If I have a prospective druid companion, an NPC or PC perhaps, and I teach them Wildsong as part of their initiation into the order, but then they pull out and decide to do something else with their life (such as taking Ranger Dedication instead of Druid Dedication in the case of a fellow PC, for example), have I violated my anathema by teaching them a secret language? Or is anathema a bit more lenient for those who are tricked?
Do I then need to kill them to protect the secrets of the druids?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For game mechanics, the NPC or PC character would learn Wildsong as part of taking Druid Dedication.
Narratively there are plenty of ways of doing this.
If the GM is tricking the player into causing the character to violate Anathema, then the GM is being antagonistic and disruptive.
If the player then decides to kill the NPC to prevent violating Anathema, then the player is also being antagonistic and disruptive in return.
So this entire proposed scenario sounds like a toxic relationship between player and GM. That is what needs fixed - not the rules of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, you teach the secret language after they get their degree/initiation/whatever. Unless you want your secret language to not be so secret...
I agree with SuperBidi.
If they are not a druid yet then you taught a non druid the wildsong.
|
The Druid and Cleric include wording such as "repeatedly" or "perform enough acts" in the description of how that Anathema functions. The only exceptions for this is the as-yet Unremastered Barbarian and Champion, the former cuts off your Instinct abilities + Rage if you screw up, even once, until you spend a measly one day of downtime reflecting on your mistakes and in the case of the Champ you ALSO don't get a second chance but you have to jump through a MUCH higher hoop of undergoing an Atone Ritual.
If you make a habit of teaching others Windssong/Druidic/whatever you'll end up getting slapped with consequences but doing so once, even intentionally, won't result in negative results.
|
|
The Druid and Cleric include wording such as "repeatedly" or "perform enough acts" in the description of how that Anathema functions. The only exceptions for this is the as-yet Unremastered Barbarian and Champion, the former cuts off your Instinct abilities + Rage if you screw up, even once, until you spend a measly one day of downtime reflecting on your mistakes and in the case of the Champ you ALSO don't get a second chance but you have to jump through a MUCH higher hoop of undergoing an Atone Ritual.
If you make a habit of teaching others Windssong/Druidic/whatever you'll end up getting slapped with consequences but doing so once, even intentionally, won't result in negative results.
Depends on the GM really.
This is funny. Completely GM dependent, but funny.
Do I picture the druid orders as killing anyone that learns druidic without being part of the order? Not really.
If are you tricked? Not sure I would blame the druid.
I imagine druids would adapt and change the language enough to make all members of the order learn the new windsong and the old one would become obsolete. Nature is adaptive.
What if a PC followed through, but then later retrained out of Druid Dedication? Do they really forget a whole language somehow?
Even if it does magically disappear, can they then use abilities like Multilingual to get it back since they already have access and have been taught the language? Does that result in an anathema violation?
Are they still sworn to the edicts and anathema of a druid and a druid order?
|
What if a PC followed through, but then later retrained out of Druid Dedication? Do they really forget a whole language somehow?
Even if it does magically disappear, can they then use abilities like Multilingual to get it back since they already have access and have been taught the language? Does that result in an anathema violation?
Personally, I think I'd have a call back to older versions of the game and have the local High Druid challenge them to a 1 on 1 fight where only druid abilities can be used. A fight to the death, of course.
They can either accept the challenge or not. If they don't, NATURE (DEFINITELY all caps) intervenes and sends something subtle like the Tarrasque after them.
That will learn them :-)
Personally, I think I'd have a call back to older versions of the game and have the local High Druid challenge them to a 1 on 1 fight where only druid abilities can be used. A fight to the death, of course.
It was in the BECMI edition, more specifically in the Companion set (and maybe in other editions I don't know). It stated that there was a fixed amount of high-level druids (which got lower and lower as the level increased), and so you had to challenge one of them and take their place if you wanted to level up past a certain point. I don't remember it saying that it was to the death, though; I actually think it said that you could repeat the challenge after a set time, so I guess it wasn't supposed to. I'd have to look it up to be sure.
No rules for this language being able to break anathema because you cannot teach this language, either from Multilingual or from some other feature. Only Druid classes/MCD can learn this language, and it is lost when retrained (if at all possible).
It is really just a D&D holdover and should have just been abolished or replaced with something completely different, since it really has no grounds to cause anathema issues.
I am fine with a Druid/Class-specific language; I am not fine with it being an anathema when it makes no sense/is impossible to enact said anathema.
What if a PC followed through, but then later retrained out of Druid Dedication? Do they really forget a whole language somehow?
I think it's straightforward rules as written. You lose the language because you trained out of the feat that gave it to you. Otherwise you could train/retrain Multilingual infinitely to learn all languages.
In this case I would add a coat of roleplay paint as the meaning of the natural sounds that make up the language gradually leave you.
You can't get it back through Multilingual because don't have access to it, just like how you can't backdoor into other access requirements by training/retraining.
In terms of roleplay, Wildsong is a whole lot easier of a pill to swallow than things like retraining out of Skill Training feats and suddenly being completely unable to sail a boat, despite having been a Legendary Sailor a couple weeks ago.
Except, teaching Wildsong to non-druids is physically impossible and is therefore not something that should be labeled as anathema when there is no way to learn it that isn't already A-OK'd by the druids, which undermines the whole thread subject entirely.
Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?
The NPC just never gets it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?
The NPC just never gets it?
It reminds me of the legs of a horse logic.
A horse has an even number of legs.
A horse has two legs in the back and forelegs in the front.
This is a total of six legs.
Six is an odd number of legs for a horse to have.
The only number that is both odd and even is infinity.
Therefore, a horse has an infinite number of legs.
Obviously this logic doesn't work because of the homophone 'forelegs' and 'four legs' and the homonym 'odd' (a number divisible by 2) and 'odd' (something strange or unexpected).
In this case we are talking about differences in game mechanics and game narrative.
In game mechanics, it is not possible to violate the Druid Anathema regarding Wildsong. No Druid ever actually teaches the language to anyone else ever. Wildsong is gained as a language known by having the Druid class or taking Druid Dedication. And if a character retrains out of Druid Dedication (or retrains their Druid class with Extreme Retraining) then they would lose the language.
In game narrative, it would be possible for a former Druid to still know Wildsong and teach it to others. Or for a Druid to accidentally or deliberately teach it to non-Druids.
But this isn't something that needs to be fixed in the rules.
Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?
The NPC just never gets it?
That makes no sense because then why wouldn't they just say what they intended to say in common (or whatever other language) instead of purposefully translating something that didn't need to be translated. It would be different if somebody else could only speak Wildsong, but needed someone fluent in another language to translate for them, but even that can be handwaved as translating, not teaching, since you aren't directly telling what they said or what each enunciation or word means, and as such wouldn't break anathema.
Just as well, the argument is that it is mechanically impossible to know the Wildsong language (as a whole, or even fragments of it) without being a Druid, MCD or otherwise, therefore the possibility of this anathema even being present for PCs or NPCs is pointless, and also a holdover of a D&Dism that probably shouldn't be present.
Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?
The NPC just never gets it?That makes no sense because then why wouldn't they just say what they intended to say in common (or whatever other language) instead of purposefully translating something that didn't need to be translated. It would be different if somebody else could only speak Wildsong, but needed someone fluent in another language to translate for them, but even that can be handwaved as translating, not teaching, since you aren't directly telling what they said or what each enunciation or word means, and as such wouldn't break anathema.
Just as well, the argument is that it is mechanically impossible to know the Wildsong language (as a whole, or even fragments of it) without being a Druid, MCD or otherwise, therefore the possibility of this anathema even being present for PCs or NPCs is pointless, and also a holdover of a D&Dism that probably shouldn't be present.
I find that to be a strange argument. Anything in this game can happen without a way to mechanically represent it. The first rule makes that possible.
I find that to be a strange argument. Anything in this game can happen without a way to mechanically represent it. The first rule makes that possible.Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?
The NPC just never gets it?That makes no sense because then why wouldn't they just say what they intended to say in common (or whatever other language) instead of purposefully translating something that didn't need to be translated. It would be different if somebody else could only speak Wildsong, but needed someone fluent in another language to translate for them, but even that can be handwaved as translating, not teaching, since you aren't directly telling what they said or what each enunciation or word means, and as such wouldn't break anathema.
Just as well, the argument is that it is mechanically impossible to know the Wildsong language (as a whole, or even fragments of it) without being a Druid, MCD or otherwise, therefore the possibility of this anathema even being present for PCs or NPCs is pointless, and also a holdover of a D&Dism that probably shouldn't be present.
Too bad the thing you are arguing to happen does indeed have a way to mechanically represent it, therefore it falls apart when you say "you don't need mechanics to implement it." This is why anathemas like "Lose your clan dagger" or "commit acts that hurt innocents" are sensible, but anathemas like "teach Wildsong to non-druids" are not.
There is no mechanical way to learn Wildsong without being a druid, therefore implementing an anathema that cannot be done, either by PC or NPC, is bogus, and a waste of page space that could have been used to explain that only druids can know the language and that it is lost when the druid ceases to be a druid.
Did I also mention it is a pointless D&Dism that has no purpose to exist in Golarion as we know it other than for Paizo to risk being sued by Hasbro? This is a good opportunity to axe (or should I say adze?) a completely pointless reference to D&D and replace it with something better.
To be fair, it *would* make perfect sense for Wildsong to be a primal talent derived from druid-level attunement with nature. It would then remove the need for the anathema, and make druids seem less like elitist weirdoes.
To be fair, it *would* make perfect sense for Wildsong to be a primal talent derived from druid-level attunement with nature. It would then remove the need for the anathema, and make druids seem less like elitist weirdoes.
Yes. "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements" is both cooler and more in-line with what the Golarion lore represents the druids out to be in their setting.
As it stands, the anathema makes it out to be some super cool secret clubhouse handshaking system that, if taught to non-clubhouse members, results in banishment, which makes no sense since that is not at all what I would think of when the term "Wildsong" is proposed. (Even when it was called "Druidic" it made no sense.)
I'm just gonna go ahead and accept that head canon.
I mean i don't disagree with that. It is pointless DnDism that didnt need to stay. It is way cooler for it to be a "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements"
And removing the anathema for it would make perfect sense if its something mystical you only have while "attuned"
But to be fair to my argument the wild song is described as a melodic language with an alphabet, it is a strange one granted but it is more than implied in that description that it can be taught to outsiders and is forbidden to do so. The mechanics of how a PC gains or loses the language doesn't change that. In fact that would no effect on NPCs, they do not use PC rules to determine what they know or don't know.
Language is language. Unless there is some magical or miraculous aspect to Windsong that is not mentioned in the rules, it is certainly possible to teach it, as a language, to anyone. You can't write off the anathema by claiming that this is not so.
I mean i don't disagree with that. It is pointless DnDism that didnt need to stay. It is way cooler for it to be a "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements"
And removing the anathema for it would make perfect sense if its something mystical you only have while "attuned"But to be fair to my argument the wild song is described as a melodic language with an alphabet, it is a strange one granted but it is more than implied in that description that it can be taught to outsiders and is forbidden to do so. The mechanics of how a PC gains or loses the language doesn't change that. In fact that would no effect on NPCs, they do not use PC rules to determine what they know or don't know.
It does, though. It means it's anathema for no reason other than to be an anathema. There are reasons anathemas exist, mostly because they are antithetical to the purpose of your edicts. "Killing innocents" as an anathema makes sense when your edicts are to protect said innocents because it is antithetical to your sworn purpose, and innocents are usually targeted by nefarious entities. If it is impossible to kill innocents because they are immortal, and as such cannot be killed, it fails as an anathema because there is nothing they need protection from; they are capable beings who need not fear death or bodily pain/dismemberment. They're immortal! They can't be hurt or maimed or slain! So why do they need protection, and why is it a morally bad thing that I try to do something that's physically impossible to do? At best it's a dumb thing to do, but unless you have an anathema of "Don't do stupid stuff," it makes no sense.
Same concept here: "Don't teach Wildsong" as an anathema makes no sense when there is no way for Wildsong to both be taught as well as to be learned. (No, the Multilingual feat doesn't count.) How can teaching an exclusive language be anathema if nobody besides those who are attuned to nature (i.e. are a druid) are the only ones who can learn said language? The mechanics already prevent the anathema from existing in the first place, meaning implementing setting stuff that says it's possible is inconsistent with the mechanics essentially stating it is actually impossible.
I mean i don't disagree with that. It is pointless DnDism that didnt need to stay. It is way cooler for it to be a "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements"
And removing the anathema for it would make perfect sense if its something mystical you only have while "attuned"But to be fair to my argument the wild song is described as a melodic language with an alphabet, it is a strange one granted but it is more than implied in that description that it can be taught to outsiders and is forbidden to do so. The mechanics of how a PC gains or loses the language doesn't change that. In fact that would no effect on NPCs, they do not use PC rules to determine what they know or don't know.
It does, though. It means it's anathema for no reason other than to be an anathema. There are reasons anathemas exist, mostly because they are antithetical to the purpose of your edicts. "Killing innocents" as an anathema makes sense when your edicts are to protect said innocents because it is antithetical to your sworn purpose, and innocents are usually targeted by nefarious entities. If it is impossible to kill innocents because they are immortal, and as such cannot be killed, it fails as an anathema because there is nothing they need protection from; they are capable beings who need not fear death or bodily pain/dismemberment. They're immortal! They can't be hurt or maimed or slain! So why do they need protection, and why is it a morally bad thing that I try to do something that's physically impossible to do? At best it's a dumb thing to do, but unless you have an anathema of "Don't do stupid stuff," it makes no sense.
Same concept here: "Don't teach Wildsong" as an anathema makes no sense when there is no way for Wildsong to both be taught as well as to be learned. (No, the Multilingual feat doesn't count.) How can teaching an exclusive language be anathema if nobody besides those who are attuned to nature (i.e. are a druid) are the only ones who can learn said...
I think that is where we depart on thought. I say it is absolutely teachable. A druid can violate the anathema by teaching it to others.
The game certainly believes its teachable in the wildsongs description.Just because you do not get access to it as a player through game mechanics unless you start off as a druid or take the dedication doesn't mean the language cannot be taught or learned through gameplay, especially by NPCs that dont follow PC rules. It also doesn't mean a game cannot involve learning a language that isn't accounted for by the leveling mechanics of the game either that is the first rule in action.
Just so i am not getting your argument wrong or just talking past you, Is that what you are arguing? Or are there other reasons why you believe it cannot be taught?
I think that is where we depart on thought. I say it is absolutely teachable. A druid can violate the anathema by teaching it to others.
The game certainly believes its teachable in the wildsongs description.
Just because you do not get access to it as a player through game mechanics unless you start off as a druid or take the dedication doesn't mean the language cannot be taught or learned through gameplay, especially by NPCs that dont follow PC rules. It also doesn't mean a game cannot involve learning a language that isn't accounted for by the leveling mechanics of the game either that is the first rule in action.
Just so i am not getting your argument wrong or just talking past you, Is that what you are arguing? Or are there other reasons why you believe it cannot be taught?
Just because it can be taught doesn't mean it can be learned. By RAW, only druids can learn the language since they are the only entities which have Wildsong as a language. Which means teaching non-druids is a pointless endeavor because they cannot learn the language, undermining the purpose behind it being anathema in the first place.
As for the whole "taught or learned through gameplay" thing, what existing mechanics besides "taking druid MCD" let you acquire Wildsong as a language that you can know and speak? Multilingual doesn't count, since it's not a common or uncommon language, much less one you have access to. Legendary Linguist doesn't count since you primitively communicate regardless of language, nor does it work as an actual substitute for said language. Tongues/Translate is a spell that only lasts temporarily, nor does it count as you learning or being taught the language permanently. Heck, not even any AP-specific options would give you access, since none exist. Short of using pidgin primitive-speak that doesn't even accomplish being a natural speaker, or having magical help (which doesn't violate anything), you cannot speak Wildsong without being a druid. Ergo, the idea of "you can teach Wildsong to non-druids, and it is anathema to do so" doesn't work as a setting rule when the mechanics do nothing to support this setting rule actually being true in the setting. It would be different if there were in-game options that actually allowed this, and if there were consequences in-game for doing so (such as angering nearby druid circles), but there really isn't. No in-game option allows the anathema to even come to pass, so stating it as an anathema when there is no way for the anathema to even come up in gameplay makes no sense.
You can't write off the anathema by claiming that this is not so.
I can when the rules outright do not make it possible to do so in the first place.
Listing all the ways that you can acquire Wildsong as a language:
1. Be a druid. You get this when you acquire the class, or take the MCD later down the road. You would also lose this if you retrain the MCD (or change classes, though this isn't likely to happen), so expecting it to work like an Uncommon feat that requires access doesn't track. This is also the traditional way this language is learned, meaning there is no anathema to break here.
2. Cast spells like Tongues/Translate. This is helpful in a pinch if you really need to know what they are precisely saying, and it also doesn't violate anathema, since nothing is being taught to anyone. However, this is only a temporary benefit (even if you heighten it to 8 hours), and I would also imagine that druids who are aware of you knowing what their language means as a non-druid, would be threatened, and act upon it accordingly, either by not talking and finding another medium to communicate, or acting hostile towards the perpetrators.
So, we have one permanent solution that doesn't go against anathema, and one temporary solution that, while it doesn't technically go against anathema would likely result in combat, a change of pace, and/or the end of an adventure, depending on what happens. And...that's it.
So yes, I will claim that it is not so because the rules mechanically present it as such, not because the setting has poor consistency with what the game does and does not allow.
So you distinguish a difference between teaching and learning.
I am going to accept your point on that for a moment to make another point.
The anathema is against teaching the wildsong, it actually doesn't mention a requirement that the person you attempt to teach actually learn the wild song.
But that aside the learning aspect is still possible. First thing I mentioned is the First rule which allows a GM to make new mechanics or completely bypass existing ones. This means a GM can allow the learning of things the mechanics do not normally allow for a PC. It can be that you spend downtime attempting to teach the wildsong and another player spends their downtime to learn it. After enough time spent the GM decides you succeed at teaching the wildsong and the other player succeeded at learning it, maybe a roll is involved maybe it isn't.
Lets say were not even considering that point valid. The point about teaching an NPC still holds. NPCs don't need to gain levels to learn something new. They just gain it because the GM decided you attempting to teach them worked and they learned.
And I will finish by saying I dont think your point of view here is invalid. There is a sense to it, it just may be one rooted in PFS play I am guessing? where things are more rigid than they would be at a home table.
So you distinguish a difference between teaching and learning.
I am going to accept your point on that for a moment to make another point.
The anathema is against teaching the wildsong, it actually doesn't mention a requirement that the person you attempt to teach actually learn the wild song.But that aside the learning aspect is still possible. First thing I mentioned is the First rule which allows a GM to make new mechanics or completely bypass existing ones. This means a GM can allow the learning of things the mechanics do not normally allow for a PC. It can be that you spend downtime attempting to teach the wildsong and another player spends their downtime to learn it. After enough time spent the GM decides you succeed at teaching the wildsong and the other player succeeded at learning it, maybe a roll is involved maybe it isn't.
Lets say were not even considering that point valid. The point about teaching an NPC still holds. NPCs don't need to gain levels to learn something new. They just gain it because the GM decided you attempting to teach them worked and they learned.
And I will finish by saying I dont think your point of view here is invalid. There is a sense to it, it just may be one rooted in PFS play I am guessing? where things are more rigid than they would be at a home table.
Yes, that is true, but then what makes it anathema if it doesn't actually accomplish anything meaningful? Okay, extrapolating an example, let's say Dave the Druid is teaching Nick the NPC about the Wildsong language, but Nick the NPC isn't learning anything from Dave the Druid's teachings; Dave the Druid is essentially wasting their time in doing so, and unless the anathema was created in an attempt to not have druids waste time on pointless endeavors, the idea that it is anathema to their order makes no sense, and since it seems quite obvious that the reason teaching is an anathema is because it's meant to be a language specific to druids (and no one else), it fails to function as anathema when the intended consequences cannot be panned out. (There is also the whole "Tongues/Translation still lets me speak/know the language temporarily" bit, but again, one issue at a time.)
GM FIAT is not something that should be either taken as RAW or even taken as a given exception to a rule when said rule is rooted in well-defined mechanics. It would be different if we didn't have mechanical implications for how X characters learn to speak and understand Y language, but we do, between feats like Multilingual, and spells like Tongues/Translate, which means they should adhere to that mechanic, regardless of whether it is PCs or NPCs.
In short, the issue becomes "This is meant to be a mechanically impactful anathema that players need to be warned to avoid or else they lose their features," and it actually isn't, because it's impossible for a PC (or an NPC) to commit that anathema in the first place, even if they specifically tried to do so. For something to be an anathema, it should, at the very least, be something that the character could actually physically do. Hence why anathemas for other classes (even the existing Druid orders) work, and why this one just...doesn't.
Also, I do not play PFS; we don't have PFS where I live, and I only really play with 2-3 different groups (which has expanded compared to the mere 1 group I still play with, whom I GM for currently). I homebrew a lot more than the rules permit; we run pseudo-free archetype (you get a free 2nd level dedication feat, and that's it), and we run adjusted ABP with "minor" elemental runes (Level 2 item, 35 gp cost, +1 damage of a given element, DC 17 saves for conditions, with nerfed critical effects, able to be upgraded to their normal counterparts with proper investment).
You can't write off the anathema by claiming that this is not so.I can when the rules outright do not make it possible to do so in the first place.
Make that claim all you like. Far as I'm concerned it's not valid.
Since it is now apparent to me that there is no point continuing this discussion, I'm out.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an incredibly silly argument.
By the rules, there is no way to learn to play a game which one cannot make an income off (since lore game does not, raw, work).
By the rules, there is absolutely no way or need to ever go potty. Or to toilet train an infant.
By the rules, one cannot learn to read your own language. Children just automatically learn to read and write.
The rules do NOT remotely come close to describing everything that can be learned or taught and to claim otherwise is incredibly silly
This is an incredibly silly argument.
By the rules, there is no way to learn to play a game which one cannot make an income off (since lore game does not, raw, work).
By the rules, there is absolutely no way or need to ever go potty. Or to toilet train an infant.
By the rules, one cannot learn to read your own language. Children just automatically learn to read and write.
The rules do NOT remotely come close to describing everything that can be learned or taught and to claim otherwise is incredibly silly
Well, for your first example, there is Gambling Lore, which makes more sense for a game where you reasonably make an income from, as there are both creatures and in-game options that actually trigger from Gambling Lore, so the idea that you cannot play a game where you can't make an income from is debunked there.
For your second example, this is handwaved because this has no mechanical implications. It's not like there are mechanics for what happens if a PC holds it in too long, or needs to use a catheter, etc., so having rules for what is basically basic hygiene is a level of minutiae that I imagine Paizo doesn't really want to bog the game down with, similar to what they implemented with the bulk system, as well as the removal of bandoliers as an item mechanic.
For your third example, this is handwaved for simplicity purposes. I would actually personally argue this to not be the case for a lot of reasons (such as neglectful parents, non-established learning curriculums in which youth citizens must partake, etc.), but often times the need to track whether an NPC can read or write something is more tedious than its worth. And in an NPCs case, a lot of times the statblock does tell you if they are illiterate, or can't speak the language, merely understand it if spoken or written, etc. So it actually does more
There is handwaving, and then there is ignoring previously established mechanics that the game goes out of its way to make known to the players. Learning and teaching languages has established mechanics. Implementing something that goes against established mechanics sounds like a failure in setting inconsistency more than there being a lack of established mechanics, which do more than enough to cover the 99% other languages that exist in setting.
This is an incredibly silly argument.
By the rules, there is no way to learn to play a game which one cannot make an income off (since lore game does not, raw, work).
By the rules, there is absolutely no way or need to ever go potty. Or to toilet train an infant.
By the rules, one cannot learn to read your own language. Children just automatically learn to read and write.
The rules do NOT remotely come close to describing everything that can be learned or taught and to claim otherwise is incredibly silly
I have to completely agree with pauljathome here.
Narratively, if you say that learning Wildsong is essentially the confirmation step of them becoming a Druid, then it's acceptable to teach it to an aspiring Druid because by learning Wildsong they are a Druid. If they then later decide to retrain out of being a Druid, you are still ok. The anathema is not "do not have taught a former Druid who is no longer a Druid", it's "do not teach a non-Druid". When you taught them, they were a Druid. Now they're not, but you didn't teach them when they weren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, the way things which are not prescribed by rules work is whatever way the specific story needs them to work.
Like when you're talking about a former prominent druid who was kicked out of the order for their heretical ideas and now lives in exile, that person probably still knows wildsong if it's important to the story that they do.
If we're talking about somebody who thought they wanted to be a druid who decided the druid life wasn't for them and left amicably, they might or might not still know wildsong depending on what the story needs. The rules do not circumscribe the simulation, they just help us focus on specific parts of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No rules for this language being able to break anathema because you cannot teach this language, either from Multilingual or from some other feature.
Why can’t you learn Wildsong via Multilingual? The feat allows you to “learn two new languages, chosen from common languages, uncommon languages, and any others you have access to” (emphasis supplied). As a GM I’d consider having a Druid willing to teach you Wildsong to qualify as having access to Wildsong. That’s basically how a PC learns any Uncommon, Rare or Unique option without meeting a specific Access requirement.
The rules for Languages.
Druidic is a secret language, and is available only to characters who are druids.
Is there really a difference between 'available only' and 'you don't have access'? I don't think so. That looks more like a natural language variation in wording of the same mechanical game concept.
That rule page for Languages also mentions Multilingual.
Selecting the Multilingual feat, for example, grants a character two new languages chosen from those listed in Table 2–1: Common Languages and Table 2–2: Uncommon Languages.
Druidic/Wildsong is not on either of those tables. It is on Table 2-3: Secret Languages.
Generally, the way things which are not prescribed by rules work is whatever way the specific story needs them to work.
Like when you're talking about a former prominent druid who was kicked out of the order for their heretical ideas and now lives in exile, that person probably still knows wildsong if it's important to the story that they do.
If we're talking about somebody who thought they wanted to be a druid who decided the druid life wasn't for them and left amicably, they might or might not still know wildsong depending on what the story needs. The rules do not circumscribe the simulation, they just help us focus on specific parts of it.
Well, given that Wildsong is a feature associated with the Druid class, being an 'ex-Druid' means you are no longer a member of the Druid class, and as such you lose the relevant class feature in place of whatever other class you took. It's really no different than the Druid MCD argument, which fails for the same exact reasons.
No rules for this language being able to break anathema because you cannot teach this language, either from Multilingual or from some other feature.Why can’t you learn Wildsong via Multilingual? The feat allows you to “learn two new languages, chosen from common languages, uncommon languages, and any others you have access to” (emphasis supplied). As a GM I’d consider having a Druid willing to teach you Wildsong to qualify as having access to Wildsong. That’s basically how a PC learns any Uncommon, Rare or Unique option without meeting a specific Access requirement.
Specific rules regarding the Wildsong being only available to Druid characters (that includes NPCs as well as PCs) overwrites that notion. Also, Multilingual's statement of "any others you have access to" is basically future-proofing at-best, in the event they need to print more languages that have some specific/regional/Rare languages not listed in the tables; why that is, who knows. But it's quite clear Wildsong isn't among that list, so acting like it is or can be is absurd.