Are Rokugani and Common the same language or not?

[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, where in Eberron, Goblins speak what was once called Dhakaan.

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 the common language is Midani.
But to be specific to different planes, in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, Common is a Trade Language derived from the old Thorass Language, but in the Eberron Campaign setting Common is Galifarian, which evolved from the language humans spoke in Sarlona. 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?

Spoiler: If so

Show

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

[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 is L5Rwiki article on it to prove that this book actually exists.

[NNescio]

Here 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 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, 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 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, 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 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.