Rothfussians discussion
The Archives
>
Latest Crackpot (tm) Theory
I absolutely agree. I actually thought the same thing when I read that bit on how he forgot who he was. As you said, I think he knows what Bast is doing and he's manipulating him.I personally don't trust Bast at all. I don't buy his "I just want my Reshi back". We've seen how good of an actor he really is, and also how dangerous he can be. I believe he's using other people (such as Chronicler and the two soldiers) to get something from Kvothe. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's a villain, but he definitely has some kind of hidden agenda, in my opinion.
Mod
(Totally thought I'd have more time... more later?)
thistlepong wrote: " There's some deep implications about his, erm, psychology considering that makes Shep an acceptable sacrifice."That would be a major point against the theory. Unless it was an accident. I'll have to re-read that scene.
Another point for: Kvothe fights what, 5-6 scrael, when even 1 is supposed to easily be able to kill a man. And Chronicler conveniently blacks out and remembers nothing?
Really believe in this theory, you've the copper rims and other stuff he has had made. Brendons perfect tac game, there nothing more beautiful than leading someone into a trap that they're unaware of.
Bill wrote: "After reading a comment from another thread, about how Kvothe ends WMF by going down the stairs and taking a "perfect" step, which is how one does the Ketan, the beginning of this crackpot theory i..."If I am honest, I agree. I thought back to when I read the books (which has been about 2 years) and I had the same interpretation when he says "I almost forgot who I was for a second." I didn't take as literal as some of the other theories imply. While it has been awhile since I have read TNOTW and WMF, I admit this is one of the first theories on here that I can whole-heartedly agree with based on my small bit of recollections. It just makes sense to me. The game Tak that Kvothe plays always felt more symbolic to me and this theory falls right in line with why the game would be important.
Plus you take into consideration Young Kvothe's past. He learned the art of acting/singing/ and developed a passion for both arts due to his upbringing. Throughout the books, thus far, we have been told countless numbers of times how good he is at "acting." I always got the impression that he could make people believe him with his acting talent.
I have always wondered why Chronicler just blacks out. I feel like there is more to it than that as well.
Thanks for sharing. :)
Mod
I guess I think it would be a point in favor of the theory, really. He's an unrepentant murderer that uses his narrative to compare himself to the Amyr and the Ciridae over and over again. He kind of lives in or around a living embodiment of their emblem - a black stone tower wreathed in flames - with his black stone two story fireplace.
What follows is just nitpicking and nerdery. The barrel hoops are brass, not copper. I do think the big deal is that they're not iron, but copper seems pretty special. I'd be a little surprised if alloys and such shared any significant qualities. Bredon's tak trap lecture certainly should be meaningful in some way. I'm all for that. I was struck the other day, rereading Dune, how similar it was to an early lesson Gurney Halleck gives Paul. The very same trap within a trap within a trap concept.
Plus, remember when Bast first meets Chronicler and they start to fight, Kvothe grabs Bast's arm to stop him and is strong enough to hold him back and leave a bruise (which one presumes an inkeeper who gets beat up by two soldiers couldn't do)
Mod
I've personally never been too fond of the whole, Kvothe's name is in his thrice locked chest theory. So I'll totally go with this.
I have said this before a long time ago, but I think it is clear that up to what we have seen of Kvothes story his unconscious mind lets him do and know things on "instinct" that he does not consciously look for. Like Auri's name and (too lazy to look it up) the horses name that he rode to Trebon. So what I think is happening in the present is he has lost the ability to call on all his gifts but yes they are still there. (ie when he makes a fist early on in anger and a bottle of Denna's favorite Strawberry wine shatters a foot away)My hope is the "perfect step" is him regaining control of Kvothe, much as the other mentions of a perfect step had Shehyn taking perfect steps to reestablish control of herself. (And before anyone searches and nitpicks, with Pentha it first says it was a perfect step but later Kvothe admits her heel was wrong and thats why she lost)
Amber wrote: "I like the theory. I think Thistlepong hits the nail on the head with the Shep part. It's tragic that he dies, but Kvothe has shown himself more than once to be a cruel murdering bastard really, ..."I'm going to disagree with you here. I know Kvothe has killed people but I'm going to go with his stated opinion "they all deserved it" from the beginning of the first book.
Now, this kind of shoots my belief in Kvothe putting on a persona of Kote to lure Bredon into a trap in the foot....I realize that. However, I think PR has a much better imagination than I do and I hope that he is able to reconcile these ideas better than I can.
(My pet theory, without having re-read the scene about Shep dying, is this: Kvothe was surprised, and Bast acted faster. Shep stil died. A tragic accident. I have no idea if this is supported by the test. I just don't like the idea of Kvothe willingly sacrificing an innocent bystander to preserve his role.) If he DID do that, that drastically changes my feelings about him as a sympathetic character.
Mod
Shep was a sacrifice (potentially). For the greater good kinda thing.
Nobody had seen the thing that killed Shep before. Bast didn't even know what it was. I think it pretty safe to say that it suprised Kvothe. I don't think it was a sacrifice.
Mod
If any of you killed someone because "they deserved it, " you'd still be murderers. Wouldn't you?
thistlepong wrote: "Kvothe reacted immediately. His sympathy didn't work.If any of you killed someone because "they deserved it, " you'd still be murderers. Wouldn't you?"
Are you trying to say that Kvothe is an unsympathetic character because he kills people? I don't think that's a very good argument. If that's not what you're trying to say, feel free to elaborate.
On topic: Maybe he has lost his control over his sympathy, but still retains his ability to use the Ketan.
Mod
If any of you killed someone because "they deserved it, " you'd still be murderers. Wouldn't you?"
Yes - This!
Bast could have stopped it earlier and he even expresses regret, because he paused to allow Kvothe to make his move first - Which Ultimately Failed.
I don't think Kvothe is not unsympathetic, he's overly passionate really. He doesn't stop to think out the effects of his killings on others. Either way, he's still a murderer.
In my personal opinion, his murders are worse (if you can really gage that sort of thing) than the murders we've seen the Chandrian commit.
I am on the opposite said of that coin. I tend to be pretty passionate/emtional like Kvothe in many different ways. I think with my heart and not my brain most days. His murders always had a purpose or reason behind them. The one that sticks out in my head is the fake troupe. Honestly, as a female who has extreme hatred for sick and twisted men like that...I was cheering Kvothe on. I have no tolerance for people who take part in actions that involved those two girls (I was lead to believe these men did). With the Chandrian...I still do not completely have a clear answer of why they kill? Burning down a whole group of people? The smell of burning hair is always described. I am always left feeling as if a dark menacing cloud has brought the wrath of God upon innocent people when they kill because it is something that doesn't make sense to me.
All of the actions, above, were committed by murderers. Yet, each person will rationalize the different sides. I find that interesting.
What have had to have happened for Kvothe to lose control over sympathy? That is something I have tried to grasp but, for some reason, I can't get a handle on it.
Jessica wrote: "What have had to have happened for Kvothe to lose control over sympathy? That is something I have tried to grasp but, for some reason, I can't get a handle on it. "I think this: doesn't he swear by his power, his name, and his hand not to look into Denna's patron? If he foreswears himself he'd lose all of those things.
Who is in charge of taking away the things you swear away?
In a further note, I think people are tossing the term "murderer" around a little more freely than I would. First, it's a very (negatively) charged term. Second, it's even debatable whether the term applies to Kvothe. Third, I could offer countless examples of characters in fantasy who people do not consider "murderers." All of which is beside the point: it does matter if you kill people who deserve it or not. If a character kills women and children, beheads fluffy little bunnies, and drowns cats, he's going to be extremely unsympathetic. If a character kills "bad guys" people are still going to like him. Take "Dexter" from show "Dexter" for example. He's literally a serial killer who *only* kills "bad guys." And he's a very likable, sympathetic, character.
I agree. It isn't called the Kingmurderer Chronicle.
Mod
Kvothe kills the troupe (totally rooted him on as well) because he feels bad for the girls, but also he kills them because they are proliferating what Kvothe believes to be incorrect stigmas against his people. To me, it really stood out that he chased down every single one of the members, even the non-rapists and women, (who quite likely could have only been going along with everyone to protect themselves) and murdered them, mostly because of his passion and impressions of what being Edema Ruh means.
However, he also kills a whole load of bandits, without much cause, other than his boss told him too. He didn't take any time at all, to try and figure out what was going on and maybe reasons for what was happening. He just found the guys, killed the guys, pranced on down the road. Both scenes don't make Kvothe seem evil or anything, however, when you step back, all those people have families and friends and reasons for what they do, surely - none of them directly threatened Kvothe's life.
From what we've established about The Chandrian, theres plausible argument they are at least killing to preserve there existance in some way and escape others having direct power over them. The more I reread, the more I see The Chandrian as killing in a self defense sort of way. Are the people they kill completely innocent? I think the events surrounding the Mauthen Farm are way to vague to say. But Arliden was literally warned multiple times about what he was doing. Also, we only assume that Kvothe's troupe was good basically, because he said so. He only has a childs impression of what was happening, so I can't say I consider that reliable...
We have already seen how he can ignore details that don't fit his personal idea of how things are or should be going.
There is actually plenty of support for an argument that they could have been or met just as many of the social stigmas Kvothe seems to rail against.
I agree about The Chandrian working in self defense but even if the leaders of the troupe and wedding may have provoked the Chandrian they also murder children who could not have done anything to provoke. Almost killed kid Kvothe and killed the boy who showed the girl the vase at the wedding. If nothing else, they may be guilty of extreme overkill. Kvothe, to my knowledge has not killed any kids and the woman he killed aided in the men's actions against the farm girls.
Mod
He killed a very large group of bandits, I think it would be a little biased to assume they were all full grown men. Especially after just becoming acquainted with characters like Hespe. Not to mention collatoral damage. How many children went hungry, went without medical care, and possibly died because there pop's never came home with his cut?
Thats another concept I think is interesting though, does it really matter how old or what gender the person you murder is? In all reality, the person the Chandrian probably should have killed out of all Kvothe's troupe, was in fact, Kvothe.
To come out of contact from KKC, one of my favorites scenes in Sword of Truth, is when an evil child is nearly killed (believed to be dead actually until a few books later) by the main character.
Now back to KKC - We also have no concept or back story to why the women of the fake troupe did what they did. With the quality of men they were surrounded by, I think it's highly likely, the farm girls were taking those women's place.
Another interesting concept though, should they be held just as guilty? They didn't participate in rapes, though they also did nothing to stop them. Does that merit the same punishment as those who are really offenders? (I have no opinion on that, I'm just posing questions for discussion)
Fair points, but if we can't assume the guilt or innocence of those he kills, we also probably shouldn't assume children are going hungry cause their pop died. It is as likely as they are all single men trying to make some money. Also, as far as the men in the woods go, he was there to stop people breaking the law, and couldn't really be arresting people once the arrows start to fly. Had he not killed them then they would have killed him. Self defense-ish? Who can say.I am interested in finding out what the Chandrian fear so much about people singing songs about them, or seeing paintings of them. I want to know why they are so secretive.
Mod
The fake troupe for example. He planned it all afternoon into the night. He didn't have the express permission from the Maer, the governing body of law in that part of the world. It was unlawful until the Maer issued him a pardon. Hence he is a murderer.
Mod
Interesting, I didn't actually know this. I mean, murderer is a harsh term, really now that I think about it.
Maybe something like "killer" is more on the grounds of what I meant, because even the lawful killing's Kvothe conducts are have outreaching effects. (well pretty much every death does really, not just Kvothe's LOL...)
Anyway, interesting expansion on the subject.
@Noah I agree, if we can't one way we can't go the other LOL.
Mod
Protagonists are almost by definition sympathetic. You know that. I'm saying we're sympathetic to a confessed murderer who was, like Chris notes, pardoned. Mickey and Mallory Knox are sympathetic, too. I hesitate to go into the particulars of Dexter, just to avoid spoiling it for folks, but he did kill and dismember animals and his record isn't flawless.
It's just something to keep in perspective.
On the topic of his oath, I don't think anyone's been able to show negative effects of oathbreaking in the text so far. In fact, as the moon's still moving in the frame, I'm not entirely sure how it would play out.
Mod
If that were so we'd probably see the consequences of other characters not keeping oaths. Which I can't personally remember any.
Plus, we haven't really heard a single rumor and legend about keeping promises or whatever. (That I can remember, once again) We hear things about being nice to tinkers and not swearing Tehlu's name, it would make sense to have supernatural consequences to those actions. But we don't hear anything about keeping oaths, so throwing that in at this point is going to require a lot of building in the third book, which I'm not sure how much build you can give in the climax of the series...
I hate when authors do that actually. It's just lazy writing. (IMO) The forshadow for such an event (IMO) just isn't strong enough.
Mod
Right and wrong all depends on what side your on. But the spirit of the law (which we are sadly losing sight of in the US) should be justice. What Kvothe did to the fake troupe was definitely justified. He wasn't speculating, the troupers admitted to it. If he had tried to put them under arrest, they would have killed him. He didn't premeditate, he acted by poisoning their food. He just had to wait a while for it to take effect. Was he supposed to tie them all up and make the girls that were raped help care for the prisoners on the journey back, don't be ridiculous. Ask Jaycee Dugard about rehabilitating kidnappers/rapists. Even if the girls do learn to deal with the rape, their lives have been changed forever. Everyone in that troupe was a part of stealing those girls lives, and forfeit theirs by doing so. And the wisdom or whatever in the town the girls were from had it exactly right. Those women KNEW exactly what was happening to those girls. To conspire to kidnap and rape those girls, even to save their own ass is evil. Havn't you ever heard the saying, the greatest evil we face is when a good man stands by to watch evil reign.As far as the bandits are concerned, that was more of a battle/ambush. He was hired by the Maer to serve justice for the Maer. The Highway men knew the risks when they signed on. If they thought what they were doing was lawful, they wouldn't have been hiding in the woods.
And yes the Chandrian are evil. Stop defending them. Arliden was writing a song not trying to gain power over anyone.
Mod
I meant not enough forshadowing for that to be the result of his oath, or that the moon somehow makes oaths sworn upon it magical. I agree, he obviously has trouble using his abilities - just don't think it's built up enough to be centered around this particular promise.
Mod
Though I'm sure if I'm ever accused of something I didn't do, I'll appreciate it LOL.
As far as the Chandrian, we really don't know Arliden was only writing a song, and songs do have power either way. Even Kvothe says Denna's song, A Song of Seven Sorrows, becomes immensely popular. Plus it has always interested me that the Ctheah says they were there for a purpose. I think good and evil is a lot like right and wrong, subjective to the side you are on. I wish we could get some actual lyrics to Denna's and Arliden's songs so we could do a comparison. *sigh*
Amber wrote: "Plus, we haven't really heard a single rumor and legend about keeping promises or whatever. (That I can remember, once again)"That's what makes the theory likely. PR is all about keeping us in the dark about what has led Kvothe to his present state. There wouldn't be much mystery if it's flat out stated that breaking an oath under certain circumstances can lead to devastating consequences. Plus, when Kvothe did swear his oath, he was acting like a character out of a story...And as we are all well aware, there is a kernel of truth to pretty much every story in this series thus far.
thistlepong wrote:"Protagonists are almost by definition sympathetic. You know that. I'm saying we're sympathetic to a confessed murderer who was, like Chris notes, pardoned." He's a confessed killer, not murderer. There is a wide, wide difference in connotation between those two terms and it really feels like people aren't acknowledging the difference.
The term murderer has a very specific negative connotation that almost precludes Kvothe from being a sympathetic character, much as he would be if he were a pedophile or a rapist. Specifically, if we label him a murderer then we aren't taking the specific circumstances into account.
From the wikipedia entry on murder:
"Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses."
This is under the section "exceptions" which basically implies that under certain circumstances, killing is justified. We likely wouldn't label such a person "murderer."
Edit: by definition, if it isn't a criminal offense, it's not murder.
Mod
That's what makes the theory likely. PR is all about ke..."
Well, I may not like it if that does happen but you do have a bit of a point....
It wouldn't ruin the story or anything and I think it would be interesting to see all the magic behind that.
Mod
Just as a point of interest, he poisons the good and drink before he even knows about the girls.
thistlepong wrote: "It was a criminal offense according to both the Mayor of Levinshir and Alveron himself. Alveron issues a pardon for it. Kvothe refers to himself as a murderer on page 886.Just as a point of int..."
He was aware they were false Rue by that point.
Proof from another site (I'm not capable of reading this discerningly on my own):
"He asks them if they know how to play "Piper Wit." When they don’t, he picks up his lute and says, "Let me. It’s a song every one of us should know." A real Ruh would have known the song."
"Kvothe declares, "Anyone who does not enjoy this fine stew is hardly one of the Ruh in my opinion." The false Ruh who eat the stew will not enjoy it, because it is now poisoned."
There are several different justifications he could have used.
1. Allowing fake Ruh to rape and ravage across the land would have endangered real Ruh.
2. Rape is a specially evil crime to Kvothe. (When under plum-bob, he admits that he could easily kill, but could never rape.)
3. They were pretending to be Alveron's Men, which would also give partial justification (though I really don't think Kvothe cared about this aspect, it at least offered him some justification.)
Finally, Alveron issues a "full pardon" which is: "Full pardon is a pardon which remits the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt. Effect of full pardon is that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It removes any disqualifications or punitive effect stemming from conviction."
The fact that the Maer issued a "full pardon" rather than a pardon implies very strongly that what Kvothe did was justified, hence, not murder.
W/R/T Kvothe referring to himself as a murderer: I think that was Kvothe using a bit of humor and exaggeration. When Kvothe retells the story to the Maer, he says he killed the false Ruh, not that he murdered them.
The killings can easily be justified for a number of reasons, which precludes them from being murders. At this point it's all a matter of how people want to view the killings, as justified or not. I view them as being extremely justified, hence, I'll not view him as a murderer.
Mod
I find it fascinating that folks will tout the specificity of Pat's language until they're confronted with something that offends their sensibilities. I've probably been guilty of it a time or two.
I find the section troubling. It's among the most emotionally manipulative things I've read. It's written smoothly enough that readers don't realize the killing was planned out way before we get indignant about Krin and Ell. In the earlier version you can find in a couple anthologies it's more clear, but it's still compelling in a rah rah vigilante justice way.
He killed the troupe 'cause they broke Ruh law. He got a story out of it 'cause he happened to rescue some girls in the process. "Sometimes I think of Alleg and I smile." Creepy as hell.
thistlepong wrote: "1&2 are irrelevant when he poisons the troupe. "Well, 2 is irrelevant. 1 is very relevant. He specifically quizzes them when he finds them in order to find out whether they are really Ruh or not. They don't answer his questions satisfactorily, as any Ruh group could have, which leads to the poisoning. It's important to note that the poison itself was not lethal.
I find it fascinating that folks will tout the specificity of Pat's language until they're confronted with something that offends their sensibilities. I've probably been guilty of it a time or two.
Well...he refers to himself as a murderer, in the context where he is exaggerating what he's done. He refers to himself as a killer of these false Ruh several times. PR wrote all the instances of how Kvothe views himself. But we also know that Kvothe has said that everyone he's killed deserved it. He, at least, feels that he's justified. So, he refers to himself once as a murderer, but he also makes a statement that everyone he killed deserved it (i.e. not a murderer.)
I think that there is enough evidence in the text that it is at the very least, up to the reader.
Mod
He IS a murderer in the eyes of the law in the frame story.
He killed a king, he wasn't pardoned, he now has to hide out or face the ultimate punishment....
He never denies any of this, he's telling the story to justify it in my opinion.
Though I agree in the narrative, it's kinda how the reader wants to see it I guess. In my opinion, the killing of the troupe was murderous. He intended to get rid of them with or without the girls. The girls just gave him more of a reason and way to get away with it. Plus it justified it so we (the readers) wouldn't have to hate him and wonder what the hell was wrong with him.
Though I have to argue, just because Kvothe says everyone he killed deserved it, does not make him a justified killer. I mean, people like Ted Bundy never recanted there murders. Insane people see justification anywhere, just as much as sane. I think it could be argued either way for Kvothe considering his post narrative character is kinda iffy...
Amber wrote: "Isnt all this debate about whether Kvothe is a murderer or not irrelevent? LOLHe IS a murderer in the eyes of the law in the frame story."
His killing of the king is a separate topic, and there's nothing in the text yet that gives us any basis for judging him.
However, the point is this: do we as readers consider him a murderer? Given the abundant clarification on the difference between the definitions of killer and murderer, readers should be very careful in the label they choose to apply to Kvothe. It's obviously a personal decision, but my argument is that if you interpret what he does as being justified then he's not a murderer. (Again, I argue that being a murderer is different than being a killer.)
Everyone's criteria for what constitutes "justified" killing is personal. My opinion is that the text gives a number of different justifications (see above), and thus, Kvothe doesn't deserve the appellation "murderer."
And let's clarify what terms we're talking about.Murderer: A person who kills, with malice, with premeditation, with no justification. This is per the wikipedia entry on murder.
Killer: A more general term referring to a person that takes another's life.
They appear to be similar in meaning, but in connotation they are very different. As referenced above, a murderer is a special type of killer who kills without justification and with malice. It's a very negative term that implies guilt and wrongdoing. We know that Kvothe is initially haunted over the killings, but later comes to peace with it. HE, at least, feels the killings are justified. According to the Maer, who gave him a full pardon, he did nothing wrong. Lady Meluan Lackless believes he did nothing wrong (albeit for the wrong reasons.) And his Ruh upbringing demanded that he kill the false Ruh (lest other, real Ruh, suffer consequences from the reputation of the false Ruh.)
All of which is so many different ways of justifying why I wouldn't consider him a murderer. In my opinion, that's a very particular term that should be applied very carefully and is definitely not synonymous with the term killer.
(Why this matters)If any of you have ever read, for example, Elric of Melnibone or the Thomas Covenant series of books, you'll see what I'm getting at.
Elric of Melnibone was a character who had a sword that would drink the souls of people he killed, thus empowering him to continue living and questing. At some point, he even has his sword drink the soul of his most favorite companion. Elric=definitely a murderer. Also, somewhat unsympathetic.
Thomas Covenant was a leper who got bonked on the head and then, in what he felt was in a delusion brought on by the coma he believed he was in, traveled to a world called "The Land." As a leper in the real world, Thomas had no sense of touch. Transported into the Land, he regained that sense of touch. His first act (and I'm sorry, spoilers to follow *but this is like a 20-30 year old book so deal with it*) is to rape the young woman who guides and helps him. Thomas=rapist.
Both of these guys are classic anti-heroes. They do things that we as readers do not feel justified. Do we place Kvothe into that category? I wouldn't.
Mod
When the girls he saves asks him why he is branding the people he killed he says, "We have laws. Rules we follow. When one of us does a thing that cannot be forgiven or mended, if he jeopordizes the safety or the honor of the Edema Ruh, he is killed and branded with the broken circle to show he is no longer one of us. It is rarely done. There is rarely a need."He a little later says when asked if he killed them for pretending to be Ruh, "For pretending to be Ruh? No. For killing a Ruh troupe and stealing their wagons? Yes. For what they did to you? Yes."
Then he refers to the guy he tortures as "one of our adopted family"
I point out these quotes not to start up the whole murder/killer discussion again, but rather to look at Edema Ruh culture. He talks about them having laws as well as customs. Also it is interesting to see adopted family used. I think some of us talked about this in the thread about who is Kvothe's father. And maybe this deserves its own thread.
@ThistleOut of curisousity...How does that par with your perception that the Princes of Vintas are princes due to incapacity, rather than leaders of principalities?
or did I catch the wrong end of that?
Mod
Ashley, um, wrong end I think. My understanding was that rl Princes Regent assumed power due to royal incapacity. Vintic princes appear to control pincipalities (here, farrels.)
Kvothe would have felt (and I believe correctly) justified to do murder/killing at that time. He would be both advancing/protecting the Ruh peoples already damaged reputation well before he learned about the 2 girls(he knew something was amiss as he approached/entered the Troupes camp) and more importantly he was already charged by the Maer with killing bandits, albeit for lost taxation revenues, a deputy he was made. He further attempts to follow local law as he struggled (vainly perhaps) to turn himself in on at least 2 separate occasions for those killings. Technically before the pardon, it wasn't murder, it was his official legal task. To have been punished by the Maer or his official branch of Justice, would call into question the morals of Kvothe's original task, i.e. in Vintas is it ok to be a murdering bandit, just not a tax stealing one? Back to the original theory. Kvothe seems at present a very capable sympathy user. He likely has renamed his sword, he brews potions, fights and slays spider 'demons', shatters a glass bottle by looking at it, and constrains a powerful student's mid-lunge with a only a few fingers. This doesn't seem weak or confused. Additionally he can recall all the detail's of his earlier life. If he was truly 'renamed' to 'Kote the inn keeper' without powers, I don't think he'd be able to do these things. At one point he is ready to slay with fire a possessed Highway Man using sympathy but appears to Chronicler as confused? I think it more likely Kvothe knew he would have to deal with the Iron Law afterwards and thus held back so as not to blow his cover. The same reasoning holds with the fight with the two mercenaries; if HE kills inside the Inn, he will have to deal directly with a Judge and the timing isn't right for what is likely to transpire after Day 3 of our story.
But this is still all likely a "crackpot" theory because I cannot explain his in-ability to open his very own thrice locked chest.
First, when Kvothe attacks/is attacked by the two mercenaries, he initially has them on the ropes *easily.* But he then proceeds to get pummeled, later saying he "forgot who he was for a second." Now, the common interpretation of this is that he forgot he was now the mild-mannered innkeeper. I propose a slightly different interpretation. I propose that Kote is a role that he's donned for some reason or other, and that when he says he forgot who he was, he means "I forgot I'm playing a mild-mannered innkeeper."
Support: Kvothe was brought up amongst people for whom acting is second nature. Would it be such a stretch to believe that Kvothe would throw himself into a role so completely that he fools even Bast? (If he had a good reason, perhaps?)
Second, perhaps Kvothe is aware that Bast has been leaving little clues everywhere leading people such as Chronicler to him? Why would he do that? I believe Kvothe wants certain people to believe he's lost his powers and to find him. (Again, wild speculation to follow.)
Third, this all seems a little elaborate, right? Except we know that Kvothe is a student of Tak, which for our purposes, I will equate with chess. Bredon mentions specifically that playing a beautiful game, luring your opponent into what he knows full well is a trap and defeating him anyway, is the most beautiful type of victory (or something to that effect.)
So, this all leads to the extremely speculative theory that Kvothe has adopted the persona of Kote, knowing that Bast will send out rumors to this effect, and knowing that both friends, and perhaps certain enemies are sure to follow. With that in mind, he's set up his inn as the perfect trap for these people (Bredon/Ash most likely) in an effort to get some revenge.
And my final bit of support...We know it is specifically said that Kvothe is waiting to die. If we hold to the Tak=Chess analogy, then Kvothe is going to do a maneuver equivalent to sacrificing his queen to win. He's going to sacrifice himself in order to ensure the destruction of his enemy(ies).
How say you, Rothfussians?