Universal Translator, Babelfish, or Pocahontas-style linguistics?

[Saeviomagy]

The problem with this is that you need a limit to what you can reasonably translate with tongues and what not - imagine if two people would speak in a certain code - they use common words, but the meaning is changed due to the context - that´s not a lot different from idioms, I think.

I think that a good way to go is probably with the intent of the speaker - if he's TRYING to disguise his words, the spell will carry that. If he's just saying something that seems like normal language to him, the spell translates it.

I think if you're going to go much deeper than "it works" or "it doesn't work", then you're really going to overhaul D&Ds entire language system.

The only thing that I can imagine the spell not translating correctly would be things for which there is truely no word for in the other language, and even then there's going to be SOMETHING that goes in that hole.

IOW - tongues works unless you're trying to screw with the players.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I rule that tongues works exactly like the universal translator in Star Trek; it makes communication "just work" unless the plot requires otherwise.

That's the way I'd use it too - you speak and everyone understands you. They all speak and you understand all of them. The spell acts as a perfect intermediary.

The only exception would be if someone was deliberately trying to hide information in his language - e.g. rogues using innuendo (3.0e) or its replacement (3.5e).

 

[FireLance]

The emphasis above is mine. As I see it, idioms and colloquialisms are not part of the language, itself. They are, however, part of the regional dialect. Thus, if a goliath thells you to check if your spear is straight, you know that he's telling you to mind your own beeswax because he's using a common idiom from his regional dialect. If he's using an expression that only he and his close friends use, then I'd rule that you get the words but not the meaning; however, my ruling would be that, if the speaker is using an expression that would be commonly understood by the majority of members of his particular culture, then the spell's recipeint understands meaning as well as words.

I agree with this approach. The caster of the spell would understand the speaker as if he was a member of the speaker's race, culture and region. The meaning of commonly used expressions would be translated, but not in-jokes and codes which are only known to the speaker, his friends and the secret society that he belongs to.

So, if a goliath told you to make sure your spear shaft is straight, you would understand that he means you to mind your own business. However, if the goliath had pre-arranged with his buddies to attack you when he uses that expression as a signal, you would not get that meaning from his words.