I mean, before it wasnt a topic at all, this way its forced upon the players and it forces players to take a side in a political discussion that shouldnt have a place in a fantasy game to begin with ; simply put, its only actual reason to exist is to annoy people and knowingly do so.
I am a player. I want this in my fantasy game.
You say I'm a minority in my opinions. Is that true? Perhaps. Do minorities have room in the game, in your mind? Or do you think my opinion doesn't matter because I'm a minority?
You keep completely denying the existence of the people who have a different view. You say "the sexuality of a character... only exists to provoke people." There exist people - real people, who have been playing this game anywhere from days to decades - who are happier because of a character's sexuality. Why do you refuse to acknowledge them?
Your posts continually shout a message: People with a capital P, or Players with a capital P, are only those who think like you and have your viewpoints.
The game of Magic is designed to satisfy a lot of people, in a lot of different ways. Is that wrong? We have Johnny, Timmy, Spike, Vorthos, Melvin, etc. We have cards that appeal to Johnny but not Spike. We have cards that appeal to Limited players but not Modern players.
Is it so wrong if Wizards decides to put a character in the story that appeals to someone else and not to you?
Can you at least acknowledge that yes, there are people who like those things you dislike about "diversity" and "representation" and "politics"? That there are players who benefit from those things being in the game?
The game of Magic is designed to satisfy a lot of people, in a lot of different ways. Is that wrong? We have Johnny, Timmy, Spike, Vorthos, Melvin, etc. We have cards that appeal to Johnny but not Spike. We have cards that appeal to Limited players but not Modern players.
Built to satisfy so many different people, yet it still can't get people outside of drafters to consistently buy sealed products. Ravnica itself is a good setting, but to sell a box requires bling and creativity. The game has a stale card frame, underwhelming foils, and increasingly bland artwork lacking in character. The entire reason the sagas sell so well and why people are clamoring for full art wall scrolls is because they have character and drip uniqueness into an otherwise uncompromising mold. So many other card game makers that are no where near the size of WoTC have done so much more in pushing their artwork and making truly collectible and playable card games that the only reason that Magic the Gathering is still around is nostalgia and extreme marketing.
Think of it this way: how many more boxes would WoTC sell if every pack of battlebond had a full art foil of a random card from the set? Full art foil Land Tax is attractive from a financial point of view, but full arts of even the commons and uncommons would be heavily sought out. Plus, imagine if they said every 6 packs in a booster box had a full art, border-less basic land and one of those lands would be a foil?
Heck, do that in a Ravnica set and I don't think anyone would give two craps about how many sets we have on the plane.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I mean, at the end of the day, there are legitimate complaints and illegitimate complaints. Complaints that racists and sexists represent the majority of MtG's customer base and thus should be catered to? That's illegitimate. If having non-white, non-male, non-cis, non-straight characters bothers you? You should move on. MtG isn't going to cater to that world view. It shouldn't share that world view. It's an outdated world view that is going to die, like so many xenophobic practices of the past.
If you want to complain about the planes they go to in broad strokes (like maybe you think Ixalan with Dinosaurs and Pirates is a bit much), or the design of cards, or the development of cards, or things that actually may contribute to Magic's downfall? Sure, those are important and legitimate complaints. The majority of players are not xenophobes uncomfortable with normal things in their fantasy game.
Think of it this way: how many more boxes would WoTC sell if every pack of battlebond had a full art foil of a random card from the set? Full art foil Land Tax is attractive from a financial point of view, but full arts of even the commons and uncommons would be heavily sought out. Plus, imagine if they said every 6 packs in a booster box had a full art, border-less basic land and one of those lands would be a foil?
Yet when Wizards puts things like Masterpieces in sets, the MTGS crowd calls them "lottery cards" and gets angry that they exist and accuses Wizards of wanting to cash in...
Also the idea that Magic artwork is bad is... utterly ridiculous. Magic players are insanely spoiled for art. Magic art is a who's who of the best fantasy illustrators and consistently shows up in stuff like Spectrum. Most fantasy games would be lucky to get one illustration from someone like Seb McKinnon, last year magic got nine. There's a lot of stuff where Magic lags behind other CCGs but the quality of the art is basically unparalleled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
Either a believable setting
or
just putting randomly everything everywhere without context
You think your unbelievable is everyone's unbelievable. But it's not.
There's nothing unbelievable to me about equal male and female representation.
There's nothing unbelievable to me about black people and white people coexisting as part of one culture - regardless of how that culture was previously portrayed.
There's nothing unbelievable to me about a transgender hero. Or a pansexual hero. Or any other thing you might think is "unbelievable".
Because of how you think about the world, you think that these things need to be forced on a storyteller. You think they're external forces that intrude on the story. This is not an objective fact; it's a consequence of your worldview.
Storytellers don't need to be forced to represent men and women equally. Storytellers don't need to be forced to include gender-stereotype-breaking characters. Some storytellers just want to do that.
Because of your worldview, you think these things are random and without context. But for others, these are naturally part of a rich context and a rich world - both speaking of the context of the real world that the game is embedded in, and the story world that we explore.
Wizards is telling a beautiful story. You're trying to say the story is bad, that the story is damaged, but that's not what your complaints reveal; they show that it's just a story you don't like.
Well, that's unfortunate for you. Wizards gets to tell the story they want to tell. Those who like it will partake of it. I like the stories Wizards are telling now. I like them more than the ones Wizards used to tell. So I'm going to support it.
All those things are believable to you. They are also not realistic, and do not happen in real life nearly as often as you think, if ever. Female and male equal representation among wizards? Sure. Among knights and warriors? Give me a break. A transexual hero? Who exactly is following someone with gender dysmorphia into battle?
Your posts continually shout a message: People with a capital P, or Players with a capital P, are only those who think like you and have your viewpoints.
Its the total opposite.
I ask that they make the game better and remove and form of ideology from the product.
Theres no need for it at all and its counter productive for any "real" discussion of the topic.
----
The fact that it outrages people is a reason to not do it at all.
Theres no reason even from a business standpoint to piss off your long time player base, just to potentially get some new players that will abandon ship anytime after as they see fit.
----
Nobody cares if a character is gay, transexual, female, or anything else, unless it BECOMES a topic, if WotC forces this into the discussion it is doomed to be a topic.
My standpoint is: Dont do that.
Keep the ideology out of the game, entirely, no matter what side, it has no place and will only provoke and fuel conflict between players, which actively works against any form of inclusion if you just make people angry and even more so, when political topics are mixed in ; that cannot end well, just like real life religion has no place in the game (and WotC actively avoids that rabbit hole by removing any form of "of God" or real life connection from the new cards).
----
Simply put, whatever your world view is, shouldnt have any impact on the game, so the game is open to all forms of worldviews, bringing players together because the game is good, not because it has some representation of all kinds of ethnics, gender and any other crap.
So, to clarify, it's open to all world views... but when they try to have a diverse world view that's an issue? Makes sense. Nothing says an open world view like only white, male, straight, cis characters.
If "nobody cares", why is it a pproblem if it's included? I mean, I get that how Wizards presents this stuff is pretty hamfisted sometimes (thinking about the Hallar blurb here), but so are many other things in Magic. Where exactly do you see an "ideology" or "politics" here? I simply can't see thousands of players leaving the game over this. Nor do I understand the notion that MtG would somehow magically become a better game if they stopped doing it. It's not like they have their game designers come up with oncepts for gay characters 24/7 now instead of having them design"good cards", although apparently that's what some people believe. People who complain about the recent Standard environment, the quality of masters sets etc. are conflating two seperate points when it comes to this.
Oh, I love that too. No one cares at all, except... apparently there is a mass of people who are going to leave the game because it's inclusive? Got to love that. If racists leave the game the community is better for it, plain and simple.
Think of it this way: how many more boxes would WoTC sell if every pack of battlebond had a full art foil of a random card from the set? Full art foil Land Tax is attractive from a financial point of view, but full arts of even the commons and uncommons would be heavily sought out. Plus, imagine if they said every 6 packs in a booster box had a full art, border-less basic land and one of those lands would be a foil?
Yet when Wizards puts things like Masterpieces in sets, the MTGS crowd calls them "lottery cards" and gets angry that they exist and accuses Wizards of wanting to cash in...
Also the idea that Magic artwork is bad is... utterly ridiculous. Magic players are insanely spoiled for art. Magic art is a who's who of the best fantasy illustrators and consistently shows up in stuff like Spectrum. Most fantasy games would be lucky to get one illustration from someone like Seb McKinnon, last year magic got nine. There's a lot of stuff where Magic lags behind other CCGs but the quality of the art is basically unparalleled.
Well, yeah because with lottery cards someone is basically gambling for the thing they are after. Might I add that I didn't say the art for magic was bad, but that it was too consistent and lacks any kind of identity. Why do you think people like the artwork for History of Benalia, but don't really care all that much about the artwork on Teferi, Hero of Dominaria? The Sagas are the first cards in years that are honestly collectible, and they appear enough in packs that it rewards players who open the packs. I still wouldn't put them on the level of Unstable full art borderless lands, but it's better than nothing. What I want is wizards to do a full art borderless card per pack to reward people who open them. It doesn't matter if it's a common, uncommon, rare, mythic, or land.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
LGBTQ people existing in a fictional universe is "ideology". WotC stating a character is trans or nonbinary is "forcing it into the discussion" which "provokes conflict" even though "nobody cares."
That is: LGBTQ people shouldn't be represented in fiction; fiction should be a whitewashed portrayal of the world with only "normal" (ie, white and straight) people in it. This is what's "accurate" and it's important to do it because it keeps "politics" out of the game.
The underlying ideology here is that LGBTQ people existing is some political extreme; that LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public. The only people outraged by stuff like Alesha are bigots, and if it causes them to leave the game, good riddance. The majority of Magic players actually doesn't care; it's just a minority of hateful people who insist they don't care even as they complain endlessly about this stuff that's upset.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
LGBTQ people existing in a fictional universe is "ideology". WotC stating a character is trans or nonbinary is "forcing it into the discussion" which "provokes conflict" even though "nobody cares."
That is: LGBTQ people shouldn't be represented in fiction; fiction should be a whitewashed portrayal of the world with only "normal" (ie, white and straight) people in it. This is what's "accurate" and it's important to do it because it keeps "politics" out of the game.
The underlying ideology here is that LGBTQ people existing is some political extreme; that LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public. The only people outraged by stuff like Alesha are bigots, and if it causes them to leave the game, good riddance. The majority of Magic players actually doesn't care; it's just a minority of hateful people who insist they don't care even as they complain endlessly about this stuff that's upset.
My 5 cents,
I'm a Conservative Gay Canadian dude and I can tell ya'll, you can have plenty of fun interesting characters with all sorts of different identities. Having someone be a sexual minority by no means limits their political philosophy to a particular brand of Politics. I mean, I'm pretty sure Alesha would Not get along with many snowflake people these days. If you get hit, hit harder back she'd say, don't whine. I'm not commenting on the morality of such a view but the colour pie itself keeps mtg more diverse and representative than many mediums, which is good.
Honestly, things are more fun when any kind of person can be the hero, villain, something in between. It's not hurting anybody. It neither bothers most straight people and makes minorities feel included and not so estranged.
Edit: I just don;t get why greater representation such a big deal and something for people to complain over. and what does any of this really have to do with Ravnica? I swear, some people are conspiracy theorists.
I mean, I agree with Alesha. Hit back harder, burn the ground and salt the earth. Give no quarter. There is too much passivity in trying to make things safe, activism requires action. It’s utterly absurd than anyone thinks there should be a debate on having diverse representation. There isn’t one. MtG is better for it. Anyone who has blanket issues with it really doesn’t belong here.
And I totally agree. Characters are just characters. It’s really not an issue. Nuanced complaints about specific characters is different, but “too little eye candy” really isnt.
As for how it’s Ravnica related, it’s basically as you said, conspiracy theory/victim complex. There really isn’t any sense by the opposing side.
Honestly, you could make the case at least on the main character front that Magic was more diverse in the past. Since the creation of the Gatewatch we haven't exactly been following the most diverse bunch of characters around. I suppose the complaint with them is what too many women?
Your posts continually shout a message: People with a capital P, or Players with a capital P, are only those who think like you and have your viewpoints.
Its the total opposite.
I ask that they make the game better and remove and form of ideology from the product.
Theres no need for it at all and its counter productive for any "real" discussion of the topic.
----
The fact that it outrages people is a reason to not do it at all.
Theres no reason even from a business standpoint to piss off your long time player base, just to potentially get some new players that will abandon ship anytime after as they see fit.
Once again, you're denying the existence of a whole group of people. What about the long-time players that want this? Do you think they don't exist, or do they not matter?
Honestly, you could make the case at least on the main character front that Magic was more diverse in the past. Since the creation of the Gatewatch we haven't exactly been following the most diverse bunch of characters around. I suppose the complaint with them is what too many women?
It's too many "not sexy" woman, and then the existence of minor characters like Alesha being trans or the like. Though the Gatewatch is slowly expanding, bit by bit. And I feel like outside of them there is more diversity than in the past.
Well sure but not sexy doesn't apply to the Gatewatch right? I mean we got the Hippie Elf, Hotheaded Tomboy and Femme Fatale seems they covered the basis on sex appeal at least with the Gatewatch.
As for lack of boobs out and nude characters in current art that seems more like WOTC (Hasbro) worried about liability then anything elese.
Well sure but not sexy doesn't apply to the Gatewatch right? I mean we got the Hippie Elf, Hotheaded Tomboy and Femme Fatale seems they covered the basis on sex appeal at least with the Gatewatch.
As for lack of boobs out and nude characters in current art that seems more like WOTC (Hasbro) worried about liability then anything elese.
I was explaining the general complaints I've seen in this thread, they aren't really directed at the Gatewatch, though I'm sure given they aren't in bikini armor the females on the Gatewatch aren't good enough either.
And I don't think MtG has really had a thing for nude characters, not that I recall at least.
One thing to take away is that despite what some people may say, representation does matter. I’ve told this story here before, but I recently taught 4 women how to play the game (2 lesbian couples, and one of the women being trans). All of them were really excited when they saw amazing, strong female characters and the burgeoning relationship between Nissa and Chandra. They were more impressed when they found out about Kyanios and Tiro of Meletis and that a gay couple were portrayed on a card together. Then I explained that Alesha was trans, and that cemented that Magic was a game where they would be able to express themselves through the cards and characters.
I understand that representation might not matter to some people, whether that’s because they’ve always seen their race/gender/body type/whatever represented in popular media, or that they legitimately are not phased by it. The issue arises when these people shout that representation doesn’t matter, but get horribly offended when other people are represented.
Also, a quote that I find very poignant (from Deadpool 2 of all places):
Firefist says: “I wanted to be a superhero, but no superheroes look like me” this from an overweight Maori teenager.
Ravnica is awesome. We are getting two normal Ravnica sets (as expected, you can only pack so many guilds into one set) and we are getting a third set that is going to be all about Nicol Bolas and his big battle.
Ravnica is awesome. We are getting two normal Ravnica sets (as expected, you can only pack so many guilds into one set) and we are getting a third set that is going to be all about Nicol Bolas and his big battle.
I just want to see if we can finally answer the eternal question of who is the most egotistical dragon in the multiverse?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Ravnica is awesome. We are getting two normal Ravnica sets (as expected, you can only pack so many guilds into one set) and we are getting a third set that is going to be all about Nicol Bolas and his big battle.
I just want to see if we can finally answer the eternal question of who is the most egotistical dragon in the multiverse?
Mizzet. Bolas actually has some justification for calling himself by his titles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Ravnica is awesome. We are getting two normal Ravnica sets (as expected, you can only pack so many guilds into one set) and we are getting a third set that is going to be all about Nicol Bolas and his big battle.
I just want to see if we can finally answer the eternal question of who is the most egotistical dragon in the multiverse?
Mizzet. Bolas actually has some justification for calling himself by his titles.
I mean, Mizzet does too, from his perspective, it's not like he's able to compare himself to the Multiverse. Bolas sees an entire multiverse out there and still thinks he's the best there is, which will no doubt bite him eventually. At least in the pond Niv is in he's got justification to claim to be the biggest fish.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You say I'm a minority in my opinions. Is that true? Perhaps. Do minorities have room in the game, in your mind? Or do you think my opinion doesn't matter because I'm a minority?
You keep completely denying the existence of the people who have a different view. You say "the sexuality of a character... only exists to provoke people." There exist people - real people, who have been playing this game anywhere from days to decades - who are happier because of a character's sexuality. Why do you refuse to acknowledge them?
Your posts continually shout a message: People with a capital P, or Players with a capital P, are only those who think like you and have your viewpoints.
The game of Magic is designed to satisfy a lot of people, in a lot of different ways. Is that wrong? We have Johnny, Timmy, Spike, Vorthos, Melvin, etc. We have cards that appeal to Johnny but not Spike. We have cards that appeal to Limited players but not Modern players.
Is it so wrong if Wizards decides to put a character in the story that appeals to someone else and not to you?
Can you at least acknowledge that yes, there are people who like those things you dislike about "diversity" and "representation" and "politics"? That there are players who benefit from those things being in the game?
Built to satisfy so many different people, yet it still can't get people outside of drafters to consistently buy sealed products. Ravnica itself is a good setting, but to sell a box requires bling and creativity. The game has a stale card frame, underwhelming foils, and increasingly bland artwork lacking in character. The entire reason the sagas sell so well and why people are clamoring for full art wall scrolls is because they have character and drip uniqueness into an otherwise uncompromising mold. So many other card game makers that are no where near the size of WoTC have done so much more in pushing their artwork and making truly collectible and playable card games that the only reason that Magic the Gathering is still around is nostalgia and extreme marketing.
Think of it this way: how many more boxes would WoTC sell if every pack of battlebond had a full art foil of a random card from the set? Full art foil Land Tax is attractive from a financial point of view, but full arts of even the commons and uncommons would be heavily sought out. Plus, imagine if they said every 6 packs in a booster box had a full art, border-less basic land and one of those lands would be a foil?
Heck, do that in a Ravnica set and I don't think anyone would give two craps about how many sets we have on the plane.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
If you want to complain about the planes they go to in broad strokes (like maybe you think Ixalan with Dinosaurs and Pirates is a bit much), or the design of cards, or the development of cards, or things that actually may contribute to Magic's downfall? Sure, those are important and legitimate complaints. The majority of players are not xenophobes uncomfortable with normal things in their fantasy game.
Yet when Wizards puts things like Masterpieces in sets, the MTGS crowd calls them "lottery cards" and gets angry that they exist and accuses Wizards of wanting to cash in...
Also the idea that Magic artwork is bad is... utterly ridiculous. Magic players are insanely spoiled for art. Magic art is a who's who of the best fantasy illustrators and consistently shows up in stuff like Spectrum. Most fantasy games would be lucky to get one illustration from someone like Seb McKinnon, last year magic got nine. There's a lot of stuff where Magic lags behind other CCGs but the quality of the art is basically unparalleled.
Its the total opposite.
I ask that they make the game better and remove and form of ideology from the product.
Theres no need for it at all and its counter productive for any "real" discussion of the topic.
----
The fact that it outrages people is a reason to not do it at all.
Theres no reason even from a business standpoint to piss off your long time player base, just to potentially get some new players that will abandon ship anytime after as they see fit.
----
Nobody cares if a character is gay, transexual, female, or anything else, unless it BECOMES a topic, if WotC forces this into the discussion it is doomed to be a topic.
My standpoint is: Dont do that.
Keep the ideology out of the game, entirely, no matter what side, it has no place and will only provoke and fuel conflict between players, which actively works against any form of inclusion if you just make people angry and even more so, when political topics are mixed in ; that cannot end well, just like real life religion has no place in the game (and WotC actively avoids that rabbit hole by removing any form of "of God" or real life connection from the new cards).
----
Simply put, whatever your world view is, shouldnt have any impact on the game, so the game is open to all forms of worldviews, bringing players together because the game is good, not because it has some representation of all kinds of ethnics, gender and any other crap.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Well, yeah because with lottery cards someone is basically gambling for the thing they are after. Might I add that I didn't say the art for magic was bad, but that it was too consistent and lacks any kind of identity. Why do you think people like the artwork for History of Benalia, but don't really care all that much about the artwork on Teferi, Hero of Dominaria? The Sagas are the first cards in years that are honestly collectible, and they appear enough in packs that it rewards players who open the packs. I still wouldn't put them on the level of Unstable full art borderless lands, but it's better than nothing. What I want is wizards to do a full art borderless card per pack to reward people who open them. It doesn't matter if it's a common, uncommon, rare, mythic, or land.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
LGBTQ people existing in a fictional universe is "ideology". WotC stating a character is trans or nonbinary is "forcing it into the discussion" which "provokes conflict" even though "nobody cares."
That is: LGBTQ people shouldn't be represented in fiction; fiction should be a whitewashed portrayal of the world with only "normal" (ie, white and straight) people in it. This is what's "accurate" and it's important to do it because it keeps "politics" out of the game.
The underlying ideology here is that LGBTQ people existing is some political extreme; that LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public. The only people outraged by stuff like Alesha are bigots, and if it causes them to leave the game, good riddance. The majority of Magic players actually doesn't care; it's just a minority of hateful people who insist they don't care even as they complain endlessly about this stuff that's upset.
My 5 cents,
I'm a Conservative Gay Canadian dude and I can tell ya'll, you can have plenty of fun interesting characters with all sorts of different identities. Having someone be a sexual minority by no means limits their political philosophy to a particular brand of Politics. I mean, I'm pretty sure Alesha would Not get along with many snowflake people these days. If you get hit, hit harder back she'd say, don't whine. I'm not commenting on the morality of such a view but the colour pie itself keeps mtg more diverse and representative than many mediums, which is good.
Honestly, things are more fun when any kind of person can be the hero, villain, something in between. It's not hurting anybody. It neither bothers most straight people and makes minorities feel included and not so estranged.
Edit: I just don;t get why greater representation such a big deal and something for people to complain over. and what does any of this really have to do with Ravnica? I swear, some people are conspiracy theorists.
The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
And I totally agree. Characters are just characters. It’s really not an issue. Nuanced complaints about specific characters is different, but “too little eye candy” really isnt.
As for how it’s Ravnica related, it’s basically as you said, conspiracy theory/victim complex. There really isn’t any sense by the opposing side.
It's too many "not sexy" woman, and then the existence of minor characters like Alesha being trans or the like. Though the Gatewatch is slowly expanding, bit by bit. And I feel like outside of them there is more diversity than in the past.
As for lack of boobs out and nude characters in current art that seems more like WOTC (Hasbro) worried about liability then anything elese.
I was explaining the general complaints I've seen in this thread, they aren't really directed at the Gatewatch, though I'm sure given they aren't in bikini armor the females on the Gatewatch aren't good enough either.
And I don't think MtG has really had a thing for nude characters, not that I recall at least.
I understand that representation might not matter to some people, whether that’s because they’ve always seen their race/gender/body type/whatever represented in popular media, or that they legitimately are not phased by it. The issue arises when these people shout that representation doesn’t matter, but get horribly offended when other people are represented.
Also, a quote that I find very poignant (from Deadpool 2 of all places):
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I just want to see if we can finally answer the eternal question of who is the most egotistical dragon in the multiverse?
On phasing:
Art is life itself.
I mean, Mizzet does too, from his perspective, it's not like he's able to compare himself to the Multiverse. Bolas sees an entire multiverse out there and still thinks he's the best there is, which will no doubt bite him eventually. At least in the pond Niv is in he's got justification to claim to be the biggest fish.