You'll have to excuse the thread necromancy, but I've only just discovered this forum and I'm trawling through and looking for threads of particular interest to comment on when this one caught my eye.
Before I start, I ought to make a couple of things very clear: I am Mozart from the original RPGnet post quoted above. I'm also a big fan of Erick's work (TMNT was my first RPG and ADRPG is one of my favourite), but that doesn't mean that I always (or even often!) agree with him. With that in mind, any criticism is well intentioned, and Erick's feedback is particularly appreciated.
I honestly see no support for the claim that Trump are in any way more physically robust than any other piece of painted pasteboard. Let's look at the arguments:
it's entirely possible that the Trump became a gateway, and that the dagger ended up 'piercing' the Trump as the card was shut down
I agree that this is entirely possible, but this explanation starts with the assumption that Trump are invulnerable and then makes further assumptions to justify that original claim in light of evidence to the contrary. It amounts to saying that "Trump are invulnerable to any conventional force as can be seen by the lack of damage to Trump caused except under circumstances arising on the one canon occasion when conventional force was directed at a Trump". It reminds me of the Invisible Boy in the Mystery Men film - he could turn invisible only when no one, including himself, was watching (actually he could, but the initial disbelief of the other characters to his claims highlights my point).
Trumps are meant as primal associations with their subjects, so it is possible that the damage done to the character depicted made the Trump uniquely vulnerable.
Again this is possible, but it starts with the assumption that Trump are invulnerable and then tries to explain how this obvious exception occurred. On what basis is the initial assumption made?
from the way Corwin and Random react when finding their dagger-pierced Trump, it seems to be an unusual event
I'm with Otha on this one. Picture the scene; Corwin, Random and Oberon-as-Ganelon have just been
led by the Unicorn through
strange twisted shadows while in the
supposedly immutable centre of everything to a what they realise to be the
damaged original Pattern (that in Amber being only a copy), where the brothers (actually Oberon-as-Ganelon) find a
damaged Trump of an
unknown relative. A damaged Trump is certainly one potential cause for surprise, but it's hardly the only option. It's a leap of faith to base the "invulnerable Trump" claim on that evidence.
Given that these guys have been carrying decks of 'stained pasteboard' for hundreds of years, through very nasty environments, with pretty heavy use (at least some of them seem to cast fortunes the way normal folks play solitaire...
This is one idea that I hadn't originally considered. After mulling it over I must say that I'm still far from convinced.
For a start, most Amberites seem to keep their Trump very safe. Benedict, for example, stores his in a wooden (padded?) case. Fiona stores hers in a secret compartment, albeit in what we may assume to be a fairly normal box.
We also know for a fact that some packs have been lost and/or destroyed. Corwin speculates on the number of packs that have been distributed over the years - each family member having a pack or two, occasionally loosing them and picking up a new pack form the library. Amberites carry Trump around for hundreds of years, but are these their original packs or do they in fact pick up a replacement when the old packs die?
Perhaps Trump are pretty durable, but it's a pretty big jump from saying that Trump are more durable than normal cards to claiming that "Once filled with the power of the Trump, a card becomes invulnerable to any conventional forces."
I suppose I'm really wondering where the initial basis for the claim comes from. Merlin's Logrus encounter with Jasra's Trump of Luke doesn't suffice - Logrus is hardly a "conventional force", nor does the incident demonstrate any particular invulnerability. Trump are described as being glassy and cool to the touch, but neither of those necessitates or even implies invulnerability, and if they did then surely the invulnerability would apply at all times and not only when in use.
So given that Erick's points make sense if we assume invulnerable Trump and need an work around for the specific case of Martin's damaged Trump, can anyone explain why we should make the initial assumption that a piece of painted card is invulnerable?