And the Lady of the Mountain was the goddess of the dwarves and Fiers and Gaea's "Daughter" who came into existence when the goblins appeared on Dominaria.
Just because they have a story attached to Magic doesn't mean jack about their origins.
Gabriel had a story attached to him after the fact.
Best not to argue this sort of thing with me.
Just because something gets retroactively changed doesn't make it invalid (unless we're talking about an alernate reality, in which case it does). Look at the Klingons in Star Trek. In the original series, they were basically analagous to the Russians during the cold war. Then Star Trek III came out, and all of a sudden they turned into samurai. That bit of retconning immortalized the Klingons as an honor-bound warrior culture, as opposed to the imperialist expansionists that they had been. It was a beautifully elegant solution. It only became awkward when Enterprise tried to reconcile the differences.
(I skipped The Motion Picture because it doesn't really give any indications of Klingon culture.)
Oh yes, there's also the fact that I was JOKING. I figured that much was obvious.
Just because something gets retroactively changed doesn't make it invalid (unless we're talking about an alernate reality, in which case it does). Look at the Klingons in Star Trek. In the original series, they were basically analagous to the Russians during the cold war. Then Star Trek III came out, and all of a sudden they turned into samurai. That bit of retconning immortalized the Klingons as an honor-bound warrior culture, as opposed to the imperialist expansionists that they had been. It was a beautifully elegant solution. It only became awkward when Enterprise tried to reconcile the differences.
Just because something is retconned doesn't mean that you get to ignore the origin in a situation where we are told word of god that something happened. The only evidence in-world we have of Gabriel Angelfire is second hand information.
After all, I did say that he "kinda didn't count."
He may have a story now, but it was tacked on after the fact, and if he had been implemented as a magic character from the start, he would be a she. His existence prior to magic is what determined his gender since he existed outside the world he was imported to.
I think instead of a new Saint Traft creature card I'd rather have a Sorcery or Instant with art that featured his resurrected body plummeting towards the gaping maw of Withengar, sword raised in preparation to slice his throat open.
It could be promo art for Skillful Lunge or something, I dunno. It's a fight that deserves to be immortalized.
John Doe needs a Wurmcoil. The store owner is selling them for $15. But John Smith has one for trade. He trades his Wurmcoil for a Bladehold that the store owner sells for $20. That's $35 in income that the store owner lost. Now, multiply that by the 30 or so people that play at the LGS and you can see how much money he loses in an evening.
Wasn't he a Spirit before Avacyn was locked in the Helavault "But I'm afraid I cannot bring you a preview card of this great saint; sadly, Saint Traft died generations ago." From Doug's article The Saint, The Geist and the Angel.
So no, Avacyn didn't ressurect him before, she's not going to now...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm just sayin..."
This really should have the symbols from Azorius and Orzhov... not Dimir
Decks:
Standard
Are we Human?
:symw::symb: The token White/Black Guys
Commander
:symw::symu: Grand Aribtor Kickasstin IV
:symw::symu::symg: Rafiq of the Many lone gunman
:symw::symb::symr: Kaalia's Angels
:symw::symb::symg: The Ents are coming with Doran
Wasn't he a Spirit before Avacyn was locked in the Helavault "But I'm afraid I cannot bring you a preview card of this great saint; sadly, Saint Traft died generations ago." From Doug's article The Saint, The Geist and the Angel.
So no, Avacyn didn't ressurect him before, she's not going to now...
That makes perfect sense, but I'm a little confused now. Wouldn't Withengar have chomped Innistrad to pieces if Saint Traft died "generations ago?"
That makes perfect sense, but I'm a little confused now. Wouldn't Withengar have chomped Innistrad to pieces if Saint Traft died "generations ago?"
No one can say, its one of those things that get missed when there is no linear timeline like a block novel (grumble grumble grumble)
For all we know, in revenge for killing one of her greatest champions Avacyn destroyed him, or captured him in the blade or something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm just sayin..."
This really should have the symbols from Azorius and Orzhov... not Dimir
Decks:
Standard
Are we Human?
:symw::symb: The token White/Black Guys
Commander
:symw::symu: Grand Aribtor Kickasstin IV
:symw::symu::symg: Rafiq of the Many lone gunman
:symw::symb::symr: Kaalia's Angels
:symw::symb::symg: The Ents are coming with Doran
According to the PAX East panel video, Avacyn has the ability to turn spirits into revenants. So that might be a way that we get a new Geist of St. Traft. But i highly doubt it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Decks (All Budget)
Modern WSoul SistersW RGShamansRG
And the Lady of the Mountain was the goddess of the dwarves and Fiers and Gaea's "Daughter" who came into existence when the goblins appeared on Dominaria.
Just because they have a story attached to Magic doesn't mean jack about their origins.
Gabriel had a story attached to him after the fact.
Best not to argue this sort of thing with me.
This is really a non-argument in terms of literary criticism. It's almost completely irrelevant to any narrative within its own context where the elements of that narrative originated, except as a note in passing, and certainly the genetic fallacy to disqualify narrative elements as narrative elements because of their origin. It would be like saying Gabriel Angelfire doesn't count as a character because "Gabriel" is obviously influenced by the Biblical angel of the same name. Whether or not the people who originally included him intended any sort of significance to the character (intentions which we can't actually verify in our interpretation), he is nevertheless the character who does have a story and this is the only valid basis of distinguishing him from anything that is "not part of the storyline," with respect to the storyline.
This is really a non-argument in terms of literary criticism. It's almost completely irrelevant to any narrative within its own context where the elements of that narrative originated, except as a note in passing, and certainly the genetic fallacy to disqualify narrative elements as narrative elements because of their origin. It would be like saying Gabriel Angelfire doesn't count as a character because "Gabriel" is obviously influenced by the Biblical angel of the same name. Whether or not the people who originally included him intended any sort of significance to the character (intentions which we can't actually verify in our interpretation), he is nevertheless the character who does have a story and this is the only valid basis of distinguishing him from anything that is "not part of the storyline," with respect to the storyline.
And this post explains why, regardless of provenance or attachment, he doesn't qualify in the argument in question since his gender predated his establishment, or indeed, the edict that the company would focus solely upon female angels.
He doesn't count towards the diversity of male angels because he was introduced whole as a character into the lore from an outside source.
And this post explains why, regardless of provenance or attachment, he doesn't qualify in the argument in question since his gender predated his establishment, or indeed, the edict that the company would focus solely upon female angels.
He doesn't count towards the diversity of male angels because he was introduced whole as a character into the lore from an outside source.
Yeah, no. I don't know why you would point to the "word of god" type of evidence when I'm clearly stating that only textual evidence has any bearing on what text counts as text.
I don't even like postmodernism, generally, but this is one area where it does apply.
Yeah, no. I don't know why you would point to the "word of god" type of evidence when I'm clearly stating that only textual evidence has any bearing on what text counts as text.
I don't even like postmodernism, generally, but this is one area where it does apply.
Because the other example brought up is an alternate reality interpretation.
If Malach of the Dawn does not count because he was specifically created to show an alternate creation, then a predated creation does not count in the same fashion.
Otherwise, the "text" in question is a male angel which counts no matter the provenance of its conceptualization.
Because the other example brought up is an alternate reality interpretation.
If Malach of the Dawn does not count because he was specifically created to show an alternate creation, then a predated creation does not count in the same fashion.
Otherwise, the "text" in question is a male angel which counts no matter the provenance of its conceptualization.
It's not clear to me that you can disqualify the Malach, either. Bringing up the alternate reality interpretation is ad hoc.
It's not clear to me that you can disqualify the Malach, either. Bringing up the alternate reality interpretation is ad hoc.
It doesn't count because it was done specifically to contrast that these are things which do not happen. It's doing something to make it obvious that it is not done.
That was sort of the entire point of the alternate framed cards.
It doesn't count because it was done specifically to contrast that these are things which do not happen. It's doing something to make it obvious that it is not done.
That was sort of the entire point of the alternate framed cards.
That's fine if you wished to say something like "WOTC's policy indicates that they will not print depictions of male angels on Magic cards any time soon."
But insofar as the storyline interpretation is concerned, its supertextual, and there's the problem of hermeneutic circularity, etc etc. To say "there are no male angels in Magic" is actually an induction even if we had a planeswalker as a source, and not necessarily a very strong one in terms of making storyline distinctions.
The fact is, when Time Spiral introduced the element of alternative timelines, the previously closed system of the storyline continuity expanded to include all other timelines. We can say things about how this gimmick influenced how the timeshifted cards were designed, developed and depicted. But that's all outside the realm of the storyline proper.
That's fine if you wished to say something like "WOTC's policy indicates that they will not print depictions of male angels on Magic cards any time soon."
But insofar as the storyline interpretation is concerned, its supertextual, and there's the problem of hermeneutic circularity, etc etc. To say "there are no male angels in Magic" is actually an induction even if we had a planeswalker as a source, and not necessarily a very strong one in terms of making storyline distinctions.
The fact is, when Time Spiral introduced the element of alternative timelines, the previously closed system of the storyline continuity expanded to include all other timelines. We can say things about how this gimmick influenced how the timeshifted cards were designed, developed and depicted. But that's all outside the realm of the storyline proper.
But Gabriel isn't even the most obvious indication of male angels. That comes from Serra's Realm during Planeswalker, which had a larger audience than any of the older comics that made the mention that established Gabriel's worship in Benalia. Not to mention that the book was an officially published product rather than a licensed one from a third party.
If you want to get technical, what we're arguing isn't the lack of male angels in the storyline, which have appeared in the past, but the separation of the storyline from the marketing and art direction present these days on the cards which actively deny the existence of male angels.
One of the major aspects of the argument IS that there have been literary examples of male angels in the past and that the at certain times artwork of male angels have been submitted and sent back to the artists. Hence why there are no male angels present in the game, it is a very specific movement to associate angels with the feminine.
I feel this is a very basic misunderstanding that spawned this, we aren't directly referring to the lore, but the game and how it creates dissonance between what we know and what we are shown.
And I won't even get into the issue regarding the alternate timelines, that just won't end well.
The game is just a collection of cards, of which some have depicted male angels. We might not see more of those in the future, given the current art policies, or it might change. I was disputing whether the fact that Gabriel Angelfire was originally a D&D character designated anything about his status as a card and as a character.
The game is just a collection of cards, of which some have depicted male angels. We might not see more of those in the future, given the current art policies, or it might change. I was disputing whether the fact that Gabriel Angelfire was originally a D&D character designated anything about his status as a card and as a character.
From the pure design standpoint, in my opinion, yes.
Character design now, and character design then, as well as overall policies and conscious decisions towards depictions of characters have been tightened considerably.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that he wasn't created with Magic in mind and if he had been, he likely wouldn't have been male, even back then.
But, at the end of the day, that's a supposition. I feel his origins are notable for disqualifying him from the conscious decision to design different gendered angels, regardless of if hey later gave him story significance after the fact.
If you disagree, I feel that it's just best for us to agree to disagree.
If Malach of the Dawn doesn't count because he was color shifted, Serra Sphinx being color shifted means blue doesn't actually get sphinxes right? And the color shifted red goblin that has red fear means intimidate doesn't count?
Sure, I guess Gabriel can be discounted as well due to him not being desk GED for the game, but how do you intend to invalidate Melesse Spirit?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Death Vish | High on Crackblade | Ooze the Boss | Long Live the King | Fomori Face Fister
Brunal Legend | Hazezon First | Cirrhosis of the Sliver | Animar Planet | The Joy of Pain-ting
I really hope there is a new Saint Traft card, and I hope he's got sideburns just like the concept art, and I also hope its an awesome card. Why? I want to make a deck around him and call it 'Mutton Chops'
I guess my position is that, even if Gabriel's origins were retconned into the storyline proper after he was created, he's still an official part of the Magic storyline, basically because Wizards says so. Would they design such a card now? No. But Word of God says he's a canon part of the story, so he is. That's how retconning works.
Again, agree to disagree.
Regarding Traft, I'm sad to see he didn't make it into the AVR storyline, but not surprised.
Just because something gets retroactively changed doesn't make it invalid (unless we're talking about an alernate reality, in which case it does). Look at the Klingons in Star Trek. In the original series, they were basically analagous to the Russians during the cold war. Then Star Trek III came out, and all of a sudden they turned into samurai. That bit of retconning immortalized the Klingons as an honor-bound warrior culture, as opposed to the imperialist expansionists that they had been. It was a beautifully elegant solution. It only became awkward when Enterprise tried to reconcile the differences.
(I skipped The Motion Picture because it doesn't really give any indications of Klingon culture.)
Oh yes, there's also the fact that I was JOKING. I figured that much was obvious.
GGG [Primer] Omnath, Big Green Beatstick Machine GGG
Just because something is retconned doesn't mean that you get to ignore the origin in a situation where we are told word of god that something happened. The only evidence in-world we have of Gabriel Angelfire is second hand information.
After all, I did say that he "kinda didn't count."
He may have a story now, but it was tacked on after the fact, and if he had been implemented as a magic character from the start, he would be a she. His existence prior to magic is what determined his gender since he existed outside the world he was imported to.
It could be promo art for Skillful Lunge or something, I dunno. It's a fight that deserves to be immortalized.
So no, Avacyn didn't ressurect him before, she's not going to now...
This really should have the symbols from Azorius and Orzhov... not Dimir
Decks:
Standard
Are we Human?
:symw::symb: The token White/Black Guys
Commander
:symw::symu: Grand Aribtor Kickasstin IV
:symw::symu::symg: Rafiq of the Many lone gunman
:symw::symb::symr: Kaalia's Angels
:symw::symb::symg: The Ents are coming with Doran
That makes perfect sense, but I'm a little confused now. Wouldn't Withengar have chomped Innistrad to pieces if Saint Traft died "generations ago?"
No one can say, its one of those things that get missed when there is no linear timeline like a block novel (grumble grumble grumble)
For all we know, in revenge for killing one of her greatest champions Avacyn destroyed him, or captured him in the blade or something.
This really should have the symbols from Azorius and Orzhov... not Dimir
Decks:
Standard
Are we Human?
:symw::symb: The token White/Black Guys
Commander
:symw::symu: Grand Aribtor Kickasstin IV
:symw::symu::symg: Rafiq of the Many lone gunman
:symw::symb::symr: Kaalia's Angels
:symw::symb::symg: The Ents are coming with Doran
Sig by Rivenor
Decks (All Budget)
Modern
WSoul SistersW
RGShamansRG
My Helpdesk: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7776298#post7776298
My friend's awesome mtg dice: http://www.etsy.com/listing/120956030/magic-the-gathering-mini-d6-dice-set
This is really a non-argument in terms of literary criticism. It's almost completely irrelevant to any narrative within its own context where the elements of that narrative originated, except as a note in passing, and certainly the genetic fallacy to disqualify narrative elements as narrative elements because of their origin. It would be like saying Gabriel Angelfire doesn't count as a character because "Gabriel" is obviously influenced by the Biblical angel of the same name. Whether or not the people who originally included him intended any sort of significance to the character (intentions which we can't actually verify in our interpretation), he is nevertheless the character who does have a story and this is the only valid basis of distinguishing him from anything that is "not part of the storyline," with respect to the storyline.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8216440&postcount=28
And this post explains why, regardless of provenance or attachment, he doesn't qualify in the argument in question since his gender predated his establishment, or indeed, the edict that the company would focus solely upon female angels.
He doesn't count towards the diversity of male angels because he was introduced whole as a character into the lore from an outside source.
Yeah, no. I don't know why you would point to the "word of god" type of evidence when I'm clearly stating that only textual evidence has any bearing on what text counts as text.
I don't even like postmodernism, generally, but this is one area where it does apply.
Because the other example brought up is an alternate reality interpretation.
If Malach of the Dawn does not count because he was specifically created to show an alternate creation, then a predated creation does not count in the same fashion.
Otherwise, the "text" in question is a male angel which counts no matter the provenance of its conceptualization.
It's not clear to me that you can disqualify the Malach, either. Bringing up the alternate reality interpretation is ad hoc.
It doesn't count because it was done specifically to contrast that these are things which do not happen. It's doing something to make it obvious that it is not done.
That was sort of the entire point of the alternate framed cards.
That's fine if you wished to say something like "WOTC's policy indicates that they will not print depictions of male angels on Magic cards any time soon."
But insofar as the storyline interpretation is concerned, its supertextual, and there's the problem of hermeneutic circularity, etc etc. To say "there are no male angels in Magic" is actually an induction even if we had a planeswalker as a source, and not necessarily a very strong one in terms of making storyline distinctions.
The fact is, when Time Spiral introduced the element of alternative timelines, the previously closed system of the storyline continuity expanded to include all other timelines. We can say things about how this gimmick influenced how the timeshifted cards were designed, developed and depicted. But that's all outside the realm of the storyline proper.
But Gabriel isn't even the most obvious indication of male angels. That comes from Serra's Realm during Planeswalker, which had a larger audience than any of the older comics that made the mention that established Gabriel's worship in Benalia. Not to mention that the book was an officially published product rather than a licensed one from a third party.
If you want to get technical, what we're arguing isn't the lack of male angels in the storyline, which have appeared in the past, but the separation of the storyline from the marketing and art direction present these days on the cards which actively deny the existence of male angels.
One of the major aspects of the argument IS that there have been literary examples of male angels in the past and that the at certain times artwork of male angels have been submitted and sent back to the artists. Hence why there are no male angels present in the game, it is a very specific movement to associate angels with the feminine.
I feel this is a very basic misunderstanding that spawned this, we aren't directly referring to the lore, but the game and how it creates dissonance between what we know and what we are shown.
And I won't even get into the issue regarding the alternate timelines, that just won't end well.
From the pure design standpoint, in my opinion, yes.
Character design now, and character design then, as well as overall policies and conscious decisions towards depictions of characters have been tightened considerably.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that he wasn't created with Magic in mind and if he had been, he likely wouldn't have been male, even back then.
But, at the end of the day, that's a supposition. I feel his origins are notable for disqualifying him from the conscious decision to design different gendered angels, regardless of if hey later gave him story significance after the fact.
If you disagree, I feel that it's just best for us to agree to disagree.
Sure, I guess Gabriel can be discounted as well due to him not being desk GED for the game, but how do you intend to invalidate Melesse Spirit?
I guess my position is that, even if Gabriel's origins were retconned into the storyline proper after he was created, he's still an official part of the Magic storyline, basically because Wizards says so. Would they design such a card now? No. But Word of God says he's a canon part of the story, so he is. That's how retconning works.
Again, agree to disagree.
Regarding Traft, I'm sad to see he didn't make it into the AVR storyline, but not surprised.
GGG [Primer] Omnath, Big Green Beatstick Machine GGG