I think a Villains of the Multiverse set isn't a misleading theme if there is a bunch of villains prominently focused on and there just also is a number of other characters from across the multiverse. It's characters from across the multiverse, but there's a villain leaning. So it's a villains set.
Did they just powercreep Thrill of Possibility after already powercreeping Tormenting Voice after powercreeping Wild Guess? I guess Demand Answers is now the new standard for simple red rummaging effects to beat.
There's kind of a big history of white western fantasy taking whatever the hell concepts it likes from nonwestern, nonwhite cultures and religions and just doing whatever the hell they want with it
While factually correct, it's intellectually dishonest to put the words "nonwestern" and "nonwhite" etc in front, because this isn't specifically something that happens when western fiction adapts nonwestern mythology. Elves, dwarves and goblins are all vastly different from what they are in original mythology and folklore (across works of fiction, not just talking about MtG here). Same with many creatures from greek mythology.
Yes, it's true that it happens, but it's not specific to western culture adapting non-western mythology for fictional purposes. It also happens the other way around.
It's just a normal thing that happens. Whether or not that's a good thing and whether or not Wizards is right in avoiding doing that is another issue entirely, but wording it like it was done here is just intellectually dishonest.
I feel like there is a bit of a difference in how much it happens, how inaccurate the depiction is between nonwhite nonwestern cultures and white western ones.
But well, to be honest, it just matters more when it is nonwestern and nonwhite. White western screwing with white western cultural stuff just doesn't have the same sting as white western people screwing the cultural elements of people they have historically conquered, marginalised and exploited. It was not all that long ago that white western people literally laid claim to the country of India, after all. I think Indian people have a right to be a little sensitive around white western fantasy laying claim to their cultural ideas as something they can just make their own version of.
It'd sort of be like putting creature type Goat Demon on a depiction of Satan.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Just like how "Cerberus" was an entire group of multi-headed dogs on Theros, I could theoretically see a "race" of demons called Satans that have the creature type Goat Demon in some magic plane. Sure, it'd sound a bit silly to us but it's not problematic.
The Rakshasa of Tarkir are just based on the mythological ones, just like literally every single other creature in Magic. I absolutely don't understand how this change is necessary. And whether DnD does it or not doesn't matter. If it was done for real world cultural reasons then DnD faces the same issue. And if it doesn't, then why does Magic.
Also, the tribal thing continues to baffle me. When has "tribal" ever had a negative connotation? Savage I can understand but tribal???
There's kind of a big history of white western fantasy taking whatever the hell concepts it likes from nonwestern, nonwhite cultures and religions and just doing whatever the hell they want with it, basically just using the fact that it is a real religious/mythological thing to give it some kind of 'exotic' flair. But this can all get rather uncomfortable if you are from that background and don't get to see much representation of it, and then when you do it's just madeup fantasy creatures in a half remembered costume of it. Not to mention the problematic associations of nonwhite, nonwestern cultures happening to be portrayed as more mystical (and therefore it must be great to throw in their words), literally demonising spirits and deities (Baal is Canaanite deity, Astaroth is a Phoenician deity etc), lumping in all sorts of thing under the umbrella of western concepts, and the broader long history of using other culture's concepts as toys and props, misrepresenting and sometimes going out of their way to disrespect them.
Rakshasa as the DnD tiger demons stinks very much to me of a disrespectful attitude. Leaning on some version pulled out of thin air, with this very obvious Rakshasa=Indian India=Tigers element, plopped into western dominated fantasy lacking much of any real Hindu context that shapes their real meaning, showing a weird loyalty to continue to reinforce an existing popular inaccurate depiction. Just feels unmistakably orientalist tbh.
There's always subjectivity to this of course, but it's pretty easy I think to make a case for why it's not great and just not much of a reason to keep it this way.
Still annoys me a little that in mtg pterosaurs are dinosaurs (which they're not actually) while birds aren't (which they very much are). It makes sense for the game design, and it is all fantasy worlds, but still. Grrrrr common misconceptions.
Cool card though. Strong if it lives but still vulnerable to removal which is nice to see sometimes.
They are not pterosaurs though. They are dracosaurs, aerosaurs, sunwings... and flying mammals with feathers (Sun-Crested Pterodon), which obviously are dinosaurs that evolved similar features to pterosaurs - at least until we get a pterosaur from the REX cards.
We have flying dinosaurs with wings though, they are called birds :). Or the occasional flying non-avialan parave, but that's basically a bird anyway.
I get the idea though. It works well enough for MtG.
Don't know how you came to the idea that Sun-Crested Pterodon is a flying mammal though. There is a piece of classic paleoart that depicts the early hypothesis that pterosaurs were marsupials but I somehow doubt there were going for that deep cut :).
Still annoys me a little that in mtg pterosaurs are dinosaurs (which they're not actually) while birds aren't (which they very much are). It makes sense for the game design, and it is all fantasy worlds, but still. Grrrrr common misconceptions.
Cool card though. Strong if it lives but still vulnerable to removal which is nice to see sometimes.
Mark Rosewater addressed this when Ixalan first came out back in 2017. Here's a direct quote of the question he was asked, and the rationale that Mark gave:
"Q: How many comments have you gotten mentioning that Pterosaurs and their ilk are not actually dinosaurs?
A: Plenty.
Here’s the problem. Flying prehistoric creatures like pterodactyls aren’t technically Dinosaurs. The majority of people though don’t know that and believe, in fact, that they are Dinosaurs.
So we had two choices:
#1) Make the flying creatures in the Dinosaur faction not Dinosaurs. It educates players about actual science, but causes tribal issues for the Dinosaurs and upsets a large chunk of players.
#2) Make the flying creatures Dinosaurs. It helps the Dinosaur deck play better and matches expectation of the majority of players but upsets those that know it’s technically inaccurate.
In the end, we chose to go with the latter as it would make more players happy and aided gameplay."
I know, that's what I was getting at with "It makes sense for the game design".
Still annoys me a little that in mtg pterosaurs are dinosaurs (which they're not actually) while birds aren't (which they very much are). It makes sense for the game design, and it is all fantasy worlds, but still. Grrrrr common misconceptions.
Cool card though. Strong if it lives but still vulnerable to removal which is nice to see sometimes.
I love the fullart lands for this but those standard art basics are quite nice too.
Thone of the Grim Captain seems like a hilarious card to try and make work, looks fun.
Different descend variants is a little stretched but I appreciate the idea of unifying all the permanent cards in graveyard effects under one flexible mechanic. Wonder how this experiment will go over.
I feel like there is a bit of a difference in how much it happens, how inaccurate the depiction is between nonwhite nonwestern cultures and white western ones.
But well, to be honest, it just matters more when it is nonwestern and nonwhite. White western screwing with white western cultural stuff just doesn't have the same sting as white western people screwing the cultural elements of people they have historically conquered, marginalised and exploited. It was not all that long ago that white western people literally laid claim to the country of India, after all. I think Indian people have a right to be a little sensitive around white western fantasy laying claim to their cultural ideas as something they can just make their own version of.
There's kind of a big history of white western fantasy taking whatever the hell concepts it likes from nonwestern, nonwhite cultures and religions and just doing whatever the hell they want with it, basically just using the fact that it is a real religious/mythological thing to give it some kind of 'exotic' flair. But this can all get rather uncomfortable if you are from that background and don't get to see much representation of it, and then when you do it's just madeup fantasy creatures in a half remembered costume of it. Not to mention the problematic associations of nonwhite, nonwestern cultures happening to be portrayed as more mystical (and therefore it must be great to throw in their words), literally demonising spirits and deities (Baal is Canaanite deity, Astaroth is a Phoenician deity etc), lumping in all sorts of thing under the umbrella of western concepts, and the broader long history of using other culture's concepts as toys and props, misrepresenting and sometimes going out of their way to disrespect them.
Rakshasa as the DnD tiger demons stinks very much to me of a disrespectful attitude. Leaning on some version pulled out of thin air, with this very obvious Rakshasa=Indian India=Tigers element, plopped into western dominated fantasy lacking much of any real Hindu context that shapes their real meaning, showing a weird loyalty to continue to reinforce an existing popular inaccurate depiction. Just feels unmistakably orientalist tbh.
There's always subjectivity to this of course, but it's pretty easy I think to make a case for why it's not great and just not much of a reason to keep it this way.
Pretty sure it would be just one. The condition just checks whether a land and a nonland card were exiled, not how many.
Well, it is basically Aclazotz, the god's, build around theme.
We have flying dinosaurs with wings though, they are called birds
I get the idea though. It works well enough for MtG.
Don't know how you came to the idea that Sun-Crested Pterodon is a flying mammal though. There is a piece of classic paleoart that depicts the early hypothesis that pterosaurs were marsupials but I somehow doubt there were going for that deep cut :).
I know, that's what I was getting at with "It makes sense for the game design".
Cool card though. Strong if it lives but still vulnerable to removal which is nice to see sometimes.
Thone of the Grim Captain seems like a hilarious card to try and make work, looks fun.
Different descend variants is a little stretched but I appreciate the idea of unifying all the permanent cards in graveyard effects under one flexible mechanic. Wonder how this experiment will go over.