Should PCs Be Literate in a Sword-and-Sorcery Setting?

[Palanan]

I’m thinking of running a campaign in a sword-and-sorcery setting, in which literacy is restricted to a tiny handful of elites and virtually unknown otherwise. Many tribes are only dimly aware that writing exists, and even in larger settlements most people have only rarely seen it.

I’m aware that PCs are usually considered exceptional, no matter their culture of origin. But in cultures which operate successfully without the written word, is there any reason for PCs to be automatically literate? And if not, is there any major issue of balance if PCs begin without literacy?

[Celestia]

Keep in mind, literacy is required for any degree of complicated economics, and advanced economies are required for cities. A truly illiterate populous would be little more than farming villages with a simple barter system.

[lylsyly]

Keep in mind, literacy is required for any degree of complicated economics, and advanced economies are required for cities. A truly illiterate populous would be little more than farming villages with a simple barter system.This. Plus are you looking for a mechanical difference or just fluff?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by lylsyly
Plus are you looking for a mechanical difference or just fluff?

I'm mainly wondering if there would be any real consequence if the PCs all started as illiterate.

Books as such won't exist in this setting, and neither will wizards, clerics or druids, so there won't be a need for spellbooks, and in place of libraries there will be elders who embody the oral traditions of their various peoples.

Offhand I'm not seeing an obvious problem with PC illiteracy in this sort of culture, but I want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm mainly wondering if there would be any real consequence if the PCs all started as illiterate.

Books as such won't exist in this setting, and neither will wizards, clerics or druids, so there won't be a need for spellbooks, and in place of libraries there will be elders who embody the oral traditions of their various peoples.

Offhand I'm not seeing an obvious problem with PC illiteracy in this sort of culture, but I want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything.You would be forgoing and nerfing a large number of plots, plot-hooks, puzzles, rewards, character archetypes, character mechanics, (as you pointed out) character classes, and learning additional languages through any means. I'm sure there are a LOT of other things here and there that this would make rather awkward or non-viable, as well.

Not sure this is a good idea, really. Most of the world's poorest people, yes, but it gets really weird when classes and characters known for learning large numbers of things, like rogues, bards, experts, and nobles, suddenly find themselves forcibly ignorant of large swaths of knowledge and learning they'd otherwise have under their belts.

[Lagtime]

No. Though PC's should not really be literate in most "before 17th century or so" settings.

Reading and writing really was not all the common for ''everyone" until about the 17th century. Sure starting at about the 13th century people could use words and see them and make marks, but it's hard to say that was "literate". Bankers, nobles, government folks and such could read and write.

If your world has no real reading and writing....then it won't matter too much. After all such a world would just use wordless signs.

[Celestia]

No. Though PC's should not really be literate in most "before 17th century or so" settings.

Reading and writing really was not all the common for ''everyone" until about the 17th century. Sure starting at about the 13th century people could use words and see them and make marks, but it's hard to say that was "literate". Bankers, nobles, government folks and such could read and write.

If your world has no real reading and writing....then it won't matter too much. After all such a world would just use wordless signs.
This is completely false. Common folk have been literate forever. They were much less so than modern people, yes, but they could certainly read and write with a basic level of competency. This myth that only the upper-class were literate comes from the priests and nobles of the day arbitrarily deciding that real literacy meant being able to read and write in Latin, and the dirty peasant languages were irrelevant. It was sheer elitism that somehow survived until today as an oft-quoted "fact" of the Medieval period.

[Remuko]

This is completely false. Common folk have been literate forever. They were much less so than modern people, yes, but they could certainly read and write with a basic level of competency. This myth that only the upper-class were literate comes from the priests and nobles of the day arbitrarily deciding that real literacy meant being able to read and write in Latin, and the dirty peasant languages were irrelevant. It was sheer elitism that somehow survived until today as an oft-quoted "fact" of the Medieval period.

I came to say this.

[Silly Name]

A complete lack of any sort of writing system seems absurd to me if your society is more advanced than "living in caves with pelts for clothes".

Writing (even proto-writing) is useful for recording all sorts of things, and even "primitive" cultures often have some sort of visual way of recording things: pictograms, graffiti, ideograms, etc. If your setting has cities and temples and kingdoms it would be extremely odd for almost everyone to be 100% illiterate.

Many people can be slow readers, and have poor handwriting. But for all PCs to be truly illiterate by obligation it means this world is stuck in an almost Stone Age period. It means no scrolls, a lot of traditional ways to convey information is gone (no lost diaries, no letters, no ancient writings on the great walls of the abandoned temple...). High-level play sees the loss of the various tomes that grant bonuses to stats, and spells like Explosive Runes stop making sense, as well as any other spell which fluff talks about runes and writings.

I also don't understand why clerics and druids wouldn't exist in this kind of world? All the important stuff they need to know can be taught orally and don't need spellbooks, and even then they'd be exactly the embodiment of the "elites" you spoke of.

(By the way, I've always found it silly that barbarians are illiterate by default, but any other character can take any background at all and be assumed to be literate. I've always let players decide that sort of detail and ignored the Illiteracy "class feature").

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
character archetypes, character mechanics

Apart from wizards, who as indicated won’t be in this setting, can you give an example of archetypes which would be affected? And are there specific mechanics you can point to which would need to be altered?

[reddir]

If you are willing to keep numbers and 'picture-writing' like the classical chinese and japanese pictographs in then I think most things should still be okay.

Even simplified pictographs can work very well for conveying basic meaning, even if not anything nuanced or detailed.

---------------

If you remove these things entirely... you end up with not really able to have settlements beyond towns as it would be near impossible to manage everything on strictly personal face-to-face discussions.

And money would be tricky. It might go to pure barter? No stamped coins (no numbers or pictographs) means only the weight might matter, but how would you be sure the weights being used are standard and honest?
If it is just a round size/weight thing it could work but the economy would be nearly pure barter as the value of the coins would be generally considered less. Good for roleplay but players might find it inconvenient.

[satorian]

This is completely false. Common folk have been literate forever. They were much less so than modern people, yes, but they could certainly read and write with a basic level of competency. This myth that only the upper-class were literate comes from the priests and nobles of the day arbitrarily deciding that real literacy meant being able to read and write in Latin, and the dirty peasant languages were irrelevant. It was sheer elitism that somehow survived until today as an oft-quoted "fact" of the Medieval period.

This surprised me, as it ran counter to what I learned medieval and world history classes only a decade or two ago. Still, based on the strength of your assertion, I looked into some academic papers and "ask a medievalist" pages and such published more recently. While it is true that "literacy" is a wonky term when talking about vernaculars, I'm seeing current academic estimates of vernacular literacy rates (being able to do more than maybe identify a few letters) at around 5-40% society-wide in the 1100-1500, lower prior. Heck Charlemagne couldn't write (though he could read). Indeed, the fact that almost all Jews could read was one of the reasons behind anti-Semitism in late medieval Europe.

In China and India, rates were even lower. In Sub Saharan Africa, where most lore was transmitted orally, written signs appear to have been mostly used for commerce and were outside the ken of most people. Non-merchants may have been able to read them, or may not, but they doubtful had much use for them.

I'm just not seeing any solid evidence for what you said.

[Kraynic]

If you want to leave yourself some room to change things, make literacy a skill separate from speaking a language. If you end up with a character that needs to at least have a basic level of literacy for some reason, then start them with that skill.

[ShurikVch]

A complete lack of any sort of writing system seems absurd to me if your society is more advanced than "living in caves with pelts for clothes".
Oh, come on!..
If rhapsodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsode) performed freaking Iliad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad) by memory - does it mean Ancient Greece was a land of savages?



This is completely false. Common folk have been literate forever. They were much less so than modern people, yes, but they could certainly read and write with a basic level of competency. This myth that only the upper-class were literate comes from the priests and nobles of the day arbitrarily deciding that real literacy meant being able to read and write in Latin, and the dirty peasant languages were irrelevant. It was sheer elitism that somehow survived until today as an oft-quoted "fact" of the Medieval period.

I came to say this.
Really, people?..

In the Ancient Egypt, literacy existed mostly among priests - other people could learn it from them, but it was very difficult and took a lot of time (but at later period, according to Plato, most of people learned "letters and counting")

Assyrian/Babylonian cuneiform also took much time and efforts to master

(Judea - for a change - was rather literate)

In India, literacy was spread mostly among the priestly caste, and besides them - mostly among the Kshatriya (warriors - 2nd caste); to the lowest caste, literacy was forbidden as major sin (and even hearing reading of Vedas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas) was banned for them); for a women, literacy was shameful - so only dancers or devadasi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadasi) could be literate; two "middle" castes could acquire literacy from priests

In the Ancient Greece, literacy was widespread, and even commoners were literate; among women, literacy was rare because of absence of schools for women

In the Ancient Rome - even in the best times - part of literal population was lower than in the Ancient Greece (and in the Roman Empire - even lower)

During the Medieval, literacy was spread mostly among the small group of clergy and urban dwellers (most of clergy was illiterate).

In Byzantine Empire, literacy was available to priests and officials, but to write with adherence to all nuances of literary Greek language at the end of XII century were able, approximately, about 300 of very well-educated people. To appraise value of complicated text were able about 2000 people, to appreciate the level of language proficiency - about 3000 people (thus, less than 1% from population of Constantinople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople)). Education was long and expensive. Those who invested in it wanted their sons at the pulpit, or a courtier in the capital.

The most spread literacy was at Iberian Peninsula during the heyday of Arab culture, and Italy in XI century. Outside of Italy, bishops at councils draw crosses instead the signatures. Knights are often despised literacy: they left it to their ladies and clerks who read and wrote for them. Even in Provence just a few seigneurs were able to read in their own language - let alone in Latin. Son of Louis IX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_of_France) couldn't write.

In England, royal signatures are began from XIII century (female - from XIV).

In Germany, even poets initially dictated their songs to clerks.

In Hungary, kings and magnates are relied on announces via heralds because of lack of literate people in the kingdom. (Although literacy was more common among urban dwellers)

Things started to change only since the Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation).

[Yuki Akuma]

Making characters illiterate cuts off a ton of avenues for giving them hints and story beats for no real gain.

Let the characters be literate. PCs are supposed to be extraordinary. It doesn't matter if the average peasant of the time could read - PCs are not average peasants.

[Chronos]

Of course, no point in real-world history is a particularly close match for a sword-and-sorcery setting. Going through some of the classics, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were both literate (Fafhrd, being a barbarian, didn't much like books, but he could read them), Cugel the Clever was literate, and I haven't read the Conan stories, but it looks like he starts off literate but eventually learns to read.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Celestia
This is completely false. Common folk have been literate forever.


Originally Posted by satorian
I'm just not seeing any solid evidence for what you said.


Originally Posted by ShurikVch
*snip*

As the latter two have detailed, Celestia’s assertion is inaccurate. More to the point, debating as complex a topic as literacy through world history isn’t likely to answer my specific questions.

For my purposes in this thread, what helps me most is to point out specific instances where illiteracy would complicate or negate a PC’s class features or other assumptions of system mechanics. I’m not concerned with hooks or story points, only the strict mechanical ramifications.

And it would be extremely helpful, when pointing out such instances, to offer potential solutions as well.


Originally Posted by Kraynic
If you want to leave yourself some room to change things, make literacy a skill separate from speaking a language. If you end up with a character that needs to at least have a basic level of literacy for some reason, then start them with that skill.

Thanks, this is very helpful in all respects.


Originally Posted by Chronos
…I haven't read the Conan stories, but it looks like he starts off literate but eventually learns to read.

Do you mean he starts off illiterate?

[mindstalk]

The OP didn't say the society was completely illiterate but that it was restricted to elites. "Priests and urban scribes" probably qualifies as elite. Historical models would be early Egypt or Assyria, where the writing system was pretty damn hard.

Literacy estimates for the past vary widely, data is poor. But it's easier to acquire reading when a phonetic syllabary or alphabet (which a determined adult can pick up in a few hours) is used rather than a system of thousands of ideograms.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Obviously the setting will be significantly altered from a normal one. Here are mechanics that are altered, either by being less realistic to acquire, being less relevant, or just being harder to use.

Skills: Forgery, decipher script, speak language (harder to learn IMO, but still useful), the knowledge skills (especially the more esoteric ones), to a certain extent spellcraft
Classes: [Ones that were already removed], Truenamer, Archivist
Items: Scrolls, various book-based items
Other: Various "rune"-based spells and mechanics arguably count here.

Another question: Does every class simply gain the Illiteracy class feature of the Barbarian? If so they can just get literacy for 2 skill points if they'd like.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by mindstalk
The OP didn't say the society was completely illiterate but that it was restricted to elites. "Priests and urban scribes" probably qualifies as elite. Historical models would be early Egypt or Assyria, where the writing system was pretty damn hard.

Thank you, this is very much what I’m going for.


Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay
Here are mechanics that are altered, either by being less realistic to acquire, being less relevant, or just being harder to use.

These are very helpful, thanks. I hadn’t been thinking about forgery, but that’s a good one to keep in mind.


Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay
Another question: Does every class simply gain the Illiteracy class feature of the Barbarian?

This is probably the simplest approach, yes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Apart from wizards, who as indicated won’t be in this setting, can you give an example of archetypes which would be affected? And are there specific mechanics you can point to which would need to be altered?I'm not talking "class archetypes"; I'm talking "character archetypes." Those are different things. "Wizard" is only a character archetype as far as "any spellcaster in a fantasy setting" goes. As an example, druid fits the "nature wizard" archetype, but isn't a wizard. But if "the wizard archetype" is unavailable, that would mean druids wouldn't exist. Same with psionic manifesters, since they fit into that, as well.

"Wizard" in D&D is a specific class. Unless you're wanting to rule out "any spellcaster" in your games (which you said wasn't the case), you're not talking about an archetype there.

Researchers, librarians, actual scientists (as science requires recording information, since the scientific method involved in true experimentation is stupidly complex, especially when you start getting down to minutia), anything involving math, explorers with any goals other than "loot and pillage," historians with any interests in actual historical accuracy and not just fictitious rumors, anyone involved with money that isn't bartering, and a lot more.

[stack]

If I recall my history correctly, the Incan empire lacked a system of writing, yet managed to develop a bureaucracy capable of administering an extensive empire. Larger powers in your setting, if they exist, could take them as a reference.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by stack
If I recall my history correctly, the Incan empire lacked a system of writing, yet managed to develop a bureaucracy capable of administering an extensive empire.

This is a really interesting case, because the Inca had no writing per se, but they did have khipus, which were highly complex systems of knots on interconnected strings. These were read by khipucamayaqs, who were a combination of accountants and scribes, who tallied everything from warehoused goods to imperial census data using the khipus.

There's a lot of debate as to whether the khipus were simply accounting devices, or if they qualified as "writing" in the sense of being able to store historical narrative and creative literature. There were libraries of khipus in Cuzco with khipucamayaqs who could recount historical details from five centuries before the coming of the Spaniards, which suggests the khipus were able to encode narrative as well as numbers.

But unfortunately there are very few khipus surviving today, and no known bilinguals, so much of that knowledge has been lost.

.

[Quertus]

So, imma go with "player agency" - it should be the players' choice to make their characters literate or not.

It's awesome when the PCs completely miss clues that anyone would understand if they could read them, just like it's awesome when the PCs are the only ones in the setting who can read and understand what's actually going on. I'm reminded of an anime with a "thrust bomb".


Books as such won't exist in this setting, and neither will wizards, clerics or druids,

That's not causal, right? You aren't confusing a necessity for mass setting literacy with the ability of Wizards - let alone illiterate Clerics or Druids - to exist, right?


You would be forgoing and nerfing a large number of plots, plot-hooks, puzzles, rewards, character archetypes, character mechanics, (as you pointed out) character classes, and learning additional languages through any means.

Literacy is not required for learning languages.

Rule of Three may say not to worry about the rest of that. I, personally, would be sad about missing out on cool puzzles, but it'd be hilarious for the PCs to struggle putting "A, B, and C" in alphabetical order.

So… maybe it just means that the "difficulty" of the puzzles should be adjusted for the party. (Or not. I'm a "player agency", "let the dice fall where they may" "don't adjust the adventure for the party" kind of guy. So "not adjusting the puzzle DC" also sounds fine to me)

[denthor]

I always felt

Bards, clerics, mages and druids should read and write something.

Of other classes monk and thieves guild might insist on reading.

Other fighter classes not so much and definitely not write multiple languages.

Most people do not read fluently given choice only in modern culture do we push it on total population.

[Kraynic]

I always felt

Bards should read and write something.



I brutally snipped that to get down to the class/concept I wanted to comment on.

Until relatively recently, there was a lot of resistance to writing music down. Music is this thing that someone comes up with something and plays it for people. Among the listeners is another musician or 2, who think "that sounds pretty" and go off to figure out how to play it. But of course, they don't remember everything exactly, so the tune (with or without lyrics) ends up with a fair amount of that second musician in it. Music then is like a living, breathing thing all of its own that evolves as it moves from musician to musician.

Go back 3-4 centuries and "classical" music wasn't all written down. Some things were written more as a theme and basic harmony and the musicians were meant to fill in around it. The piece would sound at least a little bit different every time it was performed, especially by totally different groups, because it incorporated a lot of improvisation. Coming back around to the resistance to writing music down... The feeling of some musicians was that writing it ALL down (or in some cases ANY) was equivalent to killing the music. It was then imprisoned, unable to grow, and basically just dead.

From the sounds of the setting, I doubt many bards (minstrels, poets, whatever) would write much down. And what would be written would probably only be what was absolutely necessary (which is quite a lot less than what we are used to today).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kraynic
From the sounds of the setting, I doubt many bards (minstrels, poets, whatever) would write much down.

Exactly so. Musicians, singers, and other performers learn by ear and dint of practice, and the music changes from person to person just as you've described.

Beyond this, no matter the setting, I’ve always imagined bards wandering and listening to whatever they can pick up, which would be the underpinnings of bardic lore as well as their Knowledges. I've always considered bards to be primarily talkers and listeners, mainly because that fits most of the singers and actors I used to hang out with.

Also, bards as a class owe their origins in part to the historical druids, who had an entirely oral culture. For me it's not much of a stretch to imagine bards, in their role as lorekeepers, as part of a purely oral tradition.

[mindstalk]

learning additional languages through any means.

What.

As for bards as a concept, they don't need literacy, and if anything make even more sense as a social class in a pre-literate society. The highly trained oral sage and performer, who has put lots of effort into memorizing long poems, and in the tricks to compose poems that will themselves be memorable. The whole 'bardic knowledge' thing comes from when bard-types would be living libraries, a role that erodes when you can have written libraries instead.

[Asmotherion]

They don't need to be illiterate to be in obvious Disadvantage to the Sorcerer Tyrant that has access to magic.

That said, it's entirelly possible the Sorcerer Tyrant that runs some major city would ban scholars from teaching, one way or an other. Perhaps he employed all scholars to help him Decipher an ancient script, and then killed them to keep it a secret.

Or he could have skipped the previous steps and just killed all literate people, and hoarded all books, so that nobody will be able to actually read a spellbook and rise as competition.

That said, it's a purelly theoretical scenario, that's up to you to Decide. It's as probable as him being facinated by knowlage, and instead force people to pursue science (that could benefit him), via stick and carrot policies (the only prominent people being those that become useful to him, one way or an other).

The only requirement for a good Sword and Sorcery campain, is a Tyranical Overlord that Hoards all the power and magic for himself, and the PCs having limited access and understanding of magic.

A good comparison I've found in meme format, but unfortunatelly fail to find again:

Guy in the Forgotten Realms finds a Scroll of Wish: Nobody bats an eye.

Guy in the Hyborian Age finds Scroll of Prestidigitation: Everybody looses their minds.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Literacy is not required for learning languages.That's not what I said. I said learning languages is nerfed. Unless you're of a class that is illiterate, you automatically learn the written language (if any) when you learn the spoken language. Nerfing that to where you don't do that is...

...Wait for it...

...nerfing it.

[Luccan]

I had an idea for a pre-Bronze setting using mechanically illiterate classes (and ACFs). Using Dragon Magazine to buff up the base class list, there were barbarians, savage bards, totemists, "shamans" (clerics without turning and a weak animal companion), and a luck/nature wizard class called Anagakoks (they technically had writing for their spells, but it was all they could read. I considered it more of a surprisingly complex mathematical system than a language) . The mechanical impact was negligible*. The question is less if they should be and more why you want them to be. I specifically wanted to see where I'd end up if I use official and semi-official sources that were written as illiterate.


*weapons would've been slightly less effective vs the few enemies employing metal armor, but I wasn't going to use the DMG's recommended method of making the weapons inherently crappier against everything

[stack]

Explosive runes is fun if you expect only unusual people to read.

I recall a comic where a villain had explosive ruins on the inside of all his soldiers' masks, then only used illiterate barbarians. When an enemy tries to take the mask as a disguise...

[mindstalk]

Explosive runes is fun if you expect only unusual people to read.

I recall a comic where a villain had explosive ruins on the inside of all his soldiers' masks, then only used illiterate barbarians. When an enemy tries to take the mask as a disguise...

Hah! That's pretty funny.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Luccan
Using Dragon Magazine to buff up the base class list, there were barbarians, savage bards, totemists, "shamans" (clerics without turning and a weak animal companion), and a luck/nature wizard class called Anagakoks....

Thanks for the reminder about Anagakoks, I like that variant. Were there any other ACFs or variants you used?


Originally Posted by mindstalk
As for bards as a concept, they don't need literacy, and if anything make even more sense as a social class in a pre-literate society. The highly trained oral sage and performer, who has put lots of effort into memorizing long poems, and in the tricks to compose poems that will themselves be memorable. The whole 'bardic knowledge' thing comes from when bard-types would be living libraries, a role that erodes when you can have written libraries instead.

And very much this.

[Luccan]

Thanks for the reminder about Anagakoks, I like that variant. Were there any other ACFs or variants you used?



And very much this.

I didn't find any others that met the criteria. It's generally a good list, if a bit light in the skill-monkey/sneak department. Barbarians form a good base for warriors, with Totemists taking the place of the normally vast number of supernatural fighters. A cleric, wizard, and bard covers everything you want out of casters. I found it less awkward to strip the NPC classes of their literacy, since I didn't intend them for PC use anyway. Obviously you would ignore the rule for gaining literacy when multiclassing for prestige classes.

My general thoughts on the mystic implications is that the vast number of shaman-clerics would use the nature type domains and be devoted to primordial nature deities, with a few devoted to racial gods, while savage bards represented the sort of primal magic normally associated with druids (druids being a later development made sense to me because their circles are actually highly organized structures that usually span vast areas), and anagakoks representing the first steps toward wizardry. Totemists being there also made sense to me, as the setting took place near the beginning of that world's existence; it was only later that most people forgot how to or at least that they could influence their own soul to defend them physically

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Luccan
My general thoughts on the mystic implications is that the vast number of shaman-clerics would use the nature type domains and be devoted to primordial nature deities, with a few devoted to racial gods, while savage bards represented the sort of primal magic normally associated with druids (druids being a later development made sense to me because their circles are actually highly organized structures that usually span vast areas), and anagakoks representing the first steps toward wizardry.

Interesting ideas, thanks. I like the notion of the anagakoks as the first proto-wizards, since that dovetails nicely with what I'd been considering.