Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[awa]

otters also rely on a very high metabolism to keep warm

[Inglenook]

@Jacob.Tyr:

But there's a large difference between "communicating" and "talking". Animals in the canopy might be able to communicate things like danger to one another, but such communication is completely instinctual, a reaction to danger that they can't really control or channel. A bird couldn't choose to play a joke, for example, and cry out danger when it doesn't believe there to be any.

Although such vocalizations could hypothetically lead to speech, depending on which theory of the origin of language you believe.

There are very few animals that show evidence of "talking" by choosing their vocalizations, orcas being among them like Yora said.

At least I think that's correct. It's been a long time since I studied animal linguistics.

[HeadlessMermaid]

There are very few animals that show evidence of "talking" by choosing their vocalizations, orcas being among them like Yora said.

At least I think that's correct. It's been a long time since I studied animal linguistics.

Yeah, there's a difference between having a vocabulary and having a language. A vocabulary is a list of sounds (or whatever), each of which stands for a meaning. This is very useful, and many species have a short vocabulary of some sort. But languages are more than that - they have structure.

Now, from an information theory perspective, the "speech" of some cetaceans looks suspiciously like a structured language. The frequency of each distinct sound isn't random, but it scales with a pattern. Indicating that it really is information, all of it, and not gibberish with the occasional sound for "danger!" or "food!". This is quite remarkable, and hasn't been observed in any other species except humans (AFAIK).

That said, the whole thing remains a mystery. Personally, I wish I'll live to see the day when we can verify it's an actual language, and even translate what the orcas and the dolphins are saying to each other. That would be fantastic. But we just don't know for sure yet.

[awa]

the point isnt that animals have language but a gnoll or lizard man could still have a language even if they could not make the sounds necessary for human language and vice versa.

edit also if his canopy communication is the same study i heard of at least one of the monkeys in question was seen lying to trick male competitors.

[Jeff the Green]

@Jacob.Tyr:

But there's a large difference between "communicating" and "talking". Animals in the canopy might be able to communicate things like danger to one another, but such communication is completely instinctual, a reaction to danger that they can't really control or channel. A bird couldn't choose to play a joke, for example, and cry out danger when it doesn't believe there to be any.

<Snip>

At least I think that's correct. It's been a long time since I studied animal linguistics.

I can give an update. Actually, birds do lie. At least pigeons do. They have a particular "call" (in scare quotes because it's actually a way of taking off that makes a particular noise, rather than a vocalization) that indicates danger. Some of them will make that call when there's some food and a lot of birds to make the others leave so they can monopolize the food. As far as I know, every critter they've investigated that has a means of symbolic communication lies.

The critical issue to me is grammar. I come from a dual rhetoric and biology background, so I'm happy to call any symbolic communication rhetoric. And lots of animals have rhetoric. The issue is whether they can string their symbols together to create complex, and especially abstract meanings. As far as I'm aware, and as HeadlessMermaid said, there's some evidence that toothed whales have some form of grammar.

Regarding communication where species can't make the correct sounds for the other's: In top orchestras there are a lot of people from a lot of nationalities that have to work together, and they typically all speak a smattering of each other's language. Standard practice is for, say, the Frech celloist to speak in German to the German violinist, and vice versa. That wouldn't work for interspecies communication, but the reverse would.

[Beleriphon]

edit also if his canopy communication is the same study i heard of at least one of the monkeys in question was seen lying to trick male competitors.

That wouldn't suprise me in the least. Apes and monkeys are among the few known species could be described as having languages. I think the biggest stumbling block for language is the ability of the speaker to understand abstract ideas. If a species can communicate the idea of past or future actions then I'd call that language.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Legal question! (It's not legal advice, it's for worldbuilding/adventure design. )

Let's suppose someone in country A gives an order to someone in country B to go and murder somebody (in country B). The story demands that the guy who gave the order can be legally prosecuted in his own country, even though the murder was committed elsewhere. (The story also demands that country B is not cooperating, because the murder victim was an undesirable - so it's all up to country A.)

Is that plausible? And if not, how can I make it plausible, law-wise? Is it enough to incorporate one appropriate law in country A, or should I assume an overhaul of the entire legal system, because jurisdiction is tricky?

I haven't decided what time period I want for this, so I'd be happy to learn what sounds reasonable:
1) for a medieval setting
2) for a d20 Past setting (I usually go for 16th~19th century)
3) for a modern setting
4) anything else (time or place) that you would know about and like to share

Thanks in advance.

[Jeff the Green]

Legal question! (It's not legal advice, it's for worldbuilding/adventure design. )

Let's suppose someone in country A gives an order to someone in country B to go and murder somebody (in country B). The story demands that the guy who gave the order can be legally prosecuted in his own country, even though the murder was committed elsewhere. (The story also demands that country B is not cooperating, because the murder victim was an undesirable - so it's all up to country A.)

Is that plausible? And if not, how can I make it plausible, law-wise? Is it enough to incorporate one appropriate law in country A, or should I assume an overhaul of the entire legal system, because jurisdiction is tricky?

I haven't decided what time period I want for this, so I'd be happy to learn what sounds reasonable:
1) for a medieval setting
2) for a d20 Past setting (I usually go for 16th~19th century)
3) for a modern setting
4) anything else (time or place) that you would know about and like to share

Thanks in advance.

According to unimpeachable sources, merely hiring someone to kill someone else counts as attempted murder, even if the plan is aborted immediately after. I imagine A could be prosecuted under any legal regime that included attempted murder as a crime (i.e. most).

[awa]

legal systems in a medieval setting can vary a lot depending on what countries your basing it on.

[HeadlessMermaid]

According to unimpeachable sources, merely hiring someone to kill someone else counts as attempted murder, even if the plan is aborted immediately after. I imagine A could be prosecuted under any legal regime that included attempted murder as a crime (i.e. most).

Well, yes, but the problem is that the murder was committed outside their jurisdiction. I don't even know if that allows for prosecution now (does it?), when we have international law and bilateral agreements and Interpol and everything. Much less in a medieval setting, where no such things existed.

legal systems in a medieval setting can vary a lot depending on what countries your basing it on.

Oh, I imagine. But since I haven't decided where I'm basing it on at all, I'm simply looking for a time/place combination where it would make more sense. Perhaps with a few tweaks.

I'm afraid I can't be more helpful. :)

[headwarpage]

I won't opine on any modern jurisdiction because that would be too much like giving legal advice, but it seems like it's plausible that he could be guilty of murder in country A. Essentially, when he says "you can't convict me, the guy was killed in country B," the law replies "yes, but you were here when you ordered him dead, so you're going to be criminally responsible under our laws." If whoever made the laws in country A wanted to take that position and had the foresight to do so, it's entirely plausible. It's also plausible that country A would have left a loophole there. Another option, especially in a medieval setting where the law might be less codified, is that the law is unclear on that point and the judge decides based on political pressure or his own personal sense of justice.

And as has been mentioned, considering only what he's done within country A, he's guilty of attempted murder/conspiracy to commit murder/solicitation of murder.

If you go with a real-world modern setting, you can look up the answer with a little patience. Most criminal codes are readily available online, although it might take some digging to find what you want.

Edited to add/clarify: The law of country A is whatever the king (legislature, ruling council, whatever) of country A says it is. If the king decrees, "any person who, while in country A, causes a murder to be committed outside of country A may be convicted of murder in country A," the guy is guilty of murder. International agreements don't come into it, assuming that country A can get its hands on the guy. I think that's a reasonable position for a legal system to take, but answering whether any particular modern country has taken that position would be too much like legal advice for my taste.

[awa]

i vaguely recall from a history class that when England was just getting started with state controlled punishment, that legal the injured party was the king and only the king regardless of what the crime actual was. The logic was becuase of this only the king as represented by his legal system was allowed to punish the criminal in an effort to stop all the feuds.

[Yora]

The biggest obstacle would be evidence. If country B won't cooperate in the investigation, police in country A would probably have almost nothing to prove that the order was given and had anything to do with the murder.

There might still be a case in a modern setting, if someone could provide documents that would be enough evidence to prove that the murderer was hired. Like taped phone calls, bank account reports, files on confiscated computers. Not sure if it could lead to a conviction, but it would most likely lead to a trial.

If the victim was a citizen of A, then there might be a trial in any of the four settings. When a citizen commits a crime against another citizen, I don't think any country would let that pass on the ground that it didn't happen on it's territory. If both the hitman and the victim were not citizens of A, the country might not even be interested, unless it's a modern setting.
And of course, things would change a lot when the murder affects the interests of country A. Supposed the victim was important to country A for political reasons, the person who gave the order could still be accused of treason to damage country A.

[Planar]

Quick question;

In Medieval times, around 10th century, would a standard commoner (say from eastern Europe) be able to know the exact date?

[Spiryt]

Quick question;

In Medieval times, around 10th century, would a standard commoner (say from eastern Europe) be able to know the exact date?

Hard to say, but probably relatively well - different festivals, rites, ceremonies, and so on were obviously of huge importance - on Midsummer night, equinoxes, different holy days every year....

[fusilier]

Quick question;

In Medieval times, around 10th century, would a standard commoner (say from eastern Europe) be able to know the exact date?

I'm not too familiar with Eastern Europe, but I would say that this is a difficult question to answer.

Figuring out the year is a bit tricky, as usually they just went by what year it was of a particular monarch's reign (although this could be converted into another system). So you might get dates like: "in the second year of good king Richard's reign".

As for the day -- this was more of a religious issue. The dates of certain religious feast days (including Saint's Days), needed to be known, but not all were fixed -- like Easter. Knowing when to plant or harvest crops was more secular, but it was a seasonal thing, so you may not need to know a specific date to start.

I think a lot of dating was done in this way -- "shortly after the fall harvest", "the day before St. Stephen's", etc.

My guess would be, if a commoner needed to know a specific date, he could probably find it out from a member of the religious community. For the most part, it didn't matter, and if asked for a date, he would probably give one relative to the nearest religious event (or perhaps celestial event, like the equinox or solstice).

[Planar]

Hmm, I can see that timekeeping is an arduous and perhaps unnecessary task for common folk but then somebody must be keeping track of it, right? Who else, do you think, would be interested in such a task other than clergy? Tax collectors immediately spring to mind.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Every single day of the year was in some Saint's name, and these days were common knowledge - not a skill for priests only. The standard commoner would definitely know the date - unless he was an outcast, or living alone and isolated.

Now, for the year, I have no information.

[Spiryt]

Most common folk would be probably still interested in keeping the time at least roughly, with help of the priests for more detailed calculation.

Phases of the moon were probably most useful indicator for most people.

In 10th century 99% of Eastern Europe population would be pagan. So Saints are off.

Acording to Wiki and some other sources I've found, Slavic people didn't really reckoned years.

[Yora]

Everyone who would be involved in management and accounting. As a farmhand, it's irrelevant what day it is. As the person in charge of paying the taxes and rents for the farm, it would be relevant to know when payments are due and at what days you would have to have the reports for how much the farm produced for the season on year.
And of course the same goes for mayors and village headsmen, and everyone in castles who has a management position and is working on a budget, like the people responsible for stocking the storerooms and planning the preparations for special feasts and guests. If your job is anything but starting the day by asking your superior if there's anything you're supposed to do that is different from what you do every day, then you need to know what day it is.

[Planar]

In 10th century 99% of Eastern Europe population would be pagan. So Saints are off.

I don't think that's true. By the end of 10th century Christianity has been established in Ukraine and Russia. I remember reading somewhere that paganism was "tolerated" at that time.

Every single day of the year was in some Saint's name, and these days were common knowledge - not a skill for priests only. The standard commoner would definitely know the date - unless he was an outcast, or living alone and isolated..

Could you explain this a little more please? Surely there wasn't that many saints by then.

[Spiryt]

I don't think that's true. By the end of 10th century Christianity has been established in Ukraine and Russia. I remember reading somewhere that paganism was "tolerated" at that time.

By the end of 10th of century there was 'official' Baptism of Rus lands.

Poland got Christianized in 966 and 200 years later there was still huge pagan presence in different places and customs, despite Churches strict policies against it.

It's safe to say that trough the whole 10th century vast majority of common Slavs were pretty much completely non-Christianized.

In 11th century a lot of customs were starting to getting "transformed".

[Morghen]

What would viking-types (ocean-going, berzerker-y, raiders) be like if they came from a near-tropical climate?

Is there any historical precedent?

Any big differences other than a total lack of beards?

[Inglenook]

I don't think they fit the berserk-y or raiding criteria, but you might look at the past cultures of some Austronesian groups for the rest. Samoans were the first group that popped into my head: excellent seafarers and boatwrights, a reputation as fierce and proud warriors, a culture that stressed bravery and family, and their native religion (in the last several centuries, at least) has been heavily mixed with the invading Europeans' Christianity.

[Morghen]

Hmmm. I'm definitely looking for a "scourge of the coasts" sort of thing.

[Conners]

Anyone know what criteria spooks horses? I know you can train them to get used to almost anything... but, I'm wondering how they'd react to orcs, gnolls, and other sorts of creatures.

Suppose that horses would not react well to gnolls, but I'm not certain about orcs.

[awa]

horses can be trained to work with dogs and i don't imagine they would be much worse then gnolls.

i imagine their wouldn't be anything inherently worse about an orc then a human remember early humans ate horses and we managed to domesticate them nothing stopping orcs from doing the same.

part of the situation that gave rise to viking if i recall my college courses correctly was that during the winter they had nothing better to do then supplement their agriculture with raiding.

that said pirate communities seem very viking like just make them more competent or their foes less organized so they have a chance of winning a stand up fight with a major power and their you go.

[Conners]

Gnolls are kind of bear-sized (DnD lists them as 7-feet tall). I'm guessing they'd react pretty badly the first time they met a gnoll (like the Roman horses panicking from the elephants), and would need training to avoid that.

Not sure if they'd see orcs as being different from humans, though (not sure what horses measure potential terrors by).

[awa]

they may be 7 feet tall but their fairly thin where bears are very thick.
3.5 doesn't even make them size large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87OhGfy6bQ if you can train a horse to handle that it can handle gnolls with training.

that said horses are pretty flighty around new things i suspect a gnoll could very well be strange enough to scare a horse on first meeting. heck horses are scared of camels

[Aux-Ash]

What would viking-types (ocean-going, berzerker-y, raiders) be like if they came from a near-tropical climate?

Is there any historical precedent?

Any big differences other than a total lack of beards?

The romantic idea of vikings or actual vikings?

If all you seek is the fierce raiders/pirates from the sea, then just about any major pirate presence counts. The barbary states, corsairs, indian pirates, indonesian pirates and so on.

If you seek something closer to actual vikings... well... I think key one would be to create a landmass they inhabit that has many of the properties of Scandinavia (deep forests (sweden), mountains (norway), narrow landmass (denmark), crisscrossed by rivers or fjords in the first two cases) all to encourage the inhabitants to rely on the waterways for transportation rather than overland.
Add in surrounding cultures and a legal precedent where only the eldest son inherits (thus the other sons need to do something else) and you're well on your way I think.