We need some kind of official ruling!

[Thorsson]

I think this comes down to a DM ruling for the server. There's too much one way or the other lore wise, imo.

If that makes you happy. But it looks pretty obvious to me - the way Tongues works is to translate whatever you hear into a language you know. When you speak the listeners will hear it in a language that's known to them. What the language is, is irrelevant.

[DM_Xzar]

They do have to keep their druidic oaths or they lose their abilities.

Can someone list a source for this? Is this relevant for our setting? Because I only found a link to a 3.5 edition handbook.

"Drueidan was developed by a powerful group of druids who worshiped Silvanus. Silvanus made an agreement with the other nature gods of the Faerûnian pantheon to allow druids all over Faerûn to speak it."

This is from a manual released in 1998 apparently. I suppose if someone broke the oath (if it exists) the deities could take away the druid's powers. But I'd like to know more about the oath.


Also, what if the druid doesn't get its powers through a deity?

"Druids were primal spellcasters of considerable power and versatility, who gained their power through being at one with nature or through a connection to a powerful deity or nature spirit."

Apparently you can be a druid by being at one with nature? But then this references to 5th edition work... I'm just curious if this has also been stated in earlier editions?

Basically I'd like to know more about the oath, and if it does exist, whether deity-less druids can exist and if this exempts them from the oath.

[Thorsson]

Basically I'd like to know more about the oath, and if it does exist, whether deity-less druids can exist and if this exempts them from the oath.

Indeed that's interesting, but I don't think relevant as to whether the spell Tongues can let you understand Druidic.

This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect. The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages. Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak. The subject can make itself understood as far as its voice carries.

Are Druids not intelligent creatures? The "whether" bit is clearly just an explanation - a dialect is just a different way of speaking, rather like Thieves Cant. Comprehend Languages works the same way, but with the written word. Druidic has its own alphabet, but why would the spell CL not work with one specific alphabet? The intention of the spell is clear; the Druids claiming otherwise are just rules lawyering.

[Silver_Lining]

This may have already been mentioned, so forgive me if I'm repeating a previous post.
I'm working and just dont have time to read through three pages of posts.. that said..

I was informed by the staff (When asking to use a spell not in the game (zone of truth) for RP under DM Supervision, with all parties agreeing) that we are not allowed to use any spell not in the game mechanics period. So if Tongues isn't in the game (I'm not familiar with every spell in the game) , it would be a moot point to debate for BG, as they'd not permit it's use.

[CommanderKrieg]

Tongues is in the game now silver it's actually pretty fun. The only issue is it picked up animal and I can't get rid of it.

[DM Gogo]

Tongues is in the game now silver it's actually pretty fun. The only issue is it picked up animal and I can't get rid of it.

It's a bug that occurs occasionally. Poke a DM in-game. We can reset your languages.

[Silver_Lining]

Oh wow. I had no idea they added that. That's kinda neat.

[DM_Xzar]

So, according to 2e, a regional great druid will punish those who break with tradition (if able). But it doesn't say that a druid will lose any of its powers or spells. That all seems to be 3.5e, which does not apply to us.

[Thorsson]

So, according to 2e, a regional great druid will punish those who break with tradition (if able). But it doesn't say that a druid will lose any of its powers or spells. That all seems to be 3.5e, which does not apply to us.

Is that true? I thought that while we were stuck in 2E timeline, we are using 3E mechanics, and that's part of mechanics IMO.

Mind you that's still a red herring regarding Tongues.

[DM_Xzar]

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread. Perhaps I should open up a different thread.

[Blackman D]

nwn2 is 3.5 rules and we do use em, kinda hard not to when its the main thing of the engine

[AlwaysSummer Day]

"Drueidan was developed by a powerful group of druids who worshiped Silvanus. Silvanus made an agreement with the other nature gods of the Faerûnian pantheon to allow druids all over Faerûn to speak it."

This is from a manual released in 1998 apparently. I suppose if someone broke the oath (if it exists) the deities could take away the druid's powers. But I'd like to know more about the oath.

Language is not a divine power. It is something learned. It was developed by druids and, although the gods may have helped spread it, it is learned the old fashioned way. It even specifies that the language was developed by a "powerful group of druids".

Anyways it seems pretty obvious to me that tongues is meant to essentially act as a translation for every language. Just like in the internet rules there are no exceptions. There is always the possibility of a character only speaking Druidic. For instance as mentioned before a child could be raised speaking Druidic as a first language. Or perhaps a Druid live in the forest for 20 years and forgets how to speak common. There are actual historical examples of that last one happening.

Genuinely learning the language is a completely different issue and though it would be nearly impossible to do it is possible. "A Druid also knows Druidic, a secret language known only to druids" <--- this is present tense. It does not say non druids cannot learn Druidic. "A druid who[...]teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities" <--- it does not say the Druid loses the language and fails in teaching it. In fact this rule would never have been specified unless druids could indeed attempt to teach non druids druidic.

[DM Golem]

Moved to Tips and Tricks, as its that sort of discussion.

Staff are also discussing this! So we should have some input soon.

[7threalm]

<--- it does not say the Druid loses the language and fails in teaching it. In fact this rule would never have been specified unless druids could indeed attempt to teach non druids druidic.

well intentions is one thing, my guess in the idea behind it is that druids have a secret language to also help them identify other druids, across races and even monster races.

Something of divine nature so that other druids could talk to other druids.

Most of dnd rules are started of what can be, instead of what cannot be usually, so this always dm's wiggle room in a pnp setting.

honestly all the tongue spells and all that to me personally are bad for the server, since we are in a persistant type server.

Its fine when a dm in taking your through a quest, and you come across some "creature" that doesn't speak common and use use the spell.

But the player base just uses it for intel gathering and listening to other peoples conversations if the players wanna maintain some cultural difference.

I can't tell how many times, I've spoken orc and the fai, and 3 players cast those spells who are not even part of the conversation. I would even say that it is a hostile spell

but my vote if it matters, is that its prolly a secret language for reason and shouldn't be used publicly and a few walls of dispel magic in a secret location should be enough protection and I don't think druids need another I win button(immunity) ,

That cannot be counter because druids do not want to have hostile interactions with other player that are under the protection of various guards in a city or some other form of protection as per server rules.

Why druids would be speaking it publicly is beyond me, points to the I win button

I'm sure any druid circle meeting would be greatly defended with other means.



The context for this is listening to other peoples conversations in public plan and simple. One group wants it for protection and one group think its unfair.

If the dm vote with the its immune,then any druid can say whatever they want and only other druids could understand them in public/private place. Any person spying on druid would be unable to understand what they are saying, no matter what they did unless they were druids themselves. ((might hurt sneak rp)) and doubt many druids spy on other druids.

druidic language=immune to easdropping, except by other druids.

If the dm vote its not immune,then druids would have to speak it in a secret areas with other means of protection instead of relying on (npc guards) from the spell tongues. Like everyone else....

[DM Ioulaum]

The provisional verdict is that Druidic is a code language. Its words reference concepts and conventions linked to druidic training and life. A person employing the tongues spell would therefore not understand what the translated sentence means. If a Druid says: "You should kill that Orc" in druidic, the translation via tongues might produce something like: "The axe must perish as part of the cycle of life, the sun is setting now." Which is perfectly understandable to a Druid, but nonsense to anyone else.

So the answer is: Tongues does not successfully translate druidic. Instead it produces riddles and meaningless references which the untrained listener does not understand, lacking druidic training.

We are still discussing this further, but this should be enough to answer any immediate questions while we deliberate.
It may ofcourse turn out that this is the final verdict, if we don't find any contradictory information.