While I agree, people need to remember this is a mtg universe and not actual Greek mythology.
I'm not disputing that, but I do think there is a significant difference between choosing zombie over shade and, say, adding leonin in. The latter is a MTG addition needed to round out the creature types required by the five color paradigm. It more or less works because leonin can be made to fit with the flavor. The former is choosing an off flavor element when there is an on flavor element available, which weakens the consistency of the theme needlessly.
I suppose the justification is that zombies are a more relevant creature type, but eh.
I suppose the justification is that zombies are a more relevant creature type, but eh.
Yes, and the fact that Magic's shades are not the same as grecian shades. There's a tighter identity for these shades than what the setting can use, particularly since MtG's shades all share a common mechanical identity that defines them. They wouldn't be able to show up in the numbers needed to fill out the slot allotted for them.
Aren't Greek shades close to spirits? In that case use the spirit creature type and to avoid confusion use the Greek word for shade, instead of the word shade. Not sure what it is though (more than 15 years since my last Ancient Greek lesson), so maybe that wouldn't work.
Yeah, we call those Eidolons.
Like, y'know, the Eidolons we're getting.
Yes, and the fact that Magic's shades are not the same as grecian shades. There's a tighter identity for these shades than what the setting can use, particularly since MtG's shades all share a common mechanical identity that defines them. They wouldn't be able to show up in the numbers needed to fill out the slot allotted for them.
The question itself of whether or not shades could ever be a characteristic race assumes that the common mechanical identity heretofore might not be essential to the type. Since shades have only ever been used as a slight variation in creature type, they've mostly followed the tradition started by the first MTG shade, so the mechanic has not been without context. It would be equivalent to saying that vampires cannot be a characteristic race because they have an identity as large fliers, or in other words, it begs the question (i.e., its conclusion is contained in its premises) that shades cannot be characteristic because they are mechanically not characteristic.
The question itself of whether or not shades could ever be a characteristic race assumes that the common mechanical identity heretofore might not be essential to the type. Since shades have only ever been used as a slight variation in creature type, they've mostly followed the tradition started by the first MTG shade, so the mechanic has not been without context. It would be equivalent to saying that vampires cannot be a characteristic race because they have an identity as large fliers, or in other words, it begs the question (i.e., its conclusion is contained in its premises) that shades cannot be characteristic because they are mechanically not characteristic.
But vampires have not always been large fliers. The second vampire ever printed was Krovikan Vampire, a mid-sized and grounded vampire from Ice Age. And then we got Irini Sengir (A dwarf vampire!) in Homelands, and she was a 2/2 non-flyer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
The point is, even if it were the case that they always were large fliers, that would not constitute a reason to present them in a different way if it were appropriate, as with Zendikar forward. And in this setting, it would definitely be appropriate to recast the nature of shades.
And then we got Irini Sengir (A dwarf vampire!) in Homelands, and she was a 2/2 non-flyer.
She (and the Baron) was only errata'ed to be a vampire much later on. The third creature to actually be printed with the vampire type was Ravenous Vampire.
Shades aren't going to be a race because of D&D. They're already one of the more iconic Wizards of the Coast races, and that's a line that frequently gets talked about as something that "they won't cross."
It's similar to why we almost never see Dwarves or non-green elves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
She (and the Baron) was only errata'ed to be a vampire much later on. The third creature to actually be printed with the vampire type was Ravenous Vampire.
They were always vampires flavor-wise, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Also known as Blitzer or Romanoff Blitzer. WIXOSS wiki admin.
She (and the Baron) was only errata'ed to be a vampire much later on. The third creature to actually be printed with the vampire type was Ravenous Vampire.
The only reason they where not vampires as printed was because there where no multiple subtypes at the time. They where referred to as vampires in story (and their art).
Shades aren't going to be a race because of D&D. They're already one of the more iconic Wizards of the Coast races, and that's a line that frequently gets talked about as something that "they won't cross."
It's similar to why we almost never see Dwarves or non-green elves.
Actually, the reason that we don't see dwarves (well we do on occassion) is because WotC felt that they where to similar to Goblins mechanically. This is the same reason we haven't seen Orcs since Time Spiral. However, they have stated that Orcs (and dwarves) will return when it makes sense for the set. This is partially why we got a few dwarves in Eventide (Duergar). Dwarves and Orcs need to be differentiated more from Goblins for them to be used again, and that is best served through flavor.
And since they are pretty much Fantasy Staples now, it is only a matter of time before they return.
Actually, the reason that we don't see dwarves (well we do on occassion) is because WotC felt that they where to similar to Goblins mechanically. This is the same reason we haven't seen Orcs since Time Spiral. However, they have stated that Orcs (and dwarves) will return when it makes sense for the set. This is partially why we got a few dwarves in Eventide (Duergar). Dwarves and Orcs need to be differentiated more from Goblins for them to be used again, and that is best served through flavor.
And since they are pretty much Fantasy Staples now, it is only a matter of time before they return.
That's... not really true. It's because of several reasons, mechanics not having much to do with it.
They feel, flavorfully to begin with, that Dwarves aren't really red. Their established cultures lean heavily on tradition and order which is a pretty strong antithesis to red.
Aside from that, they also feel that they couldn't redefine them as robustly as other races for several reasons. The chief reason is the fact that their past appearances have so strongly cemented their characteristics into the zeitgeist that they couldn't redefine them for fear of fans not having their expectations met.
They further can't go with the expected style of dwarf because, to put it quite frankly, they feel it is highly offensive. As a consequence, they can't do what is expected, but MUST do what is expected since fans do not like having their expectations foiled.
That's... not really true. It's because of several reasons, mechanics not having much to do with it.
They feel, flavorfully to begin with, that Dwarves aren't really red. Their established cultures lean heavily on tradition and order which is a pretty strong antithesis to red.
Aside from that, they also feel that they couldn't redefine them as robustly as other races for several reasons. The chief reason is the fact that their past appearances have so strongly cemented their characteristics into the zeitgeist that they couldn't redefine them for fear of fans not having their expectations met.
They further can't go with the expected style of dwarf because, to put it quite frankly, they feel it is highly offensive. As a consequence, they can't do what is expected, but MUST do what is expected since fans do not like having their expectations foiled.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, they need to make the M:TG dwarves a red/white tribe with red representing their creative side, and white their orderly.
It also depends on the person. For example Brady was more "anti-dwarf" than Mark Rosewater is (who is extremly "pro-dwarf"). If I interpreted Doug's answers correctly, he is somewhere between those positions (and his opinion is more important than Rosewater's as he is part of creative). The return of dwarves is dependent if the people at wizards want dwarves and if they fit in the set. If they make a norsebased set, we will probably see dwarves, but if they create a Egyptian based set (or a general magic set, like Ravnica or Alara) we won't. I think dwarves even have a better chance then orcs, which are basicly a larger variant of goblins. In my opinion orcs should not have been red, but black and they should use them as minions of evil (just like Tolkien used orcs). But in black they have to compete with both vampires and zombies. Orcs even lack a good setting where they would be able to fit, as Tolkien basicly invented orcs (so no set based on mythology would be a good fit for orcs). I fear that we have seen the last orc in magic; at least for a long while.
You are aware of course that one of the Egyptian Deities (one of the more important ones no less, although not a big name) was a dwarf, right? His name was Bes, and he was quite popular.
Actualy, yes I have heard of him. Still, he is not someone people think of when the hear Egypt. That would be mummies, pyramids, scarabs and people with the heads of jackals, falcons or cats. Unless dwarves have made a big comeback between now and the hypothetical Egyptian block, there will be no dwarves in the Egyptian block.
My point is that anyone with even a passing familiarity with actual Egyptian/Pharaonic mythology rather than the pop-culture equivalent thereof would know that dwarves were present in it, and Bes was a very prominent figure of it.
Yes, any visit to an Egyptian themed world (And MaRo has stated he likes the idea, so it is a matter of when rather than if) will have a lot of influence of the pop-culture version of it, just like Theros has Kraken. But it will also have several references to the actual mythology, as Theros appears to have. And considering how prominent a figure Bes is in said mythology, a lack of reference in the form of dwarves (even if they are very few), would be a glaring omission.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Figure of Destiny should have been a dwarf. How in the world is he a kithkin?
Because the Duergar were lumpy potato men with little culture beyond mining, whereas the highly militant nature of the Kithkin lended itself more towards the design sensibilities of a warrior ascending to a higher plane of existence?
And considering how prominent a figure Bes is in said mythology, a lack of reference in the form of dwarves (even if they are very few), would be a glaring omission.
The biggest problem with this is that you have to look at the possibility of returns. They could set it up to be a thing, but if it lacks resonance, it's not going to toe the line.
There's only so much space after all. And this IS meant to be Magic rather than Egypt.
The biggest problem with this is that you have to look at the possibility of returns. They could set it up to be a thing, but if it lacks resonance, it's not going to toe the line.
There's only so much space after all. And this IS meant to be Magic rather than Egypt.
Of course, but if it is based on Egypt, then it will probably be designed in a similar way to Innistrad (Horror) and Theros (Greek Myth), and as such will have multiple references to actual Pharaonic myth, just like Innistrad was filled with Horror tropes (some of which were pretty obscure, see if you can spot the Lovecraft and Poe references), and Theros is filled with references to Greek mythology, even if they have their own unique spin on it to make it something that is decidedly Magic™.
And Since Bes was a very Prominent figure in Pharaonic myth, an omission of dwarves in such a setting would be equivalent to not having hydras and/or minotaurs in a setting based of greek myth.
It is not really a question of "if" dwarves will return to M:TG, it is a question of "when". And the answer to that question is "When they have found their proper place in the color pie".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
I would say it's closer to not having Hundred-Handed One. Something that the public does not really connect to the source, but people who have studied it will feel should be there in some form (especially if it can be made so flavorfully right).
Bes was a considerably more prominent character than the Hecatoneides though.
As a side note, Hundred-Handed One is the first non Un-card in M:TG since Ovinomancer which has made me Laugh out loud. It's an inherently funny card and very flavorful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Dwarves are very closely associated with western high fantasy settings though. I highly doubt we're going to see dwarves in an egypt-inspired setting, no matter how "technically accurate" it would be. It would just completely screw with player expectations.
And Since Bes was a very Prominent figure in Pharaonic myth, an omission of dwarves in such a setting would be equivalent to not having hydras and/or minotaurs in a setting based of greek myth.
Regardless of how 'accurate' it may be, it's not particularly prominent in the public perception of Egyptian mythology.
If they did do an Egyptian myth inspired world, they'd probably follow the precedent set by Theros (provided Theros pans out well); be faithful to the source material, but don't be overly obtuse, and play into certain public perceptions of what the myths were like.
And keep it Magicy, of course.
Like not being one minotaur, or just three gorgons, etc.
You're falling into the same trap that WotC did when they designed Kamigava.
People expected something like Naruto, Drunken Master or Seven Samurai, instead they got Shinto. It's one of the reasons they consider Kamigava a failure and are reluctant to return there anytime soon.
For an egyptian set people will expect animal headed gods of human size (or larger), a dwarf (sized) god, animal head or normal, would just confuse most. It's the same reason we get Krakens in THS, they belong there in the public concious.
No, I am not.
The problem with Kamigawa (besides the parasitic nature of the mechanics and that it was stuck between two high powered blocks) was, as you say, that it wasn't resonant. The reason for this was because they didn't add in the pop culture perception that people had of the theme. WotC learned from that mistake, so when they made the very flavor oriented Innistrad block they made sure to have the things that people expected from a "horror" themed block in it, in addition to the Gothic Horror tropes that the set was built around. This is why the block had a reference to "The Fly" for example. That they then went ahead and made the same mistake they did with Zendikar block and have no mechanical overlap between the two first sets and the last one is an entirely different story...
It is the same with Theros, the set is primarily built upon Grecian/Olympic myth combined with peoples pop-culture influenced perception of said myth. Which is why we get things like Krakens and obscure monsters like the Hundred-Handed Ones in the same block.
Any Egyptian/Pharaonic flavored block would be built the same way, a combination of what is known about the culture/myth of ancient Egypt and the pop-culture perception of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Giving them different flavor is easy, but how do you give them a different mechanical identity?
That's the tricky part.
Magic really doesn't have the resources to give equal space to multiple races in the same color and the same time.
The best orc/dwarf fans could really hope for is to alternate like how zombies and vampires do these days.
One can hope.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
I'm not disputing that, but I do think there is a significant difference between choosing zombie over shade and, say, adding leonin in. The latter is a MTG addition needed to round out the creature types required by the five color paradigm. It more or less works because leonin can be made to fit with the flavor. The former is choosing an off flavor element when there is an on flavor element available, which weakens the consistency of the theme needlessly.
I suppose the justification is that zombies are a more relevant creature type, but eh.
Yes, and the fact that Magic's shades are not the same as grecian shades. There's a tighter identity for these shades than what the setting can use, particularly since MtG's shades all share a common mechanical identity that defines them. They wouldn't be able to show up in the numbers needed to fill out the slot allotted for them.
Yeah, we call those Eidolons.
Like, y'know, the Eidolons we're getting.
The question itself of whether or not shades could ever be a characteristic race assumes that the common mechanical identity heretofore might not be essential to the type. Since shades have only ever been used as a slight variation in creature type, they've mostly followed the tradition started by the first MTG shade, so the mechanic has not been without context. It would be equivalent to saying that vampires cannot be a characteristic race because they have an identity as large fliers, or in other words, it begs the question (i.e., its conclusion is contained in its premises) that shades cannot be characteristic because they are mechanically not characteristic.
But vampires have not always been large fliers. The second vampire ever printed was Krovikan Vampire, a mid-sized and grounded vampire from Ice Age. And then we got Irini Sengir (A dwarf vampire!) in Homelands, and she was a 2/2 non-flyer.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
She (and the Baron) was only errata'ed to be a vampire much later on. The third creature to actually be printed with the vampire type was Ravenous Vampire.
It's similar to why we almost never see Dwarves or non-green elves.
They were always vampires flavor-wise, though.
Cōnservātum album delenda est.
The only reason they where not vampires as printed was because there where no multiple subtypes at the time. They where referred to as vampires in story (and their art).
Actually, the reason that we don't see dwarves (well we do on occassion) is because WotC felt that they where to similar to Goblins mechanically. This is the same reason we haven't seen Orcs since Time Spiral. However, they have stated that Orcs (and dwarves) will return when it makes sense for the set. This is partially why we got a few dwarves in Eventide (Duergar). Dwarves and Orcs need to be differentiated more from Goblins for them to be used again, and that is best served through flavor.
And since they are pretty much Fantasy Staples now, it is only a matter of time before they return.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
That's... not really true. It's because of several reasons, mechanics not having much to do with it.
They feel, flavorfully to begin with, that Dwarves aren't really red. Their established cultures lean heavily on tradition and order which is a pretty strong antithesis to red.
Aside from that, they also feel that they couldn't redefine them as robustly as other races for several reasons. The chief reason is the fact that their past appearances have so strongly cemented their characteristics into the zeitgeist that they couldn't redefine them for fear of fans not having their expectations met.
They further can't go with the expected style of dwarf because, to put it quite frankly, they feel it is highly offensive. As a consequence, they can't do what is expected, but MUST do what is expected since fans do not like having their expectations foiled.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, they need to make the M:TG dwarves a red/white tribe with red representing their creative side, and white their orderly.
You are aware of course that one of the Egyptian Deities (one of the more important ones no less, although not a big name) was a dwarf, right? His name was Bes, and he was quite popular.
As for the Orcs, Doug is a fan.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
My point is that anyone with even a passing familiarity with actual Egyptian/Pharaonic mythology rather than the pop-culture equivalent thereof would know that dwarves were present in it, and Bes was a very prominent figure of it.
Yes, any visit to an Egyptian themed world (And MaRo has stated he likes the idea, so it is a matter of when rather than if) will have a lot of influence of the pop-culture version of it, just like Theros has Kraken. But it will also have several references to the actual mythology, as Theros appears to have. And considering how prominent a figure Bes is in said mythology, a lack of reference in the form of dwarves (even if they are very few), would be a glaring omission.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Because the Duergar were lumpy potato men with little culture beyond mining, whereas the highly militant nature of the Kithkin lended itself more towards the design sensibilities of a warrior ascending to a higher plane of existence?
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.
The biggest problem with this is that you have to look at the possibility of returns. They could set it up to be a thing, but if it lacks resonance, it's not going to toe the line.
There's only so much space after all. And this IS meant to be Magic rather than Egypt.
I despise that card. Always have, and they keep shoving it in supplementary products.
Of course, but if it is based on Egypt, then it will probably be designed in a similar way to Innistrad (Horror) and Theros (Greek Myth), and as such will have multiple references to actual Pharaonic myth, just like Innistrad was filled with Horror tropes (some of which were pretty obscure, see if you can spot the Lovecraft and Poe references), and Theros is filled with references to Greek mythology, even if they have their own unique spin on it to make it something that is decidedly Magic™.
And Since Bes was a very Prominent figure in Pharaonic myth, an omission of dwarves in such a setting would be equivalent to not having hydras and/or minotaurs in a setting based of greek myth.
It is not really a question of "if" dwarves will return to M:TG, it is a question of "when". And the answer to that question is "When they have found their proper place in the color pie".
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Bes was a considerably more prominent character than the Hecatoneides though.
As a side note, Hundred-Handed One is the first non Un-card in M:TG since Ovinomancer which has made me Laugh out loud. It's an inherently funny card and very flavorful.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Regardless of how 'accurate' it may be, it's not particularly prominent in the public perception of Egyptian mythology.
That is a big deal.
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.
With a w.
If they did do an Egyptian myth inspired world, they'd probably follow the precedent set by Theros (provided Theros pans out well); be faithful to the source material, but don't be overly obtuse, and play into certain public perceptions of what the myths were like.
And keep it Magicy, of course.
Like not being one minotaur, or just three gorgons, etc.
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.
No, I am not.
The problem with Kamigawa (besides the parasitic nature of the mechanics and that it was stuck between two high powered blocks) was, as you say, that it wasn't resonant. The reason for this was because they didn't add in the pop culture perception that people had of the theme. WotC learned from that mistake, so when they made the very flavor oriented Innistrad block they made sure to have the things that people expected from a "horror" themed block in it, in addition to the Gothic Horror tropes that the set was built around. This is why the block had a reference to "The Fly" for example. That they then went ahead and made the same mistake they did with Zendikar block and have no mechanical overlap between the two first sets and the last one is an entirely different story...
It is the same with Theros, the set is primarily built upon Grecian/Olympic myth combined with peoples pop-culture influenced perception of said myth. Which is why we get things like Krakens and obscure monsters like the Hundred-Handed Ones in the same block.
Any Egyptian/Pharaonic flavored block would be built the same way, a combination of what is known about the culture/myth of ancient Egypt and the pop-culture perception of it.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
That's the tricky part.
Magic really doesn't have the resources to give equal space to multiple races in the same color and the same time.
The best orc/dwarf fans could really hope for is to alternate like how zombies and vampires do these days.
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.