might not know the languages of another.

[Ashtagon]

To summarize differently: OA is supposed to be the rules cyclopedia for a family of East-Asian themed campaign settings, including the Rokugan D20 campaign setting. However: The other OA settings don't appear to have ever been published (if they have I've never seen them) and the Rokugan campaign setting was published independently. The language listing would have ideally let you know at a glance if a monster was native to Rokugan "speaks Rokugani" was native to some other setting "speaks Common" or appeared in both "speaks Rokugani (common)".

Within the 3e OA book, every class and monster that was supposed to appear in the Rokugan/L5R setting had the L5R logo (https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/f2/b3/f2b3c484-596b-4138-b601-aa4821ac946c/rings1_empty.png) next to it. As of the time it was published, the only other WotC "Oriental" setting was that of Wa-Kozakura-Shou Lung-T'u Lung, which was originally conceived as being attached to Greyhawk, but became part of Faerûn when it eventually became officially attached to a pre-existing "western" world. It was never made clear whether L5R classes and monsters could officially exist in the "not-L5R" OA setting.

[dancrilis]

Ravenloft explicitly operate without Common, they just have various regional languages.

This is true for 3.5 - so for this section (3e/3.5e/d20) I will concede this (it does not seem true for 1st ed or 5th ed).

[BWR]

This is true for 3.5 - so for this section (3e/3.5e/d20) I will concede this (it does not seem true for 1st ed or 5th ed).

3.0, technically. I was not able to find any information on languages in 2e (pretty sure the only 1e Ravenloft is the original adventure) and am unfamiliar with 5e.

And I forgot to note that while Eberron, the only proper 1st party campaign setting new to 3.5 that I can think of, uses Common without any more detail in its core book, the creator has this to say on the subject of Eberrons languages (http://keith-baker.com/tag/languages/), including Common, which, surprise surprise, happens to be developed from existing Eberronian (?) languages.

[Tallyn]

BTW, the answer to my original question was "they're the same language". The proof is on OA Page 58, in a section labeled "new uses for old skills".



Okay, but that's not evidence of anything except that Common comes about differently in different campaign settings. It has nothing to do with the grammar, vocabulary, or anything else related to the present-day state of the language itself.

Also, for the record, your first source has a big fat [citation needed] after its claim that "Inhabitants of different planes also speak different forms of Common [citation needed]", while your second does not mention a language named "Galifarian". It only states that, in Galifar, a language named "Common" evolved from one named "Old Common".



You have provided no such thing.



The evidence is the fact that it's capitalized, which means it's a proper noun, means there's only one of it, just like there's only one Australia, only one Microsoft corporation, only one Captain Kirk, etc.



I'm sorry but none of that has ANYTHING to do with D&D.

D&D is not Greece. Your argument is not only invalid but incoherent.

EDIT: the 3.5e player's handbook, page 12, says "THE language heard most, however, is Common" and "all characters know how to speak Common". It doesn't make any exceptions based on campaign settings or planes.

Why are you coming in with such a hostile attitude? I would recommend you leave any assumptions you've garnered from Magic the Gathering (I've played for nearly 26 years myself), back in that game.

The only answer that REALLY matters is... ask your GM. I play (personally) that different worlds have different "common" languages. Other GMs may not play that way. If you find a GM has a particular preference, and that's a game breaker for you, just be upfront about it.

[HeraldOfExius]

You are right that it being a proper noun does not prove that it is unique.

But Katie is right that Common being a proper noun means it is not merely a descriptive term denoting that the language is the one commonly used. It is the name of a specific language. It's true that there might be other languages with the same name - although much less likely than with places which tend to have the same name because they are named after the same thing, or each other. But it is still the name of a specific language, and there's not evidence to suggest that when the same name is used for a language on a different setting, that it is intended to be a different language.

Given that languages have a tendency to be named using adjectives that describe the people that speak them, two languages having "the same name" shouldn't be too unexpected in thematically similar worlds. I put "the same name" in quotes because Common is what we call these languages in English (AKA: the language of Angles (not to be confused with Celestial, the language of angels)). If a world has a common language that's used by pretty much anybody, why not give it a name that translates into our English word "Common"?

This is why the previously referenced Koine Greek works as a comparison. Do you really expect the authors of every setting to have to say "the common language is called Qwertyuiop, which is actually the Qwertyuiop word for 'common'" if they want something mechanically implemented as Common without using the same language as every other setting? Or is Common actually just English no matter where you go, hence why every Common is named with the English word "common"?

Tl;dr: Languages from different worlds don't necessarily have the same name, their names just translate into the same English word.

[Luccan]

To summarize differently: OA is supposed to be the rules cyclopedia for a family of East-Asian themed campaign settings, including the Rokugan D20 campaign setting. However: The other OA settings don't appear to have ever been published (if they have I've never seen them) and the Rokugan campaign setting was published independently. The language listing would have ideally let you know at a glance if a monster was native to Rokugan "speaks Rokugani" was native to some other setting "speaks Common" or appeared in both "speaks Rokugani (common)".

Mahasarpa got a web write up, but nothing else sadly. It's a shame too, since it was created with D&D in mind it didn't have a bunch of class and social restrictions that were hard to navigate or completely ignored in the 3rd edition write up of Rokugan

[Jay R]

And after all that analysis and discussion, it’s still up to each individual DM.

[One Step Two]

Also, for the record, your first source has a big fat [citation needed] after its claim that "Inhabitants of different planes also speak different forms of Common [citation needed]", while your second does not mention a language named "Galifarian". It only states that, in Galifar, a language named "Common" evolved from one named "Old Common".

You have provided no such thing.


The articles I linked had some very good information, such as in the Eberron Common (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Common) link, in the sidebar it clearly states that Common has the Aliases: Galifarian.
If you follow the link referring to Old Common, it even goes into detail that "On Sarlona, Old Common became Riedran, which is essentially a combination of Old Common and the Quori language; while on Khorvaire, Old Common became (with the gnomes help, or so they say) Common, the official language of the Kingdom of Galifar."
This even shows how Old Common became two distinct languages, heck in the information regarding Riedran (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Riedran), it even specifically calls out "Though both Riedran and Common come from the root Old Common, they have evolved differently enough that someone speaking one cannot understand the other."

Also, asking for Citation, and saying that I am not giving evidence while I have provided Citation and evidence is very odd. Heck, the Wiki links even have book references to the information I am giving you, why the hostility? I am giving evidence to explain my reasoning, you can't just say that I am not.



The evidence is the fact that it's capitalized, which means it's a proper noun, means there's only one of it, just like there's only one Australia, only one Microsoft corporation, only one Captain Kirk, etc.

Are you saying that something having a proper noun means there can only be one of something? Your Name in real life is a proper noun, are you saying no-one else can have that name?

[Liquor Box]

Given that languages have a tendency to be named using adjectives that describe the people that speak them, two languages having "the same name" shouldn't be too unexpected in thematically similar worlds. I put "the same name" in quotes because Common is what we call these languages in English (AKA: the language of Angles (not to be confused with Celestial, the language of angels)). If a world has a common language that's used by pretty much anybody, why not give it a name that translates into our English word "Common"?

This is why the previously referenced Koine Greek works as a comparison. Do you really expect the authors of every setting to have to say "the common language is called Qwertyuiop, which is actually the Qwertyuiop word for 'common'" if they want something mechanically implemented as Common without using the same language as every other setting? Or is Common actually just English no matter where you go, hence why every Common is named with the English word "common"?

Tl;dr: Languages from different worlds don't necessarily have the same name, their names just translate into the same English word.

Yes, that is possible. But it is improbable, given how many languages there are in the real world, and how few (are there any other than Greek) mean 'common', that the language of numerous different worlds all independently names their different languages 'Common' (or a word with the same meaning).

I think a better interpretation is that Common, as described in the PHB (and many sourcebooks) is a single language that applies to each world, with the exception of those worlds who explicitly say otherwise (who will probably use a different name for their language anyway). In the same way as all these different worlds use a gold piece as currency.


I....I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have:

But to humor you:

I feel like you have been coming from the perspective that your own view is clearly right, and the only possible reason for disagreement is that Katie misunderstands you. In doing so you have removed from your mind the possibility that perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding.

The fact that setting can impose variations on the standard rules doesn't doesn't change the fact that the standard rules are the default, and most settings do not explicitly state that the language is distinct from PHB common. Accordingly, to the extent that PHB Common is a particular language, then most setting use that language (with the exception of those few who explicitly impose a different language).

That some settings have a different origin for their language does not make the language itself different.

For example an Ogre in Dragonlance is largely the same monster as an Ogre in Forgotten Realms - however they have very different origins. A Dragonlance Ogre was once a magical and beautiful race, who pre-existed the likes of elves, and were superior to them, but their own complacency led to their downfall as a race. In Forgotten Realms Ogres were formed from an affair between two gods after most of the older races, and came out immediately brutish.

We accept Ogres (or pretty much any D&D race) as being the same as described in the Monster Manual when used in different settings (except when the setting explicitly says otherwise), despite their very different origins. Why would we see language differently?

[Katie Boundary]

I....I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have:
Rules are subordinate to setting. It doesn't matter which set of rules you use to run the game, the fluff remains the same. The generic rules are by necessity generic and simplified for maximum usefulness in building and running your own games.

*scrubbed*


Or do you assume that no other gods in other settings exist outside those in the PHB? Do all elves on Krynn suddenly worship Corellon (who doesn't exist in DL) rather than any of the actual Dragonlance gods? Do Mystra and the Weave not embody magic on Abeir-Toril because the only primary god of magic in the PHB is Boccob, with no mention of the Weave?

*scrubbed*


Any problems here are your misconceptions about how settings and rules work, not how they actually work.

*scrubbed*

*scrubbed*


Do you really expect the authors of every setting to have to say "the common language is called Qwertyuiop, which is actually the Qwertyuiop word for 'common'" if they want something mechanically implemented as Common without using the same language as every other setting?

Yes.


Or is Common actually just English no matter where you go

I bet it's actually Japanese.


Also, asking for Citation, and saying that I am not giving evidence while I have provided Citation and evidence is very odd.

You provided a link that didn't support your claims. That's not the same thing as a "citation" or "evidence".


Are you saying that something having a proper noun means there can only be one of something?

That's exactly how proper nouns work. The only exceptions are when one proper noun is named after another, as is the case with all the non-French cities in the world named after the one true Paris, which is in France. Or how we name planets and moons (and a car company, and a video game console...) after *scrubbed*.

In fact, this is one of the major pillars of copyright law. I can't just make whatever the hell I want and call it "Transformers", because the name "Transformers" already belongs to a specific IP.


Your Name in real life is a proper noun, are you saying no-one else can have that name?

I am the only Katie Boundary in the world unless you can prove otherwise.

[BWR]

And after all that analysis and discussion, it’s still up to each individual DM.

Well, yes. Obviously. DMs can do whatever they want. The issue here is what the rules say and how settings work in canon.





I feel like you have been coming from the perspective that your own view is clearly right, and the only possible reason for disagreement is that Katie misunderstands you. In doing so you have removed from your mind the possibility that perhaps it is you who is misunderstanding.


Perhaps because my view is right? I gave ample evidence for it and the only rebuttal so far has been "but the PHB says...", which is hardly convincing.




The fact that setting can impose variations on the standard rules doesn't doesn't change the fact that the standard rules are the default, .
Yes, but default means that unless that you use X unless exceptions to X are specified. Exceptions are specified in numerous settings, so....




and most settings do not explicitly state that the language is distinct from PHB common.
Don't they? I thought the list I provided was rather comprehensive as far as D&D proper settings were concerned (I did forget Birthright, which doesn't have a Common), with a bunch of 3rd party settings for good measure. Could you perhaps list published settings where Common is listed with no further development and we can compare numbers. Because so far most settings have specific origins or no Common.




Accordingly, to the extent that PHB Common is a particular language, then most setting use that language (with the exception of those few who explicitly impose a different language).


Again, as far as I can see 'most' do not. We obviously can't count home settings because to my knowledge there is no actual data on that, and quite frankly it's irrelevant.





That some settings have a different origin for their language does not make the language itself different.


Why not? I mean, you can assume what you want for a home game, but I no reason to assume that a generic name must mean the languages are the same when all other human languages listed have different names.





For example an Ogre in Dragonlance is largely the same monster as an Ogre in Forgotten Realms - however they have very different origins. A Dragonlance Ogre was once a magical and beautiful race, who pre-existed the likes of elves, and were superior to them, but their own complacency led to their downfall as a race. In Forgotten Realms Ogres were formed from an affair between two gods after most of the older races, and came out immediately brutish.

We accept Ogres (or pretty much any D&D race) as being the same as described in the Monster Manual when used in different settings (except when the setting explicitly says otherwise), despite their very different origins. Why would we see language differently?

Humans look like humans in every setting, therefore all their languages are the same.
See the problem?

And, finally, to reiterate: earlier editions specify that common is based on location and culture. Should we not conclude that this is another instance of 3e trying to simplify things and in that attempt giving some people the wrong idea of how stuff was supposed to work?














That's exactly how proper nouns work. The only exceptions are when one proper noun is named after another, as is the case with all the non-French cities in the world named after the one true Paris, which is in France. Or how we name planets and moons (and a car company, and a video game console...) after *scrubbed*.



Ummmm, no.
'Smith' is a proper noun. It was not given to a particular individual as a uniquely defining name, and all subsequent Smiths are not specifically named after said hypothetical individual.
"Legacy" is the name of quite a number of things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy) and I doubt they are all named this because of a specific thing, rather than the men




In fact, this is one of the major pillars of copyright law. I can't just make whatever the hell I want and call it "Transformers", because the name "Transformers" already belongs to a specific IP.


Treading dangerously close to forbidden topics, but the real world and real languages do not work on copyright law.




I am the only Katie Boundary in the world unless you can prove otherwise.


My cup is now named Katie Boundary.

More seriously, how is this in any way relevant? There are a ****ton of "John Smiths" in the world, does that mean their names are somehow less real or official?

[Katie Boundary]

I....I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have:
Rules are subordinate to setting. It doesn't matter which set of rules you use to run the game, the fluff remains the same. The generic rules are by necessity generic and simplified for maximum usefulness in building and running your own games.
Or do you assume that no other gods in other settings exist outside those in the PHB? Do all elves on Krynn suddenly worship Corellon (who doesn't exist in DL) rather than any of the actual Dragonlance gods? Do Mystra and the Weave not embody magic on Abeir-Toril because the only primary god of magic in the PHB is Boccob, with no mention of the Weave?
Any problems here are your misconceptions about how settings and rules work, not how they actually work.

Let me make something clear to YOU: you are misrepresenting my position, and 3/4 of my current infraction points were earned in the course of defending myself against your false accusations and ones just like them. {Scrubbed} I will also not be responding to any of your posts in the future.

{Scrubbed}

The inhabitants Sigil and patrons of the World Serpent Inn who speak Common can all talk to each other regardless of what plane their dialect of Common hails from.

[BWR]

Let me make something clear to YOU: you are misrepresenting my position, and 3/4 of my current infraction points were earned in the course of defending myself against your false accusations and ones just like them. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I will also not be responding to any of your posts in the future.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If you think I am getting your arguments wrong, please try to enlighten me. Because all I have seen so far is you insisting that the PHB rules override setting information, and making a bunch of irrelevant and/or factually wrong posts to support this. I don't seem to be alone in this interpretation of your arguments.

[Liquor Box]

Perhaps because my view is right? I gave ample evidence for it and the only rebuttal so far has been "but the PHB says...", which is hardly convincing.
I think your view probably is right most of the time, but I think that the views of those you have been arguing with are generally also right. Because you and they (and perhaps now you and I) have been talking past each other you haven't realised that you are (with respect to many of the thread of this discussion) each correctly asserting slightly different things to one another.


Yes, but default means that unless that you use X unless exceptions to X are specified. Exceptions are specified in numerous settings, so....
It would have been useful is you had taken your 'so...' further, because I agree with your statement, but I am not sure what conclusion you think follows.

From your list on the previous page Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Ptolus, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and DnD generic all use Common. None explicitly states (so far as I have seen referenced in this thread) that the version of Common differs from DnD generic Common, although each has its own history of languages it was derived from. I don't think there's any reason to think those are different languages.

From your list on the previous page Ravenloft, Kalamar, Nyambe, Golarion appear from your references to not use Common as their language, instead using other languages which may be either common or not.

So Common is the default, some campaign settings specify that other languages are spoken instead, others appear to adopt PHB Common (although they each give it a different history).


Don't they? I thought the list I provided was rather comprehensive as far as D&D proper settings were concerned (I did forget Birthright, which doesn't have a Common), with a bunch of 3rd party settings for good measure. Could you perhaps list published settings where Common is listed with no further development and we can compare numbers. Because so far most settings have specific origins or no Common.

As above.

I think the source of our disagreement is that you are taking a reference to Common being derived from some earlier language local to that setting to mean that it is not the same Common spoken in other settings where it is derived from a different language local to the other setting. I disagree - see my example about Ogres having different origins in different world, but still being the same animal.


Why not? I mean, you can assume what you want for a home game, but I no reason to assume that a generic name must mean the languages are the same when all other human languages listed have different names.

Because Common is something that is referred to in the PHB. Therefore the default is Common in games (whether home settings or published) is that Common is as described in the PHB. In exactly the same way that Goblins are defined in the Monster Manual, so the default is that Goblins in games (home setting or published setting) are the creatures described as Goblins in the Monster Manual, unless the setting specifies otherwise. Or the spell Magic Missile is the spell set out in the players handbook.

There's nothing stopping you from using the same name for a different language/spell/monster in your setting, but the default when interpreting a reference to a goblin, magic missile or Common in a setting is that it is the version of those things referred to in the core rules.


Humans look like humans in every setting, therefore all their languages are the same.
See the problem?

That is not an argument that anyone is putting to you. The assertion is that where humans speak common in a setting, they are speaking the same language. Where the setting specifies that the speak something other than common, they speak a different language.


And, finally, to reiterate: earlier editions specify that common is based on location and culture. Should we not conclude that this is another instance of 3e trying to simplify things and in that attempt giving some people the wrong idea of how stuff was supposed to work?

I can't comment on the earlier editions without more details of exactly what they say in that regard.

But if you are right about the earlier editions, and right about 3e trying to simplify things, that does not detract from the assertion that in 3e Common is a particular language that forms a default (and a default that is adopted my most, or at least many, published settings). The fact that it was framed this way to simplify things does not mean it isn't true.

[BWR]

I think your view probably is right most of the time, but I think that the views of those you have been arguing with are generally also right. Because you and they (and perhaps now you and I) have been talking past each other you haven't realised that you are (with respect to many of the thread of this discussion) each correctly asserting slightly different things to one another.


Possibly.



It would have been useful is you had taken your 'so...' further, because I agree with your statement, but I am not sure what conclusion you think follows.

From your list on the previous page Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Ptolus, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and DnD generic all use Common. None explicitly states (so far as I have seen referenced in this thread) that the version of Common differs from DnD generic Common, although each has its own history of languages it was derived from. I don't think there's any reason to think those are different languages.


And I see no reason to assume they are. Doesn't it seem more likely that different origins lead to different results? Unless you want to assert that all the languages the various commons have descended from are the same ones and their developments have been identical, or that some higher unnamed power has forced all these Commons to be the same (which is not, to my knowledge, stated anywhere, and is in any case setting specific). The word "Common" is a placeholder tool to make the game easy to get into, not to force all settings to follow it.
Much like you can call someone "king" but the actual title might be different in whatever language they speak and the details of their powers will vary from culture to culture.

When writing a D&D setting you don't actually need to say "This Common is not the same as the generic Common in the PHB, and certainly not the same as the Common of FR" because it isn't an issue that needs addressing in most settings. FR doesn't need to specify that its Common is different than the Common of Al-Qadim (same world, slightly different place) until areas where Common isn't common show up.





From your list on the previous page Ravenloft, Kalamar, Nyambe, Golarion appear from your references to not use Common as their language, instead using other languages which may be either common or not.

So Common is the default, some campaign settings specify that other languages are spoken instead, others appear to adopt PHB Common (although they each give it a different history).


But that's part of the point! Golarion does use the term "Common", it's just noted that this name applies to different languages depending on where you are. It's there presumably so that noob players coming from the PHB don't have to wonder where 'Common' is during character creation.



I think the source of our disagreement is that you are taking a reference to Common being derived from some earlier language local to that setting to mean that it is not the same Common spoken in other settings where it is derived from a different language local to the other setting. I disagree - see my example about Ogres having different origins in different world, but still being the same animal.


But does the same animal always speak the same language? Do they always have the same culture? Do they always even look the same?
Your assumption seems to be that because they have the same name and mostly the same stats, they are the same creature because they exist in a generic book.

Again, shouldn't different origins lead to different results?




Because Common is something that is referred to in the PHB. Therefore the default is Common in games (whether home settings or published) is that Common is as described in the PHB.


Except when exceptions are noted. To attack this from a different angle:
"Common (Blar) is a trade tongue spoken by virtually everyone"
"Blar is a trade tongue spoken by virtually everyone"

How are these different? Do you assume that the former is by default the same as PHB Common and every other Common in D&D because it uses the term "Common"?
Do you assume that the latter is not the same as the former?
The two refer to exactly the same thing.




In exactly the same way that Goblins are defined in the Monster Manual, so the default is that Goblins in games (home setting or published setting) are the creatures described as Goblins in the Monster Manual, unless the setting specifies otherwise.

And when the setting specifies something else yet still uses the term 'goblin' what then? Do we still assume they are exactly the same as goblins from other settings, speak the same language, can breed (well, being this D&D the answer is probably 'yes')?





That is not an argument that anyone is putting to you. The assertion is that where humans speak common in a setting, they are speaking the same language. Where the setting specifies that the speak something other than common, they speak a different language.


*sigh*
There are settings where they use the term Common to refer to specific languages, and which vary between regions in setting.
Do you or anyone else actually believe that these are all somehow the same language despite being explcitly different languages simply because they are called Common?





I can't comment on the earlier editions without more details of exactly what they say in that regard.

But if you are right about the earlier editions, and right about 3e trying to simplify things, that does not detract from the assertion that in 3e Common is a particular language that forms a default (and a default that is adopted my most, or at least many, published settings). The fact that it was framed this way to simplify things does not mean it isn't true.

It does matter if the simplification gives the wrong impression. I don't know if the designers wanted Common to be the same language across all games unless other names for a common tongue were used exclusively, or if they just used generic names because they are easy and never thought that people might start insisting that generic rules trump specific simply because of a functional name being capitalized.

[Peelee]

The evidence is the fact that it's capitalized, which means it's a proper noun, means there's only one of it, just like there's only one Australia, only one Microsoft corporation, only one Captain Kirk, etc.

There's actually three Kirks. There's Main Continuity Kirk, Mirror Universe Kirk, and Alternate Timeline Kirk.

[Faily]

Is Rokugani the "unique language called Common", which is the same across settings?
No.


Rokugani is the default common language in Rokugan. It's not the same language as the common language found in other settings. This is the point where it's important to remember that Oriental Adventures is the hodge-podge book of Oriental flavor smashed into one book, with the setting of Rokugan being about 40% of its content. What we know about the Oriental Adventures sourcebook, is that it was written by James Wyatt, who never worked on L5R. Though resources listed at the start of the book does mention Legend of the Five Rings specifically and the "numerous L5R supplements by John Wick, Ree Soesbee, and others". From this we can assume that what is written in Rokugan-specific rulebooks and supplements are defining facts when it comes to Rokugan.

In OA, we have a pronounciation guide in Appendix 3 (pg. 249).
"Since Oriental Adventures draws from several different Asian cultures, it includes a variety of unusual words. Because of the blend of languages, pronounciation is problematic. For your convenience, the harder-to-pronounce words are listed here, along with a brief description."
So from this we can see that the writers were intending for a distinct different feel for playing Oriental Adventures, as it shows examples of the languages within (Rokugani/Japanese and non-Rokugani, because again, OA is a hodge-podge of different Asian cultures). Rokugani using words like Daimyo, Samurai, Shugenja, Sohei, Katana, Dai-Tsuchi, Oni, etc is because that is part of the language.

So let's take a further look into L5R itself.
We know Rokugani is a pictographic language in written form (source: Game Master's Guide 2nd edition). It was established by the Kami Doji and Kakita Kiyomori. At the top of my head, I know there are a few languages in Golarion that are specified to use pictographs (Tien is one, Osiriani and Ancient Osiriani use hieroglyphs), but those are not the "common" langauges. So we can assume that the written form of the language does not match the langauges considered to be "Common" in other settings, as those do not use pictographs.
The setting of L5R defines "gaijin languages" as the languages spoken from those not from Rokugan. This indicates that Rokugani is spoken only by Rokugani (and whoever would be bothered to learn it). (source: Core rulebook 3rd edition)
We see multiple glossaries in L5R books that guide the players through the unique (*cough*Japanese*cough*) language of Rokugani, similarly in the pronounciation guide in OA that point out that Rokugani is not the same as other languages. I've not seen any glossaries in other settings that use the same terms as Rokugan uses.
Legend of the Five Rings: Roleplaying in the Emerald Empire states: "The Rokugani language consists of syllables like any other. All letters are pronounced just as written, and there are no "soft" or "hard" versions of consonants. The few diphthongs are just pronounced as the letters composing them, but slightly quicker. Each syllable ends in a vocal, with the exception of the syllable "N", which is the only consonant that may stand without a vocal. There is no accentuation in the Rokugani language, and all syllables in a word are pronounced evenly." This does not match with the description of other "Common" languages presented in other sources.
Rokugani uses specific forms of address that are specified in the setting. The corebooks of each edition list the most common ones, GM's Survival Guide lists other forms of address in a sidebar on page 18, and further expands upon it on page 21. The supplement Sword and Fan also touches on this under etiquette.


Considering the lengths of which the creators of Legend of the Five Rings went to to make Rokugan a distinctively unique setting (which also goes for its many writers over the 20+ years it's been around, as well as Wyatt's presentation of it in Oriental Adventures), it is logical to conclude that Rokugani is distinctively different from other languages in other settings. And that's ok. Rokugan is a setting that doesn't really jam well with other more archtypical D&D settings because it was never intended to be (as can also be seen in the distinct difference in cosmology, and the monsters as well).

If a GM is to announce that all Common across all the settings in existence is the same, well, yes they can do that. That is the power of a GM at a table. But that would be that specific GM's ruling to make whatever campaign they're running flow smoothly. It is not a ruling that can be applied across the board as "correct" in terms of interpreting each setting's uniqueness, integrity, and flavor.

So in closing, Rokugani is not common outside of Rokugan. Rokugani is not a common language. Rokugani is unique and distinct, and not compitable with other settings' representation of a Common language.

[Willie the Duck]

And after all that analysis and discussion, it’s still up to each individual DM.

This is where I find the attempt to 'prove' a 'RAW' or 'Canon' interpretation really hits a wall. There are things in the ruleset that the developers clearly did not write with the intent to subject to this level of pedantic scrutiny. Even if we were to land on a single inarguable 'true' interpretation of what the ruleset actually states (highly unlikely, given that we've already devolved significantly into a war of declaring what source has authoritative precedence and whether something being a proper noun indicates that it is singular and unique), whatever result that ends up being will be facile at the technical meaning of the word -- appearing meaningful or cut and dry only by ignoring the true complexities of the issue.

I'm sure the developers (not that they get a say in what they wrote, we're pedants here! :smalltongue:) would say, 'you are really overthinking this. Common is whatever is most commonly spoken in the campaigns main default sandbox, the end.' But there's good reason to wonder about what happens when you travel between worlds -- which definitely predates things like Spelljammer and Planescape, as Gary and co. often jumped characters between Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Tekumel, although there the might have used alignment languages (another wrench in the works of this discussion, once we jump editions) rather than common. However, the idea that there would be one specific solution (much less a 'canon' one) is something of a modern invention. Heck, even with notion that worlds were always connected, rather than only specifically in games where world-jumping was the norm, is something of a 3e+ convention. There was plenty of back-and-forth on Usenet when Spelljammer and Planescape came out as to whether ex. Faerun and Greyhawk and such were connected (and probably more importantly whether the respective gods were merely gods on one PMP, and thus lessor to greater demons or the Lady of Pain, etc.) if you were running a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk campaign, or only if you were actually running SJ or PS (and a lot of comments like, "screw that noise, in Greyhawk, Pelor is the ultimate god of good across the universe, and no candy-ass at T$R* can retroactively change that!"). Of course that was also the edition of making the game your own, with lots of guidance on 'do you want to make it a game where clerics are replaced by self-designed priests of specific mythos, and swashbucklers and barbarians are more common than knights in plate mail, and maybe people use hacksilver bracelets rather than coinage? Here's how...,' so maybe it was just a different perspective on what the rules were for.
*Ah, the good old days! Remember when a comically inept publisher careening towards bankruptcy was seen as 'the Man?'

[Tallyn]

I am the only Katie Boundary in the world unless you can prove otherwise.

Well, I've found a Katie Boundary on LinkedIn, a Katie Boundary on Kinja, another one on USA.life... although maybe these are all you? A couple potentials on Facebook as well. Found something about University of Florida Honors Program for a Katie & Kevin Boundary too. Not sure I want to go any deeper, could find more info but probably not worth my time.

I'm fairly sure forum rules will not allow me to link to their profiles though.

[EisenKreutzer]

This thread perfectly encapsulates what GitP is about, and I love it.
I also think that the concept of the Common language was not intended to be put under this level of scrutiny by the designers.

[Faily]

Well, I've found a Katie Boundary on LinkedIn, a Katie Boundary on Kinja, another one on USA.life... although maybe these are all you? A couple potentials on Facebook as well.

I'm fairly sure forum rules will not allow me to link to their profiles though.

Same. I found a couple on Facebook too. Heck, I'm even surprised when I find others using Faily somewhere that isn't me, but it's not unexpected because there's millions of people on the planet and someone's probably had the same idea as me (I've just been able to use it in so many places since I entered the internet-world in the late 90s, so it just surprises me when I can't use it somewhere).


This thread perfectly encapsulates what GitP is about, and I love it.
I also think that the concept of the Common language was not intended to be put under this level of scrutiny by the designers.

Oh absolutely. I do believe the reason why Common is just slapped into most settings is because designers intended for an easy default language (and in some cases its specified what Common is), but I honestly don't think they did so with the idea that Common would be the same across multiple settings. At least most of the games I've come across, it's obvious that the creators want their setting to be unique and different in various ways, so it wouldn't make sense to me that there was some weird Esperanto crossing over planes, worlds, and cosmoses.

[Tallyn]

This thread perfectly encapsulates what GitP is about, and I love it.
I also think that the concept of the Common language was not intended to be put under this level of scrutiny by the designers.

I seriously don't understand why "ask your GM how he/she runs it" doesn't register for this person. Why do people fight with RAW/RAI on something so inconsequential as this, and just not ask upfront how it works from the game master themselves.

I swear, some people have some kind of mental block... if an established game doesn't fit even one of their preconceived notions/assumptions, then their whole world breaks down. First world problems I guess.

[EisenKreutzer]

Oh absolutely. I do believe the reason why Common is just slapped into most settings is because designers intended for an easy default language (and in some cases its specified what Common is), but I honestly don't think they did so with the idea that Common would be the same across multiple settings. At least most of the games I've come across, it's obvious that the creators want their setting to be unique and different in various ways, so it wouldn't make sense to me that there was some weird Esperanto crossing over planes, worlds, and cosmoses.

To my GM mind, an interplanar esperanto isn’t any weirder than nearly identical dwarven and elven cultures developing on multiple separate Prime Material planes.
I mean, these worlds were created by gods after all, gods that in some cases (a lot of cases if peoples private homebrew settings count) cross between settings.

[EisenKreutzer]

I seriously don't understand why "ask your GM how he/she runs it" doesn't register for this person. Why do people fight with RAW/RAI on something so inconsequential as this, and just not ask upfront how it works from the game master themselves.

I swear, some people have some kind of mental block... if an established game doesn't fit even one of their preconceived notions/assumptions, then their whole world breaks down. First world problems I guess.

Ok, 1. Don’t drag me into arguments.
2. This is just how GitP works. It’s a place where rules lawyers gather to talk shop, and some of the most wonderful discussions in all of rules lawyerdom happens here. Just embrace it.
3. In certain edge cases, stuff like this is actually important. The level of detail that has gone into this discussion from both camps illustrates that for some people, it does actually matter.
4. Just let it go, man. This too shall pass.

[Drackstin]

I seriously don't understand why "ask your GM how he/she runs it" doesn't register for this person. Why do people fight with RAW/RAI on something so inconsequential as this, and just not ask upfront how it works from the game master themselves.

I swear, some people have some kind of mental block... if an established game doesn't fit even one of their preconceived notions/assumptions, then their whole world breaks down. First world problems I guess.

I think the problem here is, coming from a MTG background where all lore lets anyone from anywhere talk to anyone (different languages do exist, but even in the novels everyone can speak to each other), and all rules are in one place makes 3.x look hard to understand or comprehend, but even in MTG the base rules are trumped by specific. no matter what the rules say, if a card says different, you do what the card says. What the OP is trying to do is basically argue with a card that says you my play all sorcery spells as instants, but then say the basic rules say all sorceries can only be played on your turn so its not allowed.

[Faily]

Except those cultures are also different from setting to setting. Eberron elves are different from Forgotten Realms elves who are again different from Dark Sun elves. And even settings like FR, Eberron, and Mystara have different cultures of elves within their settings. Corellon exists in Greyhawk and FR, but is unheard of in Eberron and Mystara. The elves of Dragonlance have three different races of elves (for if you count the sea elves), each with their own language.

I would agree that Golarion went the route of lazy-writing and just kind of copy-pasted the archtypical stereotypes of elves and dwarves (a la Tolkien-route), so no argument there.

Some worlds and settings overlap much easier than others. FR and Greyhawk can get along, as they seem to share many similar gods and ideas of cosmology. Eberron was made to stand alone outside of that cosmology. Dragonlance doesn't work with other settings well either. And if I were to run Planescape, then yeah I'd probably rule something for a common language for PCs to share (I'm not familiar enough with Planescape to comment on how it handles languages by RAW)... but Planescape from what I know does operate on the idea that FR and Greyhawk both exist as worlds in its setting. Again, I am fully supporting the idea that a GM can declare that there is a Common language that crosses space-time. What a GM decides to do at their table is their thing. I just disagree that it was the intention of the various creators over the years that "Common" is a universal language shared across different settings that don't even have a connection with eachother.

And to round back to the main topic of Rokugan; Rokugan doesn't even have elves and dwarves. Oriental Adventures present the idea of meshing Rokugan with more D&D flavor, where you could make the Crane Clan into elves and the Crab Clan into dwarves, but that's only briefly entertained in the book and mentioned as a possibility for GMs to play around with more "oriental flavor" in their games.

[EisenKreutzer]

Except those cultures are also different from setting to setting. Eberron elves are different from Forgotten Realms elves who are again different from Dark Sun elves. And even settings like FR, Eberron, and Mystara have different cultures of elves within their settings. Corellon exists in Greyhawk and FR, but is unheard of in Eberron and Mystara. The elves of Dragonlance have three different races of elves (for if you count the sea elves), each with their own language.

I would agree that Golarion went the route of lazy-writing and just kind of copy-pasted the archtypical stereotypes of elves and dwarves (a la Tolkien-route), so no argument there.

Some worlds and settings overlap much easier than others. FR and Greyhawk can get along, as they seem to share many similar gods and ideas of cosmology. Eberron was made to stand alone outside of that cosmology. Dragonlance doesn't work with other settings well either. And if I were to run Planescape, then yeah I'd probably rule something for a common language for PCs to share (I'm not familiar enough with Planescape to comment on how it handles languages by RAW)... but Planescape from what I know does operate on the idea that FR and Greyhawk both exist as worlds in its setting. Again, I am fully supporting the idea that a GM can declare that there is a Common language that crosses space-time. What a GM decides to do at their table is their thing. I just disagree that it was the intention of the various creators over the years that "Common" is a universal language shared across different settings that don't even have a connection with eachother.

And to round back to the main topic of Rokugan; Rokugan doesn't even have elves and dwarves. Oriental Adventures present the idea of meshing Rokugan with more D&D flavor, where you could make the Crane Clan into elves and the Crab Clan into dwarves, but that's only briefly entertained in the book and mentioned as a possibility for GMs to play around with more "oriental flavor" in their games.

To be honest, I think there is a lot going on here.
First off, the earliest creators of campaign settings in D&D history either didn’t care or ignored most properties of the language of Common except its universality. Characters were frequently transplanted between Faerun and Greyhawk, for example, and nobody cared about their language or decided to ignore it.
Secondly, most campaign settings are either Tolkien pastiches, draw heavily from Tolkien, or else borrows heavily from a set of shared fantasy tropes (except where they don’t, which often becomes the main selling point of a setting. «Look, theres steam power and railways in MY fantasy setting!»).
Because of this heavy sharing of a set of tropes, which all belong to the distinct western style of fantasy, translating concepts between them is rather easy, and a language barrier would be an obstacle to that. In essence, most fantasy settings are either «fantasy northern europe» or «america but fantasy.» Which is natural, since we write what we know. Thus Common is always imagined as english.
Common is also a tool to ease play. Roleplaying a language barrier is fun for a session or two, then gets old fast. Common allows us to handwave that in a way that does not break immersion or suspension of disbelief.

The case of Rokugan is special, because the setting is explicitly built to not be western. Thus, the idea of a common language changes. We expect characters from an east asian setting to speak an east asian language. Imagining them speaking english feels off, even though in practice we all speak our native language while actually playing.
This is the crux of this debate.
One side feels that Rokugani should be distinctly asian, while the opposing side wants the rules surrounding languages in D&D to make sense mechanically to them.
You can’t have both, be cause that would mean the inhabitants of Faerun speak chinese or japanese, or else that knowing Common gives you some kind of magical ability to understand any language called Common no matter how alien it is to your own.

[Tallyn]

I think the problem here is, coming from a MTG background where all lore lets anyone from anywhere talk to anyone (different languages do exist, but even in the novels everyone can speak to each other), and all rules are in one place makes 3.x look hard to understand or comprehend, but even in MTG the base rules are trumped by specific. no matter what the rules say, if a card says different, you do what the card says. What the OP is trying to do is basically argue with a card that says you my play all sorcery spells as instants, but then say the basic rules say all sorceries can only be played on your turn so its not allowed.

Yeah, I can see that. Personally, I just want to know what the motivation behind this thread/argument is. Is the player trying to pull a "gotcha" on the GM somehow? Is the GM being adversarial in some way, trying to undermine a player's ability/powers (Player: "I have a +30 in diplomacy, so I'd like to talk to them and convince them of our viewpoint/way", GM: "Aha! They don't speak your version of common!")

As long as you have a reasonable GM (and hopefully are a reasonable player) my experience has always been, explain what you are trying to do with your GM... generally I try to accommodate my players goals/aims into my campaign, although based on what setting I'm playing in, I may have to tailor it a little bit differently than they envisioned, or ask them to cooperate with me to modify what they are intending to achieve a little.

Just my two cents.

[Drackstin]

Yeah, I can see that. Personally, I just want to know what the motivation behind this thread/argument is. Is the player trying to pull a "gotcha" on the GM somehow? Is the GM being adversarial in some way, trying to undermine a player's ability/powers (Player: "I have a +30 in diplomacy, so I'd like to talk to them and convince them of our viewpoint/way", GM: "Aha! They don't speak your version of common!")

As long as you have a reasonable GM (and hopefully are a reasonable player) my experience has always been, explain what you are trying to do with your GM... generally I try to accommodate my players goals/aims into my campaign, although based on what setting I'm playing in, I may have to tailor it a little bit differently than they envisioned, or ask them to cooperate with me to modify what they are intending to achieve a little.

Just my two cents.

From what i read, all this person is doing is trying to read all the source books for all rules to have the knowledge of the game, and not realizing that most of the rules are book or setting specific, not all come into play, and the DM trumps all rules, but RAW always come down to interpretation. in MTG the players know the rules and play by them, there are no DM/GM to say what doesn't work that way, other then the game creators (banning so cards or format ruling). so even then, the game is up in the air officially. i think the biggest problem here is, this person is looking for static solid rules for things that are meant for the DM/GM to decide.

I mean, as a Gm, if im running a monster campaign or a elf campaign the common language would be different, i would rule in favor of all monsters having or being able to learn a universal monster language spoken by monsters, if they choose to learn it, but it wouldn't mean humans or other races know it. same as the elves, an all elf country will speak elf, elf is their common. this wouldn't mean that humans from a mainly human country who speak their common can speak elf common.

[Psyren]

I think the problem here is, coming from a MTG background where all lore lets anyone from anywhere talk to anyone (different languages do exist, but even in the novels everyone can speak to each other), and all rules are in one place makes 3.x look hard to understand or comprehend, but even in MTG the base rules are trumped by specific. no matter what the rules say, if a card says different, you do what the card says. What the OP is trying to do is basically argue with a card that says you my play all sorcery spells as instants, but then say the basic rules say all sorceries can only be played on your turn so its not allowed.

The thing is, MTG rules are basically pseudocode that has to remove all ambiguity and judgement calls for how cards interact with one another - there can't be room for interpretation in a game that is designed for competitive tournament play. That is frankly an impossible standard to hold TTRPGs to, especially ones as sprawling in scope as D&D 3.5., nor should anyone want to hold D&D to such a standard. And the success of 5th edition proves that people generally don't want MTG-level rules specificity in their tabletop games.

[Tallyn]

2. This is just how GitP works. It’s a place where rules lawyers gather to talk shop, and some of the most wonderful discussions in all of rules lawyerdom happens here. Just embrace it.


It would be nice if there was a rules lawyer tag for people incessantly interested in things like this. Us "normal" folk could avoid these landmines of threads :smalltongue: (yes this is a joke, so you don't think I'm being serious)

[Katie Boundary]

What the OP is trying to do is basically argue with a card that says you my play all sorcery spells as instants, but then say the basic rules say all sorceries can only be played on your turn so its not allowed.

{Scrubbed}That's cool, I'll just sit here and wait for someone to respond to my real argument.


One side feels that Rokugani should be distinctly asian, while the opposing side wants the rules surrounding languages in D&D to make sense mechanically to them.
You can’t have both, be cause that would mean the inhabitants of Faerun speak chinese or japanese

Dude, you totally CAN have both. Common being another name for Japanese makes exactly as much sense as Common being another name for English. And I especially love the idea of everybody in Eberron speaking Japanese because it would mean that the Warforged are basically Evangelions.


From what i read, all this person is doing is trying to read all the source books for all rules to have the knowledge of the game

Going through all the books, yes... but not to understand all the rules. I'm trying to compile a list of (among other things) distinguishable playable races and subraces. This requires tracking the changes that occur to each race and subrace from one book to another. For example the Aquatic Elves from Stormwrack have several traits and goodies that the ones from the Monster Manual don't, while kobolds had the Dragonblood subtype in RotD but not the MM. Mind Flayers sometimes have Common as an automatic language and sometimes don't. In the course of trying to figure all this stuff out, I've noticed a metric crap ton of tangentially related things that piqued my curiosity.

[EisenKreutzer]

Dude, you totally CAN have both. Common being another name for Japanese makes exactly as much sense as Common being another name for English. And I especially love the idea of everybody in Eberron speaking Japanese because it would mean that the Warforged are basically Evangelions.

That would indeed be pretty cool.
And yes, it makes exactly as much sense as common being another name for english. But Common can’t be english AND japanese at the same time, which is why this debate is taking place.

[Katie Boundary]

It doesn't need to be Japanese and English at the same time, as long as Japanese finds a way to evolve independently on every plane :)

[EisenKreutzer]

It doesn't need to be Japanese and English at the same time, as long as Japanese finds a way to evolve independently on every plane :)

Or, more relevantly, is created by a god. Its always tempting to turn to real world concepts and processes when thinking about fantasy campaign settings, but many real world assumptions (like languages evolving) don’t actually apply to most D&D campaign worlds.

Edit: This discussion is wandering into some pretty weird places.
Take dwarven for example. It is explicitly a language that can be learned. Dwarves start knowing it. But is Faerun dwarven the same as Greyhawk dwarven? What about dwarves from the Elemental Plane of Earth? Dwarves from Sigil? Do they all speak the same dwarven?
Is the Eberron druidic language different from the druidic language of Faerun?

[Katie Boundary]

Or, more relevantly, is created by a god. Its always tempting to turn to real world concepts and processes when thinking about fantasy campaign settings, but many real world assumptions (like languages evolving) don’t actually apply to most D&D campaign worlds.

Edit: This discussion is wandering into some pretty weird places.
Take dwarven for example. It is explicitly a language that can be learned. Dwarves start knowing it. But is Faerun dwarven the same as Greyhawk dwarven? What about dwarves from the Elemental Plane of Earth? Dwarves from Sigil? Do they all speak the same dwarven?
Is the Eberron druidic language different from the druidic language of Faerun?

From post # 28:


they all get "common" as an automatic language, except the Kobold, who will have to let the Wizard translate everything because the Wizard is the only one in the group who speaks Draconic. BTW, I'm also assuming that Draconic is the same from one plane to another. And Elven is the same from one plane to another. And Abyssal is the same from one plane to another, and so on.

[EisenKreutzer]

From post # 28:

So how did dwarven evolve separately on a massive amount of planes?

Look, my point is that this is an unsolveable problem that will always be up to the individual GM. The solution doesn’t exist independent from actual play. Common could be a local lingua franca thats different from plane to plane, or it could be a strange phenomena that somehow exists on almost all planes (possibly of divine origin.)
Which means that Rokugani could either be completely unique or just Common.
Theres no clear cut answer, it changes depending on the needs of a specific campaign and the desires of a particular table.

[Drackstin]

Honestly every plane would have different languages. So elf on one plane would be different then another. But languages like abyssal and draconic would probably be the same since those who speak that language travel the planes often. Demons and devils all come from the the same plane no matter what setting or plane your from. Dragons have some crazy abilities and travel the planes so I would say all draconic is the same also, but much like we have different dialects or ascents. Maybe even the druids language would stretch planes also. But things like human, elf, dwarf would be setting dependent.

[Tiktakkat]

Going back to the question o the thread, "Are Rokugani and Common the same language or not?", the answer must be a very simple "they are not".
Why?
Because the words are not the same:
Rokugani
Common
They are two completely different and distinct proper nouns.
Now, someone could house rule they are the same in their campaign, but going by the standard of proper nouns, that they have different names must stand as proof that they are just not the same language.
Further, if the Core Rules are given predominance over setting rules, then clearly all entries for an OA campaign that uses the Rokugan setting should be edited so that all humans speak both Rokugani and Common.

[RatElemental]

Going back to the question o the thread, "Are Rokugani and Common the same language or not?", the answer must be a very simple "they are not".
Why?
Because the words are not the same:
Rokugani
Common
They are two completely different and distinct proper nouns.
Now, someone could house rule they are the same in their campaign, but going by the standard of proper nouns, that they have different names must stand as proof that they are just not the same language.
Further, if the Core Rules are given predominance over setting rules, then clearly all entries for an OA campaign that uses the Rokugan setting should be edited so that all humans speak both Rokugani and Common.

Not sure whether you're serious or not, but aliases exist.

[Katie Boundary]

So how did dwarven evolve separately on a massive amount of planes?

The same way dwarves did.


the words are not the same:
Rokugani
Common
They are two completely different and distinct proper nouns.
Now, someone could house rule they are the same in their campaign, but going by the standard of proper nouns, that they have different names must stand as proof that they are just not the same language.

That's not how proper nouns work. While a proper noun is only ever supposed to refer to one thing (despite this not stopping humans from ignoring said rule), there's no rule against a single proper noun having multiple names.


Further, if the Core Rules are given predominance over setting rules

No one is making that claim.

No one.

[Psyren]

This earlier post appears to have been overlooked but I think it answer's the OP's question well:


OA is as much a setting book as it is a supplement for the core game. Rokugani is the common language of the Legend of the Five Rings setting that OA is supposed to be presenting. Those entries mean that those creatures are intended to be present in the Lo5R, Rokugan setting and know Rokugani. If you instead port them to some other setting, change it to common. If you have a blended setting, the Rokugani Empire is part of a larger setting, choose one.

"Rokugani" and "Common" are both D&D shorthand for "this creature can talk to most humans" - who are, as ever, expected to be the most populous civilized race in the setting, and the most widely allowed PC race. It's true they're not the same language, but the difference is largely fluff:


Language: Humans in Rokugan speak Rokugani. In other campaign settings, humans can be assumed to speak Common. {Humans in Rokugan} are not as likely as humans in other worlds to incorporate many borrowed words from other races’ languages into their speech.

Which brings us to the monster entry and the OP's question: OA is intended to be used either as part of its own campaign setting, or as a source of rules elements (monsters, races, classes, items, spells etc) the DM can crib from for use in other settings. it says "Rokugani (common)" in monster entries to let you know that, if you skimmed the book to the monster entries to just pull some stuff out to challenge your players with and ported something out of Rokugan, the thing you're using speaks Common if it's used anywhere else.


TL;DR: while a less confusing syntax might have been "Languages: Rokugani/Common" or perhaps "Languages: Rokugani (Common in other settings)", ultimately that's what they were going for - "this monster can talk to most humans no matter where you use it."

[Willie the Duck]

TL;DR: while a less confusing syntax might have been "Languages: Rokugani/Common" or perhaps "Languages: Rokugani (Common in other settings)", ultimately that's what they were going for - "this monster can talk to most humans no matter where you use it."

I would agree, but with the caveat: "if you are using Rokugan as the primary setting of your campaign." If, instead, Rokugan is the far-off land where travelling Monks and Samurai come to your medieval European pastiche setting, then Rokugani is an alternate language to learn or know. AD&D's Oriental Adventure, while obviously not including Rokugan/Rokugani, seemed to be better about threading the needle of 'use this material however you want.'