D&D 5E Why is there a Forgery Kit?

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't find it ridiculous. I can easily picture how the one might differ from the other, and I can also think of a bunch of reasons why they aren't the same proficiency from a game design standpoint. An artist, like a calligrapher, would have a kit that included his favored tools - the sort of nibs and ink he prefers, the type and color of wax he likes best, whatever parchment suits his needs and tastes - you get the picture, an artists build a kit based on personal preference. Putting a forgery kit together is entirely different, you pick nibs and inks common to certain kinds of document production and in a wide enough range to cover most of the likely needs, you have a variety of paper common to different sorts of usage, etc etc. The rationale behind the construction and use of the two is entirely different.

I'm not going to argue that the skill set needed to use the two doesn't overlap, because it does, but I think there's enough separation that the fact that they are currently different in D&D isn't obviously ridiculous.

I think you have an idea of calligraphers/scribes and their social status and role that is at very hard odds with their actual social status and role in medieval/renaissance society. Most of what they did was either hastily writing stuff down for people, or carefully copying stuff - noticing the copying stuff. A calligrapher/scribe cannot possibly get away with just having the stuff he "favours". He's not that high-status. His job involves copying. His job involves making replica texts. It's forgery in all but name (and criminal status).

In a fantasy society it may be that calligraphers are some sort of exalted beings carried around on palanquins or whatever, who only do the work they want to, the way they want to, but I mean, I don't think that's intended to be the default.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think you have an idea of calligraphers/scribes and their social status and role that is at very hard odds with their actual social status and role in medieval/renaissance society. Most of what they did was either hastily writing stuff down for people, or carefully copying stuff - noticing the copying stuff. A calligrapher/scribe cannot possibly get away with just having the stuff he "favours". He's not that high-status. His job involves copying. His job involves making replica texts. It's forgery in all but name (and criminal status).

In a fantasy society it may be that calligraphers are some sort of exalted beings carried around on palanquins or whatever, who only do the work they want to, the way they want to, but I mean, I don't think that's intended to be the default.

Do you explore dungeons?

Then you have an idea about the role of soldiers/warriors that is at very hard odds with their actual social status and role in medieval renaissance society.

FFS, get off your high horse.

Actually, I should respond to this, too:

Dude, sneering at facts because they relate to art, is a pretty bad show, frankly. What next "Art majors eh? Hahaha". This isn't "a matter of opinion".

No, I'm not denigrating art majors or expertise. If this were the psionics thread and you thought your opinion mattered more because you were a brain surgeon I'd have the exact same reaction.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, I'm not denigrating art majors or expertise. If this were the psionics thread and you thought your opinion mattered more because you were a brain surgeon I'd have the exact same reaction.

This is beyond ludicrous but I'm laughing pretty hard at it so I guess whatever man, you keep on believing that forgery in D&D is to forgery in the real world as psionics is in D&D is to brain surgery in the real world.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is beyond ludicrous but I'm laughing pretty hard at it so I guess whatever man, you keep on believing that forgery in D&D is to forgery in the real world as psionics is in D&D is to brain surgery in the real world.

Surreal.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you have an idea of calligraphers/scribes and their social status and role that is at very hard odds with their actual social status and role in medieval/renaissance society. Most of what they did was either hastily writing stuff down for people, or carefully copying stuff - noticing the copying stuff. A calligrapher/scribe cannot possibly get away with just having the stuff he "favours". He's not that high-status. His job involves copying. His job involves making replica texts. It's forgery in all but name (and criminal status).

In a fantasy society it may be that calligraphers are some sort of exalted beings carried around on palanquins or whatever, who only do the work they want to, the way they want to, but I mean, I don't think that's intended to be the default.

Well, I actually have a pretty good handle on the role of scribes in Medieval Europe, but I was actually talking about D&D, not history. The player character who has a calligraphy set is isn't the guy you describe, and even the guy you describe isn't going to able to forge anything above his station because he lacks the right inks and paper. Even scribes in D&D aren't that guy because a lot of settings have much more modern ideas about station and status, and about prices and access to material goods. D&D is also, in 5E anyway, much more modern in its implied levels of literacy than was the case in either the medieval or renaissance periods. The argument from historical example isn't one that carries a lot of water in this case.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is beyond ludicrous but I'm laughing pretty hard at it so I guess whatever man, you keep on believing that forgery in D&D is to forgery in the real world as psionics is in D&D is to brain surgery in the real world.

Quite literally not what he said or the comparison he was aiming for. He was making a pretty valid point about the questionable appeal to authority involved in both the opinion of Art Majors on fantasy forgery and the opinion of brain surgeons on fantasy psionics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, I actually have a pretty good handle on the role of scribes in Medieval Europe, but I was actually talking about D&D, not history. The player character who has a calligraphy set is isn't the guy you describe, and even the guy you describe isn't going to able to forge anything above his station because he lacks the right inks and paper. Even scribes in D&D aren't that guy because a lot of settings have much more modern ideas about station and status, and about prices and access to material goods. D&D is also, in 5E anyway, much more modern in its implied levels of literacy than was the case in either the medieval or renaissance periods. The argument from historical example isn't one that carries a lot of water in this case.

So what do you think someone with the calligrapher's supplies proficiency does in "D&D"? I don't buy your "He's a true artist who does what he wants with what he wants!" holds any water, because even we treat it as more akin to the 1700s or 1800s, it still doesn't work out that way.

As for getting access to the inks etc. that's my point. You going to need to do that anyway to do a really good forgery.

Quite literally not what he said or the comparison he was aiming for. He was making a pretty valid point about the questionable appeal to authority involved in both the opinion of Art Majors on fantasy forgery and the opinion of brain surgeons on fantasy psionics.

Still seems laughable to me. The idea that calligraphy/calligraphic forgery in D&D is as alien from calligraphy/calligraphic forgery in the real world as psionics is from brain surgery just is not viable.

What I'm not seeing is any valid argument that isn't essentially a slightly veiled ad hominem directed at me. I haven't seen any reference to how the techniques of calligraphy or the like would actually differ from the real world. Pointing out that a wizard might make magic paper or magic seal is valid, but it just doesn't interact with what I'm saying. Ink is ink. Paper is paper. Quills are quills. If they're not, then that's interesting, but we're talking generic D&D and there's no indication that they're not.

 

[Fenris-77]

So what do you think someone with the calligrapher's supplies proficiency does in "D&D"? I don't buy your "He's a true artist who does what he wants with what he wants!" holds any water, because even we treat it as more akin to the 1700s or 1800s, it still doesn't work out that way.

A player character with calligrapher supplies does whatever they want. They aren't necessarily scribes by profession, and could (and are) often described as artists. The historical period you point to doesn't matter either, not really, D&D doesn't map to one period anyway. The answer to the question at hand is not to be found by indexing history, or at least not solely that. What a professional scribe NPC does in D&D might be enormously different according to setting, so indexing specific historical models would actually be pretty counter productive to the somewhat setting agnostic approach of the main rules books.

As for getting access to the inks etc. that's my point. You going to need to do that anyway to do a really good forgery.

You missed my point I think. Unless you're forgin things you wouldn't have the stuff to do so on hand because the supplies are different. Obviously you could get them.

Still seems laughable to me. The idea that calligraphy/calligraphic forgery in D&D is as alien from calligraphy/calligraphic forgery in the real world as psionics is from brain surgery just is not viable.

Let me try this one more time. No comparison of real world to fantasy forgery was made or even implied. What was called into question was the possible fallacious appeal to authority of saying "I'm an art major so I know these things". That's not to say that an art major might know something about calligraphy, or indeed about the medieval period, as they might know both, but that doesn't make their opinion of fantasy forgery rules any more or less correct. I have two degrees in Medieval History and am also a competent calligrapher, but that doesn't win me any points here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"I'm an art major so I know these things".

Good thing literally no-one has said that. So that's a weird point to make. My point was that a lot of the points in this thread have been made out of apparent ignorance, and Elfcrusher was specifically making an ad hominem attack, which I mocked by pointing out it's similarity to typical ignorant sneering at "art majors", which you seem to have extrapolated into something else entirely.

And frankly, your background should win you some points. I notice whilst you've been a bit oblique (which is fine, I'm sure I'm obtuse at times), you haven't made any points from ignorance. At least you know how the basic process works. Some of the claims in this thread could only be made by someone who didn't even know that much.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I haven't seen any reference to how the techniques of calligraphy or the like would actually differ from the real world. Pointing out that a wizard might make magic paper or magic seal is valid, but it just doesn't interact with what I'm saying. Ink is ink. Paper is paper. Quills are quills. If they're not, then that's interesting, but we're talking generic D&D and there's no indication that they're not.

Here's an example: One poster asserted that a forger would probably want to be able to mix various color inks to replicate something precisely. You responded that a calligrapher would also need to be able to do that.

Now, in your game that might be true. And that's fine. But it's equally plausible that a calligrapher would just have black ink. For example, I've never seen nor heard of Japanese calligraphy in anything except black. (And until this thread it never occurred to me that a calligrapher would have anything except black ink.)

Which also speaks to your assertion about the status of calligraphers. In feudal Japan calligraphy was a high art, and was practiced by nobles and samurai. Very different from the medieval European "scribe".

So maybe a fantasy world combines both of these things. There are scribes for hire, and there are also calligraphers.

Again, it doesn't have to be this way. It's equally fine for a DM to rule that in his/her world the two are the same, and that forgers are pretty much the same, and they all use the same kit.

It's your insistence...in an astonishingly arrogant tone...that it must be your way, and that any disagreement is born of "ignorance", that perplexes me.