Good Gentles,

In BoKL Cymric ladies get a 1 in Reading to let them read and write normal letters in Latin, keep accounts, etc. Is that enough on its own, or are more points needed for them to *reliably* do these things without a die roll (e.g. 10 as with other knowledge skills)? No deciphering ancient manuscripts or such required.

Thank you very much.

Good Gentles,

In BoKL Cymric ladies get a 1 in Reading to let them read and write normal letters in Latin, keep accounts, etc. Is that enough on its own, or are more points needed for them to *reliably* do these things without a die roll (e.g. 10 as with other knowledge skills)? No deciphering ancient manuscripts or such required.

Thank you very much.

I my campaign I require a roll to read or write anything, so basic literacy would be 20 and a read Latin of 1 wouldn't be much more than a knowledge of the alphabet.

A compose roll would be needed to write something well, but I wouldn't say it's necessary to simply get the basic idea across.

In the book, a Christian monk would have Read (Latin) of 6; this is someone whom we might expect to have a relatively high degree of literacy, even if he comes from a non-literate upbringing or his role in the monastery does not involve close interaction with the written word. So the standard's pretty low.

In the rules, only a fumble could result in a misunderstanding, while a simple failure means you just don't understand and have to think for a bit about whether liber means "child" or "book"; thus, even a skill of 1 might allow someone to slowly squint her way along until she gives up, or rolls a 20 and realizes that Moses didn't have a halo, he had horns. Besides that, medieval Latin accounts were fairly basic; these were not books of the Bible or monastic rules or treatises on theology or grammar or philosophy, but something where some basic vocabulary and grammar would let you understand what you've paid for and who owes you. Perhaps (in the unlikely event that quickly deciphering an account book is a vital, dramatic plot point) one might get a +5 bonus to rolls, to reflect the very basic nature of the wording. This way, even someone with a very basic knowledge (skill 1) would be able to get through a couple pages in an afternoon, while someone who has been attentive in her lessons (skill 10) would be more likely to breeze through without worrying about the dative case, but only the very skilled (15+) would not have to worry about messing up the indirect object and coming to the conclusion that we don't owe the bishop three cows, he owes us three cows (or, worse yet, we owe three cows a bishop).

P.S. "Liber" can also mean "free" or "let me be nibbled."

The British actually did not use Latin for the keeping of accounts. They used Greek. I'd place bookkeeping squarely under Stewardship, not Read. Anyone with Stewardship should be able to read a basic ledger and manage accounts

The British actually did not use Latin for the keeping of accounts. They used Greek. I'd place bookkeeping squarely under Stewardship, not Read. Anyone with Stewardship should be able to read a basic ledger and manage accounts


That's a new one on me. when did the practice switch over? I know by the end of the 14thC early 15thC the shorthand remnants of accounting language in the early modern english records (eg the Brewers book) are latin not greek.
I'd love to read more on this.


As to read/write, R/R 1 is enough for basic letters and correspondence in a non-stress situation.
when the chips are down and you need to read or write something in a hurry and get the meaning crystal clear, then you need to roll.
Requiring 20 for total literacy is absurd.
Given that a knight starts with a basic spear skill of 6, and he is quite good with a sword skill of 10, those seem like reasonable numbers for comparison. (as in Doorknobs' monk example)

My rule of thumb for skills is:

<5 = untrained (raw talent only, requires a roll even for unstressed use)
5-9 = functional (an amateur or trainee, no roll required for unstressed tasks)
10-14 = competent (a professional ie derives their living from the skill, impressive to non-professionals)
15-19 = skilled (impressive to other professionals)
20+ = mastery (impressive even to skilled professionals)

IMO once you are past ~10 in a skill, it's mostly about how you differentiate yourself from others in your peer group rather than whether you can perform the task at hand.

Regards
Luke

When it comes to ledgers and stewardship I would say it goes on Stewardship skill, like Undead Trout said.

Furthermore I like the summary of Luke as an indication of the level of training.

The British actually did not use Latin for the keeping of accounts. They used Greek.
This is news to me too.
Can you cite a source for this?

This is news to me too.
Can you cite a source for this?


Sorry, my personal book collection is all in boxes at the moment and I no longer live near a major research university with attendant library I can consult at will whenever I'm asked to provide a bibliography for a post I make on the internet. Fairly certain it came from Peter Berresford Ellis, possibly The Celtic Empire: The First Millennium of Celtic History 1000 BC - AD 51.

Britain had regular trade with the Mediterranean before Rome arrived on the scene. Even based on the tin trade alone, we're talking a thousand years or more. Sure, wasn't until 350-300 BC that the Greeks horned in on the Phoenician monopoly, but that's still a couple centuries before Rome arrived. Yes, there may have been "early adopters", but when your trading partners weren't under Roman rule you used the bookkeeping methods you had in common.

Britain had regular trade with the Mediterranean before Rome arrived on the scene. Even based on the tin trade alone, we're talking a thousand years or more. Sure, wasn't until 350-300 BC that the Greeks horned in on the Phoenician monopoly, but that's still a couple centuries before Rome arrived. Yes, there may have been "early adopters", but when your trading partners weren't under Roman rule you used the bookkeeping methods you had in common.

Gee, considering the story of Joseph of Arimathea
maybe they used Hebrew! :)
While some earlier Cornishmen may have used Greek
I still believe that Latin would have been adopted by the time the Empire departed Britain
since the previous century or two had been controlled by Romans

I still believe that Latin would have been adopted by the time the Empire departed Britain since the previous century or two had been controlled by Romans

Can you cite a source for this? :p

Gee, considering the story of Joseph of Arimathea maybe they used Hebrew! :)

Aramaic, more likely. Hebrew was sacred writing, not for common use. Well-traveled Jews like Joseph and Josephe probably used Greek themselves for accounts.

Aramaic, more likely. Hebrew was sacred writing, not for common use. Well-traveled Jews like Joseph and Josephe probably used Greek themselves for accounts.

:)
Of course, we know that they actually all spoke Pendragonese, the magical language that allows Saxons, Danes, Picts and Brits to speak with each other
:)

I still believe that Latin would have been adopted by the time the Empire departed Britain since the previous century or two had been controlled by Romans

Can you cite a source for this? :p


Vindolana and the early english chancery texts? :)

I understand by the British you mean the pre-roman conquest Britons, in which case I can well believe they might have used greek in such literate matters as they had.

Of course, we know that they actually all spoke Pendragonese, the magical language that allows Saxons, Danes, Picts and Brits to speak with each other

Precisely. And therefore the skill should simply be Literacy, rather than Read (specific language). You got rid of Custom (other culture) and Speak (other language), why do we still have this odd artifact of bygone editions?

Of course, we know that they actually all spoke Pendragonese, the magical language that allows Saxons, Danes, Picts and Brits to speak with each other

Precisely. And therefore the skill should simply be Literacy, rather than Read (specific language). You got rid of Custom (other culture) and Speak (other language), why do we still have this odd artifact of bygone editions?

Because in Pendragon the only written language is Latin.
Note that above my comment concerns the spoken language.
YGWV.

Because in Pendragon the only written language is Latin.

It never was before. Yet another recent change? Getting impossible to keep track of them all.

It never was before.

Well, in a sense, it was. Read the skill description and the "written symbols" part in the rules carefully. Sure, there are Ogham, glyphs and runes, but nothing longer than a sentence or two is ever written with them, and what is written is spells, curses, etc. To call this literacy would be very anachronistic, and this is what Greg refers to, I guess.

Literacy in the modern sense only exists in the Latin form. To quote: "Latin is the closest equivalent to modern writing", page 87; "To be literate is to be able to read and write Latin", page 88. So, no change here.

Because in Pendragon the only written language is Latin.
It never was before. Yet another recent change? Getting impossible to keep track of them all.

YGWV

Of course, we know that they actually all spoke Pendragonese, the magical language that allows Saxons, Danes, Picts and Brits to speak with each other

Precisely. And therefore the skill should simply be Literacy, rather than Read (specific language). You got rid of Custom (other culture) and Speak (other language), why do we still have this odd artifact of bygone editions?

Because in Pendragon the only written language is Latin.
Note that above my comment concerns the spoken language.

YGWV.

I've never mentioned this to players, but my thought has always been that any educated person (and for language and game purposes all nobles are educated) speaks Greek & Latin (even if they cannot read them), as well as Germanic and Celtic (as the common tongue of soldiers in Britain). I've also thought that at this point all Germanic, Celtic, and Latin languages are mutually intelligible. I've worked out the idea that anyone who is sufficiently worldly (which in my game includes Italians, Occitanians, Greeks/Byzantines and Arabs) will speak Arabic as well.

I've never needed to use this information in my game, but I think it will be convenient excuse if any players ask why they can speak to Danes, and I think it will do a little something to uphold reasonable suspension of disbelief if it comes up. I actually do look forward to someday telling my players, "oh, the Dane? He sounds like a Saxon with an sock stuffed in his mouth."

Wouldnt it be more plausible just to decide all the educated people understand (just enough) Latin?