Is Corwin The Bad Guy

[Ivanhoe]

The historical references Corwin makes and memories he describe, while not proving his longtime amnesia and staying on Earth, would default to fabricated deception otherwise.

I'm sure he prefers the term "literary licence"

As a reader, I wouldn't enjoy this phony Corwin as much, if at all.

Oh I totally agree. As a reader I would hate it. As a GM or as a PC I would accept it as making sense. One can read the autobiography of many great politicians and spot the omissions or the downright lies told inside. Would you trust Brand's memoirs ? Fiona's ? Random's ?

[scottishstorm]

I think we're in agreement.  Could Corwin have been lying, and actually been a real horrible bastard?  Of course he could have been.  However, the course material wouldn't have been as compelling (to me, at least) if this ultra sinister view proved to be true.

As an aside (God, I make a lot of those), watch Highlander (the first and only good one, of course) sometime with the perspective that the Kurgan doesn't want the prize and is preparing to die.  It holds up.

[weilide]

In my heart of hearts, I just don't buy that Corwin is meant to be an unreliable narrator. (I know RZ stated at various points that Corwin is unreliable but the author just claiming this by fiat does not cut the mustard for me). It's always seemed to me much more plausible that the textual inconsistencies (eg, the genealogical gaffes, etc) are essentially genetic in nature -- that is to say, RZ messed up or, more charitably, his vision of the world evolved and he couldn't go back and edit previously published works.

However, if one for the purposes of the RPG goes and enforces unreliability as the sole mechanism for resolving the inconsistencies it does suggest some interesting readings. Part of the question is who of the many narrators in the series are unreliable, and to what degree? Our list of narrators consists of Corwin, Random, Merlin, Luke, and Frakir, unless I'm forgetting some one. Of these, only Corwin and Random have identified narratees. The others are addressing who, exactly? Some vague floating listener, it seems. Unlike Corwin, who is a former amnesiac and addressing someone possibly with split loyalties, they have no reason given in the discourse to be unreliable. Moreover, all the accounts from Merlin onward seem to pretty much corroborate one another. I'd say it seems fair to take the information they give as more or less reliable. This suggests to me, if we chose to read Corwin as withholding info (underreporting rather than misreporting, in other words) that either he is unaware of or, more likely, choosing not to mention at a minimum that the Pattern(s) are sentient, that Grayswandir is a spikard, and (maybe) the existence of Pattern ghosts. This makes a certain amount of sense insofar as the "state secrets" he shares (Dworkin's role in things, the effect of Amberite blood on the pattern, the powers of the Jewel of Judgment) are things that Merlin, as a Chaos aristocrat and son of Dara, could well be expected to know already.

[RPGPundit]

My personal feeling is that Corwin is not a good person, but none of the Amberites are.  

What is notable about Corwin is that he used to be a really, really dreadful person.  Now if he actually reformed, or if he was telling Merlin a whitewashed version of events is unknown.

But I think he was Oberon's favorite because he was such a deeply, deeply bad man.  Because Oberon is a pretty horrible guy.  I think he saw stuff in his son that reminded him of himself, and that he never legitimized Eric because he saw Eric's tendency toward coalitions as 'soft'.

It's all conjecture, but when Fiona makes fun of Corwin for showing some small amount of human decency, you have to wonder what he was like before.

I think that's a very insightful perspective. I don't think it need even fall into questions of "good" or "bad", but that Oberon was an Autocrat while Eric was a Diplomat. Oberon believed in Rule Through Strength, which Corwin (until his reformation) seemed to mirror, and Oberon just liked that better. He wanted the son who was tough enough to take what he wanted by force, more than the one who was able to convince people to give him what he wanted.

RPGPundit

[boulet]

I can buy the bit about Oberon seeing himself in Corwin and preferring him as a result. But Eric diplomat and too soft? You lost me guys.

[Trevelyan]

I can buy the bit about Oberon seeing himself in Corwin and preferring him as a result. But Eric diplomat and too soft? You lost me guys.

Picture Corwin and Eric as the two older brothers that everyone else in the family pretty much hates but for different reasons (Yes, there was also Benedict, but he was the much odler brother who didin't play the games of his siblings).

Corwin was the talented bastard who derived his enjoyment from showing up everyone else. Whatever a younger brother could do well, Corwin made a point of doing a little better (although not the sorcery thing, Corwin is a bit of a jock). He was the ultimate self reliant loner who only needed other people around as victims for his cruel sense of humour.

Eric was similar in that he, too, had to be the best. But while Corwin wanted to demonstrate his superiority and lord it over everyone else, Eric was the kind of guy who derived value frmo the good will of others. Where Corwin was happy to be dispised by a brother he had shown up, Eric needed that same brother to look up to him as a role model. Corwin like to hear "you're a bastard for being better than me", while Eric preferred to hear "you're better than me, how can I make myself more like you?" and played the charm card accordingly.

There may have been further nuances, perhaps Corwin secretly wanted his brothers to accept him, but felt even more strongly the urge to distance himself from Eric, who had already staked out that territory as his own. Or perhaps Eric secret feared that Corwin, one-on-one was his equal or even his superior and instinctively saught to surround himelf with supporters to tip the balance.

But frmo the point of view of Oberon, here were two magnificne tbastards with only one major difference - one relied on the support of others to maintain his sense of superiority, and the other was able to stand alone and still hold his head up high. For Oberon, himself apparently an only child, it makes sense that he would prefer Corwin.

[weilide]

Considering both brothers were fairly outstanding in terms of cutthroat realpolitik, perhaps Oberon just preferred Corwin's songs and poetry?

[Drascus]

Well, none of this is in any way cannon, of course.  But here are some things I noticed.

Oberon never legitimizes Eric, though he makes a point of doing it for Llewella.

Oberon wanted Corwin to be king pretty obviously late in the books, and probably beforehand though that's not stated.

Oberon was PISSED when Corwin went missing, to the point of threatening his son Eric with disinheriting him, and accusing him of the deed at a family dinner.

Eric is older than Corwin, and was Corwin's better at swordplay, presumably because of the age gap.  So what does Oberon do?  He gives Corwin a Pattern Sword, but doesn't give one to Eric.  Giving one son a weapon and not the other, when the two of them are at each other's throats and have unfriendly duels?  That's nasty, and it sends a message.

So there may not be anything to it, but I like to think that Pre-Earth Corwin was first in line in Oberon's mind not just because of his place in the succession (Oberon could have changed that with a simple decree to legitimize Eric); but rather because he was such a terrible man that Oberon thought he had the strength to rule Amber, and was a lot like his old man.

[Ivanhoe]

Heh, that's what Corwin says. Though I did not remember the mention that his Pattern sword was given by Oberon to Corwin.

[Drascus]

Well sure, but you can't combine the speculations about Corwin being an unreliable narrator with other speculations or you'll never go anywhere.

[weilide]

Well sure, but you can't combine the speculations about Corwin being an unreliable narrator with other speculations or you'll never go anywhere.

Just because a narrator is unreliable about some things does not make him automatically unreliable about all things. That said, if he were going to be unreliable about anything, Spikards / pattern swords would likely be high on the list.

[scottishstorm]

Just because a narrator is unreliable about some things does not make him automatically unreliable about all things. That said, if he were going to be unreliable about anything, Spikards / pattern swords would likely be high on the list.

I have no beef with pattern swords, really.

For one, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that a pattern sword is any more lethal to an Amberite than another weapon of high quality.  In game terms, this could be considered "Primal damage to Creatures of Chaos, deadly damage to everything else", in other words a 16-point item that acts as a 4-point item in respect to Amberites and other stuff in shadow.  (Whether that 4 points of 'deadly damage' is itself unbalancing has already been discussed to death (I'm one who believes it is, FYI).

There's also the ambiguity of what defences there may be against a pattern sword, should the potential victim be unluycky enough to be Chaosian.

• Does Logrus defence help?
• What if the Chaosian has 'Amber blood' as well?  ie: would Corwin's pattern sword cause Dara to light up like a fireball?
• What quality  of wound is needed to inflict 'primal damage'? (if we go by the book examples, then there is cause for concern here.  Then again, Corwin was also one of the best swordsmen in existence)
• In respect to dual-blooded characters, how does this factor with Oberon's children?  Benedict may secretly have shapeshifting and logrus mastery.  Osric could be a ranking Lord of Chaos.
• Is shapeshifting ability a factor in what makes a 'Creature of Chaos'?

I have no beef with pattern swords in principle, though I think the drpg rules can be pretty ambiguous about them.

[Drascus]

I have no beef with pattern swords, really.

For one, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that a pattern sword is any more lethal to an Amberite than another weapon of high quality.  In game terms, this could be considered "Primal damage to Creatures of Chaos, deadly damage to everything else", in other words a 16-point item that acts as a 4-point item in respect to Amberites and other stuff in shadow.  (Whether that 4 points of 'deadly damage' is itself unbalancing has already been discussed to death (I'm one who believes it is, FYI).

There's also the ambiguity of what defences there may be against a pattern sword, should the potential victim be unluycky enough to be Chaosian.

• Does Logrus defence help?
• What if the Chaosian has 'Amber blood' as well?  ie: would Corwin's pattern sword cause Dara to light up like a fireball?
• What quality  of wound is needed to inflict 'primal damage'? (if we go by the book examples, then there is cause for concern here.  Then again, Corwin was also one of the best swordsmen in existence)
• In respect to dual-blooded characters, how does this factor with Oberon's children?  Benedict may secretly have shapeshifting and logrus mastery.  Osric could be a ranking Lord of Chaos.
• Is shapeshifting ability a factor in what makes a 'Creature of Chaos'?

I have no beef with pattern swords in principle, though I think the drpg rules can be pretty ambiguous about them.

I removed all the damage multipliers from my game.  They were just crazy unbalancing.

[scottishstorm]

I removed all the damage multipliers from my game.  They were just crazy unbalancing.

Not a bad call.  I'm currently stating in a game with a "revamped" item system that keeps the spirit, but spreads the effect over a wider point cost.  It seems to work so far, from what I've seen.

[weilide]

In a bringing up pattern swords I wasn't thinking of them specifically in RPG terms but rather alluding to the fact that they are actually re-formed spikards --  a fact Corwin conveniently fails to mention in his series.