Thieve's Cant Cans and Can'ts

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Howdy!  I had a question about the Thieves Cant.  While it's a somewhat bizarre 'language,' I always took it as being a way that shady characters can trade very short commands or comments with eachother, similar to a sign language, but more understood between familiar 'thieves' then a formal sign language.

So I was wonderin' what Thieves Cant can and can't be used for.    Clearly an entire statement being compressed into *coughs* or *yawns* isn't very realistic, but can it be used say issue short orders and such?  I'm curious how others, especially our DMs, look at the uses for Thieves Cant.  

[Script Wrecked]

Check out Acacea's and Carillon's replies from this post down.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[EdTheKet]

Howdy!  I had a question about the Thieves Cant.  While it's a somewhat bizarre 'language,' I always took it as being a way that shady characters can trade very short commands or comments with eachother, similar to a sign language, but more understood between familiar 'thieves' then a formal sign language.

So I was wonderin' what Thieves Cant can and can't be used for.    Clearly an entire statement being compressed into *coughs* or *yawns* isn't very realistic, but can it be used say issue short orders and such?  I'm curious how others, especially our DMs, look at the uses for Thieves Cant.  

Nice question.

The way I see it and use it, is that it indeed is only usable for words or short sentences. Like you say, having entire statements in coughs and yawns is not very realistic.

Orders wise, things like "Guard man" or "Watch my back" or "Kill him" would definitely work.

[Dorganath]

Also, mechanically speaking, the Cant ear will only show the first 25 (I think) characters in the "Common" translation.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Is that right?  I am willing to test it, though If it could be made shorter I think it would help with Thieves Cant being used properly  

[Dorganath]

Well 25 characters isn't much.

In fact, slice "much" off that previous sentence and that's 25 characters.   Go too much lower and it's going to be fairly useless.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

oh i was thinking 25 letters, not including spaces and punctuation.

[cbnicholson]

Think of the Cant as twitter for rogues.:p  As far as the limitation goes, if seen a few ways around it.  One is to finish the intended message in a tell.  Realistically (if that's possible in a fantasy world) Cant is more about using body language to and certain signs to signal intent or meaning, discussing an in depth political situation isnt going to work, but a look that says - " don't trust that man" will.  My 2 cents.

[Tanman]

Similar to CBNicholson.

Some examples of that is:

*blusters* = Danger

*looks left* = Safe


Things like that. They are general meanings, rather than detailed speech.

[Lord Dark]

Just because a character has the ear mechanically for taking rogue levels doesn't mean they would know the lingo. Usually those who actually have stolen or taken part in criminal activity in their past would really know any of it. But so many take the levels now for the sneak attacks, that those who actually have RPed having something in their past that gave them the chance to learn it do not get to use it without everyone else knowing what they're saying. It's kind of hard to signal to someone without having someone else interpret it and say it out loud, it's a thieves cant, not everyone would know it.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

the problem is the ear makes "Canting" universal across the board.  Characters who would have need for Canting should make their own with those they want to communicate with

[Lord Dark]

The ear makes it "universal" but it shouldn't be, it should be for those who would actually use it, not to understand a hidden language that's being said behind your back. How could Tyra learn the Cant if she's been living with her parents her whole life?

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Well, she ran away at age 15, and live in Fort Vehl for a while playing "batman"...    Besides she's only ever used it with Bella

She also now lives in Leringard at the Arms...

If that doesn't allow her a chance to pick something up then I donno what does

(Not saying Tyra SHOULD know the Thieve's Cant, but subtly signalling to allies and such is also not limited to Thieves  )

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

When a Toranite knows Thieves Cant, or a Rofie, then get worried  

[Hellblazer]

Actually if we keep going there, there would be so many versions of canting as there would be criminal groups and regions. Some signs obviously would resemble an other with the same meaning. But in depth, a rogue that was part of a criminal organization somewhere in point dart, would not necessarily understand the cant of a thief from Vehl.

But for the sake of impending doom by the supernova of a mind.. well there is only one

[Shiokara]

the problem is the ear makes "Canting" universal across the board.  Characters who would have need for Canting should make their own with those they want to communicate with

The problem with this is that then there is no use for the ear at all.
Of course, this is already implied by other statements about the frequency with which the ear exists.

Am I understanding right when I draw the conclusion this ear is mechanically distributed with rogue levels as opposed to earned like other ears? If so, this isn't a problem with the ear itself so much as it is one with metagaming.

That is to say, "I took a level in rogue, so now I have the cant" does not qualify in a heavy RP environment. It stands out as a non-roleplayed mechanical advantage. And as such (and as has been stated earlier) it seems wrong for characters not trained in this particular aspect of roguery to utilize it. (Not that the class rogue exists in the actual game-world, of course.)
 
Another argument is that canting would be regional. I don't believe this necessarily has to be the case.

Here's an argument that Canting should be universal amongst thieves. If I am an auto mechanic here in New Jersey, I will still call an EGR an Exhaust Gas Recirculation valve the same as anywhere else.

It makes perfect sense for there to be a common language among the underworld because criminals in large organizations, or even those who wish to work in another town, should have a common form of communication without actually saying anything.

This is not to say it doesn't make sense to have situational or regional, cants, but that it does make sense for there to be a universal cant as well.

This is the most attractive situation. Think about how exciting the RP would be.

A deal is going down between four criminal bodies, two on each side. When the two sides communicate with one another, they use the general cant. However when they are communicating with only their partner they use their personal cant. RPers on both sides are now thrown into an analysis of body language at the character level to try and read the situation. This, to me, seems tense, uncertain, and a lot of fun.

So if the problem is identified, what's the solution? First, implore people who only have the ear mechanically to not interpret the cant they see clearly, concisely, and in and official address in the roleplay forums. Second, request DM support for this action.

Third, and perhaps most extremely, ask for the creation of a second thieves cant ear that DMs can control the distribution of as opposed to it being handed out with rogue levels. This ear will not be akin to the private language cant, but a replacement for the general language cant.

Of course, you'll then see a flood of people making arguments on why they should have the cant ear, so even that's got it's own difficulties.

*coughs*,
Shio

[Nehetsrev]

Here's a better idea:
 
 If you want to still use the Thieve's Cant language ear, but don't want others besides those you've role-played developing a special variant of it with, just make up a set of code-words, use the Cant to speak 'em in-game.  This will generate a Thieve's Cant set of emotes, such as 'tugs his left ear' or whanot, but others with Thieve's Cant ears will just see the interpreted codeword, which might be 'Maple Syrup'.  Your buddies, who have the chart fo what the code-words mean will look up 'Maple Syrup' on the chart and see that that means, "kill that one".  There, now everyone's happy...  err except the fella that just got killed cause he didn't know the code.

[Hellblazer]

Well there is a point we forgot to talk about. With how the submissions now have been overbondantly needing expansions even for the basic classes, it could be assume that if you have trained to be a rogue, then you have also been taught the cant, or rather a variation of it.
 
 It used to be that you only needed a few sentences to take a base class, but now you need full paragraphs detailing the training it self and all. There for unless there is a specific reg about the use of the can't, as there is for half elf that are not born from an elf mother, then it can be assumed that it was part of the training a rogue had.

[Gulnyr]

"Rogue" is an OOC class.  What does it mean to "train to be a rogue" in an in-world, in-character way?

Read this.  Not all Rogues are thieves, nor are all thieves Rogues.  There is no reason to assume that a character with the Rogue class has had any exposure to the Cant.  At the risk of insulting someone by being a little to blunt (sorry), the Thieves' Cant ear shouldn't be an automatic bonus for having the Rogue class and was possibly (maybe probably) tossed in with the rather short-sighted view that Rogues are necessarily underworld savvy and criminally active.  But it is an automatic bonus, so there you go.  Unless someone who can change it decides to change it some day, the best thing to do if your character has the ear and shouldn't "realistically" is to try to ignore the use of the ear by others and do your best not to metagame what you see.  If your character should have the ear and you don't trust others not to metagame it, try what Nehetsrev suggested.

Also, because I can't seem to keep it to myself today and/or I'd like to pass along something useful, the apostrophe comes after the S.  It's "Thieves' Cant."  It's a plural possessive.  The Cant belongs to all the thieves, so it is the Thieves' Cant.  "Thieves" is a funny-looking word.  Anyway, the reason the placement of the apostrophe is important is that most words don't change as much as "thief" when they are made plural.  So, take "farmer" and "farmers."  You could say, "The farmer's cattle are healthy," or "The farmers' cattle are healthy."  Same spelling, same sound, different apostrophe placement.  The first sentence refers to a single farmer, and the second refers to two or more farmers.  Using them the other way around would confuse readers.  Alrighty then.  Class dismissed.  *fights the flashbacks of year after year of boring, repetitive English classes*

[Hellblazer]

Nice post, but there is one thing. To say that thieves' can't should only be for those in criminality is biased also. Let me give you this example.   You have two spotters that are working to spy on the fortification of an enemy army. Both of them are being as silent as their profession requires. They would not start talking to each other if they had a distance that would prevent them to whisper to each other. Insteae they would use cod signs to tell what they see, give warnings and what's not. They are not thieves but yet they use the same techniques. But yet in a dnd sense they would still be classified as rogues, because the class itself is an amalgame of skills that could fit many different purpose, much like the infiltration agents, or advance spoting units of the army.  So yes there is traning that can be given, and to say only theives should have the can't is not realistic of that either. I guess its the name. Given to the ears that is at fault here, and maybe changing it to something that would be best suited to represent many different skills set type of "roguish" chars, would be more appropriate.    A rogue could also be an other forest traker that hasn't been able to find his connection to nature, and would be more of a poacher, but to be able to hunt silently with a partner they use silent signs coding.