Taking a break from BFZ to look back at Tarkir for a moment, I think we can all agree there are a lot of unanswered questions about the rakshasa. They are obviously powerful, as they were the behind-the-scenes rulers of a clan in one timeline, and one of the few forces that could make the dragonlords (or at least Silumgar) uneasy in another. The most interesting thing to me is that the Uncharted Realms from Fate Reforged "Doom of the Golden Fang" suggest rakshasa live in a separate realm,and come to Tarkir when summoned by the Sultai, perhaps somewhat similarly to how the Theran Gods live in the separate realm of Nyx on Theros. Where are they coming from? Could this possibly mean they are aware of the changed timeline? And just how powerful are they? Is this thread pointless until we get more information in the inevitable Return to Tarkir? Always interested to hear your thoughts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
UG Merfolk RG 8-Whack BWG Abzan midrange GRB Living End UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin" RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!" BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
The Rakshasa are just Tarkir's version of demons, remember. Even the name is an homage to Hindu demons. Most demons on various planes come from other 'realms', whether it's that world's version of the afterlife or something else (same with Angels). The interesting thing about the Rakshasa is that there are no opposing angels that we know about (which is fine, because Angels as we know them are largely a semetic religion construct, and as such don't really make sense in the Southeast Asian world of Tarkir, like they didn't make sense in Theros).
Another interesting thing about the rakshasa is they are demons who summon other more chaotic demons as servants. Rakshasa are just Tarkir's version of demons but, excluding dragons, they seem to be the most powerful, and really only, supernatural/otherworldly force on the plane. The argument could be made that the Kin-tree spirits and the Temur elementals are their supernatural equivalents, but both those factions got more or less stamped out in the dragon's timeline, while the rakshasa are still around. I don't know if this is a testament to their power or just to Silumgar being more inclined to accept old-enemies as uneasy allies but I'm inclined to think the former.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
UG Merfolk RG 8-Whack BWG Abzan midrange GRB Living End UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin" RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!" BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
But how does that mesh with demons like Butcher of the Horde, which would seem to be an actual example of "Tarkir's version of demons"?
MaRo mentioned at some point in his blog that there were no non-Rakshasa demons in Tarkir originally and things like Butcher of the Horde were added on late in design phase. My guess is that there probably is not much background info about these.
But how does that mesh with demons like Butcher of the Horde, which would seem to be an actual example of "Tarkir's version of demons"?
You're thinking ethnocentrically - by 'actual demons' you mean 'what Christians think of as demons', which to be fair has been the majority of the demons in Magic. Hindu mythology has a wide array of demon-like beings. The Rakshasa are just another kind of demon. In Tarkir, they seem to be a higher order of demon.
Edit: And remember, we were told that there were nodragons on Ravnica (in the original set) besides Niv-Mizzet. The entire plot of the the set revolved around that.
But how does that mesh with demons like Butcher of the Horde, which would seem to be an actual example of "Tarkir's version of demons"?
You're thinking ethnocentrically - by 'actual demons' you mean 'what Christians think of as demons', which to be fair has been the majority of the demons in Magic. Hindu mythology has a wide array of demon-like beings. The Rakshasa are just another kind of demon. In Tarkir, they seem to be a higher order of demon.
Edit: And remember, we were told that there were nodragons on Ravnica (in the original set) besides Niv-Mizzet. The entire plot of the the set revolved around that.
They cleared that up saying there are no (I forget the right word) "thinking and talking" dragons besides Niv. Rakdos Pit Dragon and Hunted Dragon are the more beastal types of dragons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
They cleared that up saying there are no (I forget the right word) "thinking and talking" dragons besides Niv. Rakdos Pit Dragon and Hunted Dragon are the more beastal types of dragons.
Sentient? Yeah, I'll buy that explanation but it's an explanation that came after development changed something that affected the worldbuilding.
The interesting thing about the Rakshasa is that there are no opposing angels that we know about (which is fine, because Angels as we know them are largely a semetic religion construct, and as such don't really make sense in the Southeast Asian world of Tarkir, like they didn't make sense in Theros).
What doesn't make sense is how culture took shape in our world reflects what exists and what doesn't in fictional worlds. I mean, "there's no angels in greek mythos" cannot be a canon explanation for why there are no angels in Theros - and the canon explanation (if there is one) is by definition just a excuse for Theros to look like Greek mythos - which is cheap and weakens the franchise.
Creative's decision to weaken MTG own mythology to make each plane more similar to something we know is ridiculous.
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
I should note, first, that Kamigawa had no Merfolk, Elves, or Angels. Goblins were relatively easy to adapt because Japanese folklore has a ton of creatures that they could be modeled after.
Almost every culture on earth has some version of a Demon, which makes them way easier to adapt, too.
But not every culture has a version of an Angel, and honestly it just doesn't fit the setting. For Tarkir especially, it wouldn't make sense for Angels to compete in the sky with Dragons - and Tarkir was not a top-down set, so the setting as a South Asian theme came later.
There also doesn't HAVE to be a canon explanation for why they don't show up. I think if you're building a world thematically based on an ancient culture, you should at least try to reflect that culture's folklore and myths rather than trying to shoehorn in existing creatures. Innistrad worked very well because it didn't try to fit in all of the iconic creatures in a single set, but instead focused on the ones that made sense for the setting.
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
I should note, first, that Kamigawa had no Merfolk, Elves, or Angels. Goblins were relatively easy to adapt because Japanese folklore has a ton of creatures that they could be modeled after.
Almost every culture on earth has some version of a Demon, which makes them way easier to adapt, too.
But not every culture has a version of an Angel, and honestly it just doesn't fit the setting. For Tarkir especially, it wouldn't make sense for Angels to compete in the sky with Dragons - and Tarkir was not a top-down set, so the setting as a South Asian theme came later.
There also doesn't HAVE to be a canon explanation for why they don't show up. I think if you're building a world thematically based on an ancient culture, you should at least try to reflect that culture's folklore and myths rather than trying to shoehorn in existing creatures. Innistrad worked very well because it didn't try to fit in all of the iconic creatures in a single set, but instead focused on the ones that made sense for the setting.
I would rather shoehorn MTG in real-life folklore then shoehorn real-life folklore in MTG.
My problem with blocks such as Theros is that too many references to external material ends up breaking the immersion. Earth does not exists in the Multiverse, it's just weird that earth-only creations (such as greek myth) is being showcased there. It's even weirder that it's being showcased there at the spite of common multiverse stuff.
A cannon explanation for why a creature that exists in most planes we know don't exists in Tarkir have to exist AND have to be satisfactory. If when we question why planes are what they are we think of the references creators have rather then the actual content of the the world, such as historical events and the particular cosmology aspects of it, the immersion is totally gone. Fantasy shouldn't remind us who created it or why, in any way, ever.
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
I should note, first, that Kamigawa had no Merfolk, Elves, or Angels. Goblins were relatively easy to adapt because Japanese folklore has a ton of creatures that they could be modeled after.
Almost every culture on earth has some version of a Demon, which makes them way easier to adapt, too.
But not every culture has a version of an Angel, and honestly it just doesn't fit the setting. For Tarkir especially, it wouldn't make sense for Angels to compete in the sky with Dragons - and Tarkir was not a top-down set, so the setting as a South Asian theme came later.
There also doesn't HAVE to be a canon explanation for why they don't show up. I think if you're building a world thematically based on an ancient culture, you should at least try to reflect that culture's folklore and myths rather than trying to shoehorn in existing creatures. Innistrad worked very well because it didn't try to fit in all of the iconic creatures in a single set, but instead focused on the ones that made sense for the setting.
I would rather shoehorn MTG in real-life folklore then shoehorn real-life folklore in MTG.
My problem with blocks such as Theros is that too many references to external material ends up breaking the immersion. Earth does not exists in the Multiverse, it's just weird that earth-only creations (such as greek myth) is being showcased there. It's even weirder that it's being showcased there at the spite of common multiverse stuff.
A cannon explanation for why a creature that exists in most planes we know don't exists in Tarkir have to exist AND have to be satisfactory. If when we question why planes are what they are we think of the references creators have rather then the actual content of the the world, such as historical events and the particular cosmology aspects of it, the immersion is totally gone. Fantasy shouldn't remind us who created it or why, in any way, ever.
And that would the planes boring, predicable and the creavity of the creature would be exhausted. Plus it seems more "realistic" that not every creature is on everywhere. One thing I liked about Lorwyn was that there is no humans. Theros and Tarkir had no angels not only with the real world mythology, but is would clash in worlds where gods and dragons are suppost to be the apex beings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
I should note, first, that Kamigawa had no Merfolk, Elves, or Angels. Goblins were relatively easy to adapt because Japanese folklore has a ton of creatures that they could be modeled after.
Almost every culture on earth has some version of a Demon, which makes them way easier to adapt, too.
But not every culture has a version of an Angel, and honestly it just doesn't fit the setting. For Tarkir especially, it wouldn't make sense for Angels to compete in the sky with Dragons - and Tarkir was not a top-down set, so the setting as a South Asian theme came later.
There also doesn't HAVE to be a canon explanation for why they don't show up. I think if you're building a world thematically based on an ancient culture, you should at least try to reflect that culture's folklore and myths rather than trying to shoehorn in existing creatures. Innistrad worked very well because it didn't try to fit in all of the iconic creatures in a single set, but instead focused on the ones that made sense for the setting.
I would rather shoehorn MTG in real-life folklore then shoehorn real-life folklore in MTG.
My problem with blocks such as Theros is that too many references to external material ends up breaking the immersion. Earth does not exists in the Multiverse, it's just weird that earth-only creations (such as greek myth) is being showcased there. It's even weirder that it's being showcased there at the spite of common multiverse stuff.
A cannon explanation for why a creature that exists in most planes we know don't exists in Tarkir have to exist AND have to be satisfactory. If when we question why planes are what they are we think of the references creators have rather then the actual content of the the world, such as historical events and the particular cosmology aspects of it, the immersion is totally gone. Fantasy shouldn't remind us who created it or why, in any way, ever.
And that would the planes boring, predicable and the creavity of the creature would be exhausted. Plus it seems more "realistic" that not every creature is on everywhere. One thing I liked about Lorwyn was that there is no humans. Theros and Tarkir had no angels not only with the real world mythology, but is would clash in worlds where gods and dragons are suppost to be the apex beings.
If you go back and read one of my first posts you will see that I did not implied that every creature type should be in every plane. My point is, the selection of those are too much based on creative needs to mimic other reference and mimic other references in my opinion is detrimental to the game.
Imo they should go in the exact opposite direction. Giving Angels to Heliod would go a long way of making him less like a Zeus rip-off.
And dragons are only the apex beings in Dragon's timeline. They were extinct in Khan's timeline but angels were still absent which is extremely off. I would rather have 1~2 abzan angels in KTK and then make then gone in Dragons as another example of the changes dragons did in the world.
The issue with that is people naturally tend towards recognizable patterns and have particular expectations to what they get. Theros could easily have had angels, but then a large group would point out how woefully inaccurate a Greek set wasn't really Greek. On the same coin, krakens who were not intrinsically Greek were added for the same expectation. Wizards works to meet expectations in the products they create, so while you would consider it a 'ripoff', adhering to the rules that the lore they are based on would make it much more appreciably consistent.
Another way to see this is that the dissonance caused between the expected and actual product can make it more unpleasant that it needs to be. While creativity and original concepts are a good thing, ideas that don't make sense in a given setting is not. Don't more the original settings Wizards have made try to include as much of the archetypical races when possible anyway? It's only when it doesn't make sense are they excluded.
WotC is a bit inconsistent with that though. On the one hand, they removed angels from Theros, because it would break with player expectations, but on the other hand had to squeeze dragons into both Innistrad and Theros.
The issue with that is people naturally tend towards recognizable patterns and have particular expectations to what they get. Theros could easily have had angels, but then a large group would point out how woefully inaccurate a Greek set wasn't really Greek. On the same coin, krakens who were not intrinsically Greek were added for the same expectation. Wizards works to meet expectations in the products they create, so while you would consider it a 'ripoff', adhering to the rules that the lore they are based on would make it much more appreciably consistent.
Another way to see this is that the dissonance caused between the expected and actual product can make it more unpleasant that it needs to be. While creativity and original concepts are a good thing, ideas that don't make sense in a given setting is not. Don't more the original settings Wizards have made try to include as much of the archetypical races when possible anyway? It's only when it doesn't make sense are they excluded.
Plus Maro has said both places where easy to fit a lot of archtype creatures in since magic already borrows from them already. Theros took forever to make because they thought since they had borrowed so much from Greek myths already peoples would have a hard time realizing it was a Greek myths set.
WotC is a bit inconsistent with that though. On the one hand, they removed angels from Theros, because it would break with player expectations, but on the other hand had to squeeze dragons into both Innistrad and Theros.
Greek mythology had dragons, but they where mostly serpent like and the hydra itself was consider a dragon. Innistrad so far is the only place to shoe-horn dragons, which I didn't like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_in_Greek_mythology
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
WotC is a bit inconsistent with that though. On the one hand, they removed angels from Theros, because it would break with player expectations, but on the other hand had to squeeze dragons into both Innistrad and Theros.
Greek mythology had dragons, but they where mostly serpent like and the hydra itself was consider a dragon. Innistrad so far is the only place to shoe-horn dragons, which I didn't like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_in_Greek_mythology
I am aware of that, but Wizards is not concerned with accuracy regarding their source material. They are concerned with player expectations. Apart from a very few select individuals nobody expected dragons to be in Theros.
Afterall, we also had krakens in Theros and they are not part of the mythology. Heck we also had demons and lion-people.
But how does that mesh with demons like Butcher of the Horde, which would seem to be an actual example of "Tarkir's version of demons"?
You're thinking ethnocentrically - by 'actual demons' you mean 'what Christians think of as demons', which to be fair has been the majority of the demons in Magic. Hindu mythology has a wide array of demon-like beings. The Rakshasa are just another kind of demon. In Tarkir, they seem to be a higher order of demon.
Edit: And remember, we were told that there were nodragons on Ravnica (in the original set) besides Niv-Mizzet. The entire plot of the the set revolved around that.
I have no problem with two 'types' of demons existing on the same world. The 'normal' Tarkir demons have a different style, after all.
I would rather shoehorn MTG in real-life folklore then shoehorn real-life folklore in MTG.
That sounds really boring. What if Innistrad had been full of elves, goblins and merfolk? It wouldn't have been nearly as iconic. Conserving elements for where they make sense thematically is part of what makes certain blocks so memorable.
My problem with blocks such as Theros is that too many references to external material ends up breaking the immersion. Earth does not exists in the Multiverse, it's just weird that earth-only creations (such as greek myth) is being showcased there. It's even weirder that it's being showcased there at the spite of common multiverse stuff.
How so, and how is this different from Lorwyn, Kamigawa, or Innistrad which are all heavily thematic based on real-life folklore.
You realize that what you think of as 'normal' elves, goblins, etc is just a rather recent western cultural thing, right? Western fantasy today is heavily incestuous, most of what we see in that vein today are just knock-offs of Lord of the Rings. The 'common' multiverse stuff is pretty generic when it comes to fantasy, and I for one like to see worlds that aren't just rehashes of Lord of the Rings.
A cannon explanation for why a creature that exists in most planes we know don't exists in Tarkir have to exist AND have to be satisfactory. If when we question why planes are what they are we think of the references creators have rather then the actual content of the the world, such as historical events and the particular cosmology aspects of it, the immersion is totally gone. Fantasy shouldn't remind us who created it or why, in any way, ever.
So... you just forget Tolkien every time you see a modern version of an elf then? I'm not sure how this meshes. The 'standard' fantasy archetype we've come to know is pretty much exclusively the result of people recreating Tolkien - who himself was amalgamating western folklore (notably Germanic, Norse and Celtic folklore, among others). Magic the Gathering has expanded on that concept, but at its core it's still a theme based on existing culture. Sometimes it's nice to deviate from that theme, especially to keep the material fresh. Magic is typically at its best when it stops using the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes and instead dives into other mythos. Kamigawa was no a great block mechanically but thematically it was pretty great, meshing modern and ancient Japanese folklore into a unique and interesting world. Innistrad did the same thing with Gothic Horror and Theros did it with Greek myth.
The issue with that is people naturally tend towards recognizable patterns and have particular expectations to what they get. Theros could easily have had angels, but then a large group would point out how woefully inaccurate a Greek set wasn't really Greek. On the same coin, krakens who were not intrinsically Greek were added for the same expectation. Wizards works to meet expectations in the products they create, so while you would consider it a 'ripoff', adhering to the rules that the lore they are based on would make it much more appreciably consistent.
Another way to see this is that the dissonance caused between the expected and actual product can make it more unpleasant that it needs to be. While creativity and original concepts are a good thing, ideas that don't make sense in a given setting is not. Don't more the original settings Wizards have made try to include as much of the archetypical races when possible anyway? It's only when it doesn't make sense are they excluded.
I agree, It all depends on player expectations.
Personally I just don't expected direct, pointless, rip-offs such as King Macar, the Gold-Cursed and the endless stream of cards that makes no reference to the things unique to MTG but to things that were created outside of it.
For me this is what's wrong with Theros and Kamigawa (And Innistrad to a much lesser degree) settings. It's a caricature of external material. For me it's sign WotC don't trust their material enough to make players invested in. Instead they have to use external material, hoping a large % of the player base are already invested in such things.
Also meeting expectations in such a blunt and direct way is a vulgar formula. They have to meet expectation we don't even know we had. That's the joy of investing in a fantastical world - to meet something new and novel. Someone's version of known mythos just don't fit the multiverse because from the multiverse perspective the mythos are not known. Theros is a entire, giant, crushing of the forth wall.
The issue with that is people naturally tend towards recognizable patterns and have particular expectations to what they get. Theros could easily have had angels, but then a large group would point out how woefully inaccurate a Greek set wasn't really Greek. On the same coin, krakens who were not intrinsically Greek were added for the same expectation. Wizards works to meet expectations in the products they create, so while you would consider it a 'ripoff', adhering to the rules that the lore they are based on would make it much more appreciably consistent.
Another way to see this is that the dissonance caused between the expected and actual product can make it more unpleasant that it needs to be. While creativity and original concepts are a good thing, ideas that don't make sense in a given setting is not. Don't more the original settings Wizards have made try to include as much of the archetypical races when possible anyway? It's only when it doesn't make sense are they excluded.
Plus Maro has said both places where easy to fit a lot of archtype creatures in since magic already borrows from them already. Theros took forever to make because they thought since they had borrowed so much from Greek myths already peoples would have a hard time realizing it was a Greek myths set.
Hoplites, Gods, the dressings and classic architecture is what convinces people of what's the setting is. Excluding angels was just "following rules of original source" for the sake of reproducing it. Theros is not a plane inspired in classical mythology, it's a plane that mimics it.
I agree that King Macar, the Gold-Cursed was a terrible addition to Theros' lore. He is not even King of any of the Polis we see, which made him stand out quite a bit.
That said, creatures that were direct translations of Greek Myth characters were relatively few, and the use of Greek Myth Tropes as Spells was a lot more tolerable, so I wouldn't consider it an issue over all. Particularly, when important things about the World like the Returned and the Nyxborn creatures were built largely from the World's cosmology without having any kind of direct counterpart in Myth.
I agree that King Macar, the Gold-Cursed was a terrible addition to Theros' lore. He is not even King of any of the Polis we see, which made him stand out quite a bit.
That said, creatures that were direct translations of Greek Myth characters were relatively few, and the use of Greek Myth Tropes as Spells was a lot more tolerable, so I wouldn't consider it an issue over all. Particularly, when important things about the World like the Returned and the Nyxborn creatures were built largely from the World's cosmology without having any kind of direct counterpart in Myth.
Not every 'legend' is a contemporary card. I imagine King Macar is kind of like Tuktuk the Explorer - a legend depicting something from history rather than a contemporary king.
RG 8-Whack
BWG Abzan midrange
GRB Living End
UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin"
RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!"
BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Commander Decks
WDarien, King of KjeldorW - WYomiji, Who Bars the WayW - UIxidor, Reality SculptorU
BPhage the UntouchableB - BShirei,
Shadowborn Ap-Shizo's CaretakerB - RZirilan of the ClawR(W/U)Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper(W/U) - (2/G)Phelddagrif Politics(W/U) - (U/B)Mishra, Artificer Prodigy(U/R) - Karona, God of Voltron
RG 8-Whack
BWG Abzan midrange
GRB Living End
UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin"
RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!"
BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
MaRo mentioned at some point in his blog that there were no non-Rakshasa demons in Tarkir originally and things like Butcher of the Horde were added on late in design phase. My guess is that there probably is not much background info about these.
Edit: And remember, we were told that there were no dragons on Ravnica (in the original set) besides Niv-Mizzet. The entire plot of the the set revolved around that.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
They cleared that up saying there are no (I forget the right word) "thinking and talking" dragons besides Niv. Rakdos Pit Dragon and Hunted Dragon are the more beastal types of dragons.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
What doesn't make sense is how culture took shape in our world reflects what exists and what doesn't in fictional worlds. I mean, "there's no angels in greek mythos" cannot be a canon explanation for why there are no angels in Theros - and the canon explanation (if there is one) is by definition just a excuse for Theros to look like Greek mythos - which is cheap and weakens the franchise.
Creative's decision to weaken MTG own mythology to make each plane more similar to something we know is ridiculous.
It would be far more interesting if they tried to adapt the concept of MTG staple creatures (merfolk, elves, goblins, angels, demons) to the new planes - like how they did goblins in Kamigawa for example, that was cool.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Almost every culture on earth has some version of a Demon, which makes them way easier to adapt, too.
But not every culture has a version of an Angel, and honestly it just doesn't fit the setting. For Tarkir especially, it wouldn't make sense for Angels to compete in the sky with Dragons - and Tarkir was not a top-down set, so the setting as a South Asian theme came later.
There also doesn't HAVE to be a canon explanation for why they don't show up. I think if you're building a world thematically based on an ancient culture, you should at least try to reflect that culture's folklore and myths rather than trying to shoehorn in existing creatures. Innistrad worked very well because it didn't try to fit in all of the iconic creatures in a single set, but instead focused on the ones that made sense for the setting.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I would rather shoehorn MTG in real-life folklore then shoehorn real-life folklore in MTG.
My problem with blocks such as Theros is that too many references to external material ends up breaking the immersion. Earth does not exists in the Multiverse, it's just weird that earth-only creations (such as greek myth) is being showcased there. It's even weirder that it's being showcased there at the spite of common multiverse stuff.
A cannon explanation for why a creature that exists in most planes we know don't exists in Tarkir have to exist AND have to be satisfactory. If when we question why planes are what they are we think of the references creators have rather then the actual content of the the world, such as historical events and the particular cosmology aspects of it, the immersion is totally gone. Fantasy shouldn't remind us who created it or why, in any way, ever.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
And that would the planes boring, predicable and the creavity of the creature would be exhausted. Plus it seems more "realistic" that not every creature is on everywhere. One thing I liked about Lorwyn was that there is no humans. Theros and Tarkir had no angels not only with the real world mythology, but is would clash in worlds where gods and dragons are suppost to be the apex beings.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
If you go back and read one of my first posts you will see that I did not implied that every creature type should be in every plane. My point is, the selection of those are too much based on creative needs to mimic other reference and mimic other references in my opinion is detrimental to the game.
Imo they should go in the exact opposite direction. Giving Angels to Heliod would go a long way of making him less like a Zeus rip-off.
And dragons are only the apex beings in Dragon's timeline. They were extinct in Khan's timeline but angels were still absent which is extremely off. I would rather have 1~2 abzan angels in KTK and then make then gone in Dragons as another example of the changes dragons did in the world.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Another way to see this is that the dissonance caused between the expected and actual product can make it more unpleasant that it needs to be. While creativity and original concepts are a good thing, ideas that don't make sense in a given setting is not. Don't more the original settings Wizards have made try to include as much of the archetypical races when possible anyway? It's only when it doesn't make sense are they excluded.
Your mods are terrified of me.
Plus Maro has said both places where easy to fit a lot of archtype creatures in since magic already borrows from them already. Theros took forever to make because they thought since they had borrowed so much from Greek myths already peoples would have a hard time realizing it was a Greek myths set.
Greek mythology had dragons, but they where mostly serpent like and the hydra itself was consider a dragon. Innistrad so far is the only place to shoe-horn dragons, which I didn't like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_in_Greek_mythology
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Well, mostly..
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I am aware of that, but Wizards is not concerned with accuracy regarding their source material. They are concerned with player expectations. Apart from a very few select individuals nobody expected dragons to be in Theros.
Afterall, we also had krakens in Theros and they are not part of the mythology. Heck we also had demons and lion-people.
I have no problem with two 'types' of demons existing on the same world. The 'normal' Tarkir demons have a different style, after all.
That sounds really boring. What if Innistrad had been full of elves, goblins and merfolk? It wouldn't have been nearly as iconic. Conserving elements for where they make sense thematically is part of what makes certain blocks so memorable.
How so, and how is this different from Lorwyn, Kamigawa, or Innistrad which are all heavily thematic based on real-life folklore.
You realize that what you think of as 'normal' elves, goblins, etc is just a rather recent western cultural thing, right? Western fantasy today is heavily incestuous, most of what we see in that vein today are just knock-offs of Lord of the Rings. The 'common' multiverse stuff is pretty generic when it comes to fantasy, and I for one like to see worlds that aren't just rehashes of Lord of the Rings.
So... you just forget Tolkien every time you see a modern version of an elf then? I'm not sure how this meshes. The 'standard' fantasy archetype we've come to know is pretty much exclusively the result of people recreating Tolkien - who himself was amalgamating western folklore (notably Germanic, Norse and Celtic folklore, among others). Magic the Gathering has expanded on that concept, but at its core it's still a theme based on existing culture. Sometimes it's nice to deviate from that theme, especially to keep the material fresh. Magic is typically at its best when it stops using the Tolkien-esque fantasy tropes and instead dives into other mythos. Kamigawa was no a great block mechanically but thematically it was pretty great, meshing modern and ancient Japanese folklore into a unique and interesting world. Innistrad did the same thing with Gothic Horror and Theros did it with Greek myth.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I agree, It all depends on player expectations.
Personally I just don't expected direct, pointless, rip-offs such as King Macar, the Gold-Cursed and the endless stream of cards that makes no reference to the things unique to MTG but to things that were created outside of it.
For me this is what's wrong with Theros and Kamigawa (And Innistrad to a much lesser degree) settings. It's a caricature of external material. For me it's sign WotC don't trust their material enough to make players invested in. Instead they have to use external material, hoping a large % of the player base are already invested in such things.
Also meeting expectations in such a blunt and direct way is a vulgar formula. They have to meet expectation we don't even know we had. That's the joy of investing in a fantastical world - to meet something new and novel. Someone's version of known mythos just don't fit the multiverse because from the multiverse perspective the mythos are not known. Theros is a entire, giant, crushing of the forth wall.
I know. My problem is not the missing creature types, is manipulating creature types to make a rip-off setting.
Hoplites, Gods, the dressings and classic architecture is what convinces people of what's the setting is. Excluding angels was just "following rules of original source" for the sake of reproducing it. Theros is not a plane inspired in classical mythology, it's a plane that mimics it.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
That said, creatures that were direct translations of Greek Myth characters were relatively few, and the use of Greek Myth Tropes as Spells was a lot more tolerable, so I wouldn't consider it an issue over all. Particularly, when important things about the World like the Returned and the Nyxborn creatures were built largely from the World's cosmology without having any kind of direct counterpart in Myth.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath