ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on June 05, 2011, 07:24:05 PM
-
In the DF fiction it has been revealed that Amoracchius is Excalibur, this begs the question which Excalibur is the Amoracchius is it the Sword in the Stone which is also called Caliburn in some of the Athurian Legend. Or was it the sword given to Arthur by the lady of the Lake (who seems to me be most likly to be a fae) if it is the Ladies Sword then the legend about the Swords Scabard providing Physical Immunity (protection from mortal harms) doesn't seem to tie in with the powers of the other swords of the cross or the nature of most divine power.
Most of the way the DF talks about suggest Amoracchius was the sword in the stone rather than actually Excalibur because the sword in the stone was bestowed on Arthur by Merlin and didn't have any fae magic about it. I personally think this was left vague on purpose but do you people think that their might be another Athurian Sword floating about the Dresden Verse?
-
In the version I know they are one and the same.
The 'kings sword' being the one in the stone drawn to reveal Arthur is the True King (Left there by The Merlin on Uthers death) was broken when Arthur attacked Lancelot unjustly.
The broken parts of the sword were thrown into the lake and then reforged by the Lady (Faerie) into Excalibre.
In battled with Mordred Arthurs was mortal wound and left in great pain. Excalibre was returned to the lady by Bedovior (Or Girflet if you follow the vulgate) and only then was Arthur released from his kingship and allowed to die- or go to his reward on Avalon depending on you legend of preference.
Same sword- 2diferent phases of it's existence -so 2 names
-
It does open up some interesting ideas.
If the sword in the Stone was Amoracchius, perhaps he lost it at some point due to Arthur losing faith or otherwise becoming unworthing of being a Knight of the Cross. Then he made a deal with the Fae for a replacement sword, which is where the Lady of the Lake and the scabbard come into play. He could have even pretended his new sword was the old one, which could be why the two are so often confused, or thought of as one sword.
The attempted murder of his nephew-son Mordred as a baby... and all other new born male babies could very well have been that turning point. I think that was in Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur. There was always a lot of dark stuff in the Arthurian Legend... it's a veritable playground of ideas.
@Team... most versions do depict them as one and the same, but that could also be the merging of the two different stories in later accounts.
-
Over time, the two stories might have been mixed together and there was no distinction between the two swords left. Arthur might have actually had 2 swords, Amorachius from the stone and the other one from one of the queens, though I am not sure about the order. In turn that would mean, that he was a Knight of the Cross and a Knight of one of the courts of the shide at one point or another.
I am not all that familiar with the whole saga, but didn't Arthur at one point lose Excalibur (Amorachius in this case)? If that is the case, the shide queen in question might have seen her opportunity to take a mortal hero for her own gain. I expect Mab, it seems pretty wintery to me. Though the lady in the lake would be more appropriate to be summer.
-
We know that the Mavra attempts to 'undo' amoracchius using the blood of an innocent- which fits in with the original sword being broken when it was used to attack some one who didn't deserve to die.
-
I thought it was mentioned somehwere that Amoracchius had never been reforged? Maybe that was just my interpretation though... I don't have any references for that.
I don't see a holy sword getting broken and then reforged by the Fae however. That would seem to imply that either A) the Lady of the Lake was a Christian figure as opposed to a Fae one or B) there were in fact two swords.
I do like Ways idea that there are two swords however... there's plenty of ambiguity in the old stories to support it and it'd make for good story flavor.
-
That is quite similar to the concept of how my current character got a sword of the cross. I rather like the concept of the fae aiding the recreation of excalibur or the creation of another sword.
-
So Arthur lost his Sword of the Cross and became a Fey Knight ?
-
So Arthur lost his Sword of the Cross and became a Fey Knight ?
Sounds like it'd make an interesting bit of fluff for a story at the very least, eh?
If there are two, that also makes it possible that one could run into the "real" Excalibur (aka, the one that's not Caliburn/Amoracchius) in the hands of who-knows-what. Might even make an awesome IoP for a character if someone wants to take the game in that direction.
-
Just a quick note: Merlin (the original one who founded the White Council) is believed to have been entrusted with handing out at least one sword. That's mentioned in one of the books when Harry was whining "why do I have this job?".
And if Merlin handed out a sword, it would follow that it was given to Arthur... Or maybe to the only knight pure enough to catch sight of the holy grail (forget his name, but it wasn't "does his own sister" Arthur).
Richard
-
iirc you are referring to Galahad
-
I thought it was mentioned somehwere that Amoracchius had never been reforged? Maybe that was just my interpretation though... I don't have any references for that.
I don't see a holy sword getting broken and then reforged by the Fae however. That would seem to imply that either A) the Lady of the Lake was a Christian figure as opposed to a Fae one or B) there were in fact two swords.
I do like Ways idea that there are two swords however... there's plenty of ambiguity in the old stories to support it and it'd make for good story flavor.
That is correct, Amoracchius is the only Sword of the Cross which hasn't been reforged. I would need to double check, but I believe this is mentioned at the end of Death Masks. As for the Lady of the Lake re-forging it... That wouldn't make sense as much of the Fae references are from myths of the British isles, and Fae and iron go together like people and cyanide.
-Cheers
-
iirc you are referring to Galahad
Wasn't Percival (the kitchen knight) the one who found the Fisher King and the Grail? Galahad was the perfect knight, the son of Lancelot.
-
Most of the stories that include the Grail it is Galahad who finds the Grail becuase he is a perfect pretty boy.
-
Dear readers.
People lie.
Fey lie (a lot).
Pages get translated poorly.
People lie.
Libraries burn and librarians rewrite them from memory.
People lie.
People lie.
People lie.
-
Dear readers.
People lie.
Fey lie (a lot).
The Fae don't lie, they always speak the truth. What the listener hears and understands however, is not necessarily what the Fae says.
Pages get translated poorly.
People lie.
Libraries burn and librarians rewrite them from memory.
People lie.
People lie.
People lie.
From a historical standpoint, most of the copyists from the first several centuries, really from before the beginning of the Dark Ages until well into the Renaissance era, were illiterate. The copyists would just reproduce the shapes of the letters on the scrolls and books that they were tasked to copy, they typically had little or no ability to read what was in front of them, never mind edit or make changes. However, many of the stories with which we are familiar were part of oral traditions, and as such had most likely been first told centuries before they were ever written down.
Consider for instance, the Celtic/Druidic traditions which were passed along orally. Or the Norse skalds. The greatest bodies of writing detailing Norse legends, the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, was actually written in Iceland in the 13th century. The Poetic Edda was really more a written collection of traditional poetry from earlier periods. Keep in mind also that Iceland was first colonized late in the ninth century. The closest equivalent to that would be for stories regarding the first settling of the New World, stories like that of the First Thanksgiving and Pochohantas to be past along as an oral tradition without being written down until 1965.
-
Weyland Smith (also known as Weyland the Smith) was supposedly (according to some legends) the one who made Excalibur, and several other swords used in Arthurian/Celtic legend. (Also Prince Valiant's Singing Sword...) Although some texts say seven, Weyland seemed to have been quite busy at his forge; several heroes and notables received magic swords.
There's no reason why Arthur couldn't have had two (or more) swords (he seemed to be a bit careless with them), with only one of them being Amoracchius.
Oh, and the scabbard (which was later stolen) supposedly protected the wielder from all matter of hurts and injuries. Perhaps the scabbard got turned into a belt, but was still an IoP... Didin't Thor have a magic belt, after all? And its fate isn't known.
Myths, legends, and stories blend into one another over the ages.
-
Untruth is still a lie wether you beat around the bush or flat out fabricate it. Its still a Deceit roll.
-
Anyone but me read the Vlad Talos books by Brust?
In one of them, Vlad (at this point he's a crime boss / assassin / friend of nobles) recounts how he was questioned under The Orb - note those capital letters. The Orb is the "source" for all sorcerer in the empire, hovers around the Empress' head, can brain burn people in an instant (no save), and is a foolproof lie detector.
They ask: How did so-and-so die.
He answers: "I heard it was suicide" while thinking "Treating me that way - yeah, that's a form of suicide"
They ask: Where is he? If he's dead then where is the body?
He answers: "I don't know" while thinking "Who knows how far down river the current's carried it?"
And so. He doesn't lie, he just doesn't give them the answers they are looking for.
Another example - the average politician. Good ones don't lie but they don't actually tell you the truth. They lead you to believe that they agree with you without committing themselves.
Better yet - MacBeth. The title character goes to these witches and asks "How long will I rule?" and is told "Until blah forest comes to the castle" - and when the enemy army comes they cut branches from the trees (to conceal their numbers) so it looks as if the forest is marching on the castle. He asks "Will someone kill me" and is told "No man born of woman will kill you" - which means (no, not a woman) that this guy who was born via C-section (ripped untimely from my mother's womb) kills him.
In short they tell him the truth and completely mislead him with it - just like the Fae do.
Richard
-
Better yet - MacBeth. The title character goes to these witches and asks "How long will I rule?" and is told "Until blah forest comes to the castle" - and when the enemy army comes they cut branches from the trees (to conceal their numbers) so it looks as if the forest is marching on the castle. He asks "Will someone kill me" and is told "No man born of woman will kill you" - which means (no, not a woman) that this guy who was born via C-section (ripped untimely from my mother's womb) kills him.
In short they tell him the truth and completely mislead him with it - just like the Fae do.
Richard
I'm sure Jim would likely tell you that there's a reason why Macbeth's witches seem so much like fey. :)
-
It should also be noted that although the Fae cannot lie, they are under no compulsion to tell the truth.
"Did you kill this man? Did you do him any harm?"
"No." (They made him look like a wanted killer, and he was shot by a police officer...but the Fae did not actually kill the man, and caused him no physical harm.)