Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MOB

Book of Sires - Errors Thread

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

The inhabitants of Cheshire are defined as Cymric Pagan....However, this conflicts with Book of the Knights & Ladies page 22, where people from Cheshire should be British Christian.

Remember that Book of Sires starts circa 439 AD.  Cheshire is defined as part of the the area that will be part of the Kingdom of Norgales. This kingdom does not yet exist when the Book starts. If you prefer them to be C/BC from the beginning, I would see no problem in defining it as such. Part of the history here is when Cunneida comes south, Norgales eventually becomes a kingdom and is eventually converted to BC from Paganism.  I think it would depend on what David L. says regarding whether it is in error or not.

Edited by Hzark10
should be kingdom, not king

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a typo.

I know we used K&L as our touchstone when it came to the cultures, and only made changes as necessary to reflect the fact that we didn't have the Saxons yet (save in Berroc) in 439, or where later publications had made clear that Silchester was a Roman civitates (hence Silchester is R/RC rather than C/BC). I also know that we fixed a few of the culture/religions in final edit, and I -thought- I had gone through all of them to double-check them. But since a lot of that editing was done outside of emails, I don't have a record of those discussions.

In any case, I don't see a strong reason why Cheshire should be Pagan. Granted, we have (some) pagans in Cameliard (Cornovii) and in Powys (Ordovices), but there is no particular reason why the Deceangli wouldn't have been converted before 439. There are certainly no particular events between 439 and 463 (nor up to 480, AFAIK) which would have prompted a conversion of Cheshire in particular, except perhaps one. There would have been the Hallelujah Victory by Saint Germanus that we could have used, traditionally placed in Flintshire, which would have been Deceangli territory at the time of his visit (447 in SIRES), but a naval invasion by Picts and Scots/Irish or Saxons didn't quite fit the story we were trying to weave together, so that got dropped... Easier to just say that the Deceangli converted with most of the British tribes (south of the wall) during the Roman times and leave it at that.

The inhabitants of Cheshire (the Deceangli) have nothing to do with the pagan Votadini who come from the North in 455, but have lived near City of Legions and Norgales until pushed out by the Irish, and then Norgales was claimed by the Votadini. Cheshire is not natively part of Norgales, which we used to refer to the area between Cheshire and Gomeret, as shown in the map of Cambria, p. 79. Thanks to the various kingdoms conquering one another from time to time, I would not have a problem with Ryons' Kingdom of Norgales including Cheshire as well, and probably most of Gomeret, too, but Cheshire is not a subdivision of the Kingdom of Norgales nor are they of the Votadini.

Also, Tintagel should get the mix specified: C/Mix (BC or P).

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another "Ethnic/Religious" oddity.

Page 49 seems to suggest that in Brittany there should be more Cymric RC than among the Cymric in Britain.

However, table 1.9 on page 13 suggest that all the Cymric are BC (while only Romans are RC).

Is it a typo?

Or maybe it should be changed with something like: "C/BC or RC"  ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Table 1.9 conforms with the Book of Knights & Ladies, p. 22...

I am not sure about BoSi p.49... I see that sentence appearing in a draft in March 2016... Hzark10, any recollection?

It is possible that it was a nice idea to try and differentiate the Brittany Britons a bit from their British counterparts, but didn't get followthrough in Table 1.9, due to us basically trying to make sure that Table 1.9 fitted BoK&L as much as possible and missing on the comment in p. 49 (oops). That being said, I would be perfectly happy to switch Vannetais to "C/Mix (BC or RC)". It would make sense to me, given the continental context, and what was said in p. 49.

The other option would be taking the sentence out in p.49, but I would, in this case, rather veer off from BoK&L and make it more varied and different from standard C/BC.

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Morien said:

It is possible that it was a nice idea to try and differentiate the Brittany Britons a bit from their British counterparts, but didn't get followthrough in Table 1.9, due to us basically trying to make sure that Table 1.9 fitted BoK&L as much as possible and missing on the comment in p. 49 (oops). That being said, I would be perfectly happy to switch Vannetais to "C/Mix (BC or RC)". It would make sense to me, given the continental context, and what was said in p. 49.

Yeah, oops. I think we missed this one.  My notes indicate it also probably should be either a mixture. The continent should have more Roman Christians than British Christians, especially if one argues these tables start in 439, before the Second Migration.  So, yes, this should be C/Mix (BC or RC).

 

BobS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Yeah, oops. I think we missed this one.  My notes indicate it also probably should be either a mixture. The continent should have more Roman Christians than British Christians, especially if one argues these tables start in 439, before the Second Migration.  So, yes, this should be C/Mix (BC or RC).

If we really wanted to, we could make Cornouailles and Domnonie (pre-migration) to be "C/Mix (BC or RC)" as well. With the Dumnonii migration in late 450s, they would bring their C/BC culture and religious affiliation with them, as they establish the Kingdom of Domnonie.

Not that either of those kingdoms are detailed in BoK&L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is actually an error.

Page 80, Cambria, year 455: Half the Cornovii are moved to Cornwall, but the characters of Cornovii heritage aren't given an option to have their family move to Cornwall and start rolling on those event tables, as members of other cultural groups may.

Edited by SaxBasilisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SaxBasilisk said:

Page 80, Cambria, year 455: Half the Cornovii are moved to Cornwall, but the characters of Cornovii heritage aren't given an option to have their family move to Cornwall and start rolling on those event tables, as members of other cultural groups may.

Thanks for asking. I'll try to explain it. :)

It is not an error, but a design choice. The PK Cornovii stay in Cambria, until the Night of the Long Knives. Note that we make all the Cambrians Dissidents in 455, too. This ensures that they will end up in Brittany in 463, and hence return with Aurelius Ambrosius and get lands in Logres, instead.

If we had allowed them to move to Cornwall, it would have caused two things:

1. We would have had yet another separate Cornwall tribe of Loyalists to track until the Night of the Long Knives, and

2. More importantly, we would have had to follow the Cornovii (Kingdom of Cornwall) side of things until 485, too. We didn't. The Cornwall in BoSi is the DUCHY of Cornwall, when we get caught up in 480 or 485.

The whole idea in BoSi was that you'd end up in Logres by the end of it, and run with GPC. Kingdom of Cornwall is not in Logres, hence we didn't allow that path.

(Sure, we allowed Cumbria up to 485, because... reasons. :P)

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other two things on page 6

- the character should be born on 464 (as per normal story in Core rules) not in 463 (they must be 21 on AD 485).

- the father should be born on 439, not 438 (he must be 21 on AD 460).

EDIT:

I just noticed that the book says that one turns 21 at the end of the previous year, so everything should be OK....or at least I hope to have got it!

Edited by Luca Cherstich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I just noticed that the book says that one turns 21 at the end of the previous year, so everything should be OK....or at least I hope to have got it!

Yep. Aging and Childbirth are both in Winter Phase, at the end of the year*, and that is the convention we used. We had a long discussion about that too.

* Sure you can argue that the end of the Winter Phase is actually already towards March, but even in that case, the traditional start of the year was March 25th for most of the Middle Ages. Conversely, you could argue that Julius Caesar's Jan 1st was not overturned until the Council of Tours 567, so after GPC's Battle of Camlann. But I find it personally more pleasing to have the Winter at the end of the year, and then start a new year and new adventures once the Winter Phase closes the chapter on the previous year.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

p.6

"435: Grandfather marries and starts gaining yealy events"

In reality he just marries on that year...yearly events starts only in 439!

I just realized that this implies the d20 glory mentioned on page 7 ("Glory gained prior to 439").
However, the "Yearly events" reference is still wrong, since you do not roll for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I just realized that this implies the d20 glory mentioned on page 7 ("Glory gained prior to 439").

Correct.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

However, the "Yearly events" reference is still wrong, since you do not roll for them. 

Well... the 1d20 Glory IS a yearly event*, it is just a generic yearly event because we didn't give any specific ones until 439. If you feel like making your own for 435 - 438, feel free!

* And it says "starts gaining yearly events", not "starts rolling yearly events". ;)

Edited by Morien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, not strictly an error...but I rolled a PC's past in Acquitaine and he happened to be Roman (there are so many Roman cities there in that table).

However, once you start rolling the year events, you notice the amount of battles that Acquitanians do against the Romans.

At the end of the day I guess those tables cannot predict every bend in the story and some GM/player interpretation is required (in my case I ruled out that local Roman/Romanized are somehow obedient to the Acquitanian Kings, as their equivalent in Britannia do with Cymric kings, even in wars against other Romans).

Furthermore this book is sometimes difficult to combine with BoK&L, especially in terms of how it fits with father origin and starting wealth in BoK&L. But again, I guess that trying to make the two things working perfectly together would have been complicated and (again), some degree of GM/Player interpretation and creativity is required.

Edited by Luca Cherstich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I rolled a PC's past in Acquitaine and he happened to be Roman

Not a problem. You need to make the distinction between an Aquitanian subject of Roman culture and a WRE subject of Roman culture, as you have already done. The PC in question is an Aquitanian subject and would follow all the events as an Aquitanian. His culture is irrelevant to this. He can even choose to be a traditionalist or a reformist, same as any other Aquitanian.

31 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

how it fits with father origin and starting wealth in BoK&L.

The presumption is that by default (in KAP 5.2 and GPC), the character's family are landed knights* , but it doesn't need to be the case. It works just as well if they are just household knights, although then they would not qualify for the Heritage Passion.

Come to think of it, you don't even have to assume that they are knights, if you don't want to. Running a tribal warrior through the Pictish or Cambrian line would work just as well. There is no need for them to be KNIGHTS, and even esquires could be fighting in battles. Many of the officers would be esquires or even knights, too. Now I don't recall if it is the same for tribal people, but with esquires, you'd just take off the 1000 Glory for Knighting and you are good to continue.

So I guess what I am asking here is: what seems to be the problem? :)

* At least from father onwards, but I am strongly urging to make that at least from grandfather onwards, since if it is just the father who gets it from marriage to an heiress as in KAP 5.2, this means the WHOLE REST OF THE PATERNAL FAMILY TREE is ineligible to ever to inherit, save for the PK's siblings from that same marriage. This, to me, is a Bad Thing as it makes it quite easy for the family to die off as far as that family+manor connection is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...