Animal ears

ycleption · 03-13-07, 10:01 AM

Okay, I could have sworn I had seen information about this elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. . .

Basically, what are the limitations of communication in the animal language? Since I have been playing a new druid character, I have seen very little standard of how animal ears are used. Some people restrict themselves to very simple, primal sentiments. On the other hand, I have seen people holding relatively complex conversations in animal, or talking about shops and inns and such things, which, to me at least, seems like there should be no way to say in animal. I have especially seen this with Wemic druids, who have been using animal to converse freely with others. I have been very hesitant to speak in animal ears, because I just don't know how I should be using the language.

So, is there a a DM verdict, or general consensus, out there in forum land?

Thanks.

aragwen · 03-13-07, 10:19 AM

To quote Dorganath from another thread.

Quote:

Keep in mind that the Ear for the Animal Language is not so much a language as it is a common means of communication with animals. People who have entire conversations in Animal kind of misses the point of the thing. Animals, with very few exceptions, lack the intelligence to form full thoughts and sentences with perfect grammar.

kenty191 · 03-13-07, 10:33 AM

Well as a player of one of these 'Wemic Druids' I would like to add my two pennies/cents here.

I personally would rather not use the animal ear, and she is learning common also, as well as very often using rudimentary sign language, BUT, for speaking with animals she will use the animal tongue, and sometimes, depending on the group use it to speak with other PC's.

I tend to keep all of Feana's speach to very basic, often 'say what you see' kind of language and this is reflected in the animal tongue as well as in her first attempts at common, and her wemic tongue, the latter to a lesser degree.

Statements such as "Feana goes to stone walls" would appear to a non animal speaker as ''''' '''' '' ''''' '''' or something similar which could appear quite advanced however the actual statement is rather simple. As a general rule I would keep down the amount of words used in the animal ear. As for Wemic's there is another issue, the constant changing between Animal and Wemic ears can grate on the player, especially in the early hours of the morning!

One can (after many hours of RP) tire out and resort to speaking in animal rather than chopping and changing every other statement. This is obviously an issue between wemic druids and others wemics / druids / rangers in the party, and one which I myself have been subject to.

I agree there should be little to no talk about 'civilised' things as there would be no words/ sounds for those in the animal language, however, primal approximations of this, e.g. town = stone walls, are not too much of a push to enable some form of communication.

As for the language itself it should sound like a series of animal sounds depending on the animal/creature speaking. For a dog it would be a series of short barks, howls etc.

However I have seen others using much more complex language and for me I feel this is beyond the capabilities of this specific language ear.

All this said, I am not a DM but this is just my opinion on this topic.

Hellblazer · 03-13-07, 12:59 PM

The diference lies to my opinion on your int stat. The more you have point in it the more complex you can elocate yourself. In any language this is also true. The animal has in no way the brain power one of use would have, but aslo the int stat determin how much one human vs an other human (exmaple here) will perform in that respect.

There for A med to high int ranger would have a more complex animal language and still get the animal to understand him, while a low int char would use a more basic (youngsters) type of wording and still get the animal to understand.

That's my two cent on this.

bowfreak · 03-13-07, 01:16 PM

Well....I don't know much about Wemics, but if they have a formal society so to speak, would they not have a more advanced form of animal tongue speech? I feel that speaking to another character in the animal tongue versus speaking to an animal would give a more complex pattern then the norm.

On another point....if Wemics can be wizards they would have a more advanced vocabulary then simple rudimentary speech.

Weeblie · 03-13-07, 01:38 PM

The animal language is not really a language in itself. It's not like... a wolf can communicate with a bird, or something. The reason you cannot say something complex using that ear (at least, shouldn't) is simply because you -cannot- say something complex in it.

It's the limited vocabulary, which in itself differs from animal to animal. While a bird might have the word "fly high" (like... saying... "Me fly high, me fly fast!"), one could most probably not do the same if one was speaking in the language of the wolves (the closest you might come would be something like "Me run sky, me run sky fast!"). As for something like... say... "Mithril"? I doubt neither of the languages would support that word. The closet I can think of would be "hard lots shiny". And... "Castle"? It would most probably be "big nest for two leg" in the language of the birds.

kenty191 · 03-13-07, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeblie

It's the limited vocabulary, which in itself differs from animal to animal. While a bird might have the word "fly high" (like... saying... "Me fly high, me fly fast!"), one could most probably not do the same if one was speaking in the language of the wolves (the closest you might come would be something like "Me run sky, me run sky fast!"). As for something like... say... "Mithril"? I doubt neither of the languages would support that word. The closet I can think of would be "hard lots shiny". And... "Castle"? It would most probably be "big nest for two leg" in the language of the birds.

A case of 'say what you see'!

ycleption · 03-13-07, 01:42 PM

Well, the quote from Dorgonath pretty much answered my question. (Thanks Aragwen).

I guess I don't necessarily buy the whole idea that characters could express more complex concepts because they are more intelligent. To me, Dorgonath's statement seems to suggest that the language isn't structured to express many things... something along the lines of trying to discuss philosophy using numbers and mathematical symbols. Or, perhaps, less hyperbolically, trying to talk about technology and contemporary culture in classical Latin... there just isn't the framework for it.

Edit: Hehe, two people posted while I was typing this...

darkstorme · 03-13-07, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ycleption

I guess I don't necessarily buy the whole idea that characters could express more complex concepts because they are more intelligent. To me, Dorgonath's statement seems to suggest that the language isn't structured to express many things... something along the lines of trying to discuss philosophy using numbers and mathematical symbols. Or, perhaps, less hyperbolically, trying to talk about technology and contemporary culture in classical Latin... there just isn't the framework for it.

As far as I can tell, that's the case. When a language consists of growls, body posture, motions, and (possibly, though it would make communication more difficult) smells, expressing a complex thought is likely impossible. It's a means of conveying feelings, and urgent facts ("Big bad thing over there!")

It would be very much like trying to convey the Gettysburg Address through a game of charades where your partner is unfamiliar with the original address... and, in fact, your language. ("Eight tens... plus... seven.... hours? longer.... days?...years? Eight tens plus seven years... before..." etc.) If nothing else, it would be impossibly cumbersome, and hardly the first choice of communication between creatures who share a complex language. That's my view of it, given previous statements, anyway.