They don't have to be, but if they are, it helps to make them iconic.
Iconic images are things that appeal to people. Magic in particular is trying to tap into the fantasy imagery that many people want to experience... and using a race of tight-knit, community-based squashed humans is not going to be very successful at that. It might be successful at appealing to some demographic that is looking for something wholesome or cute, but I wouldn't say that's the majority, or even a significant portion of, Magic enthusiasts.
Numbers? Figures? How is a community-based halfling race not going to appeal to people? LotR and D&D contain halflings, and they are popular properties (for a number of reasons). I don't see how Kithkin can't appeal to people, and appealing to people outside of the hardcore Magic enthusiasts is a good thing, from their perspective.
You seem to not understand what these words mean. It seems that you've conflated the fallacy of saying White = good (and therefore Black = evil) with merely using the already present symbols and archetypes in many religions of the world, which White should definitely be all about.
I don't think you're understanding the connotation aspects of each word. Holy and Celestial, when used seperately or in relation to an angelic race connotates good, to a degree that Wizards has stressed is not inherent in the color. Holy is going to bring up ideas of good in most people's heads. It's a simple as that. Celestial, a bit, especially if they connect it to angels, which you are doing. Sorry, Holy and Celestial should not be attributes of White's iconic race, because they imply "good" far too much.
I think you'll find that community, harmony and peace are all quite similar concepts and, actually, not all that interesting in a game about, like you said, conflict. Certainly no more interesting than a celestial type race.
Not really. Communities can be the exact opposite of peaceful, ya know, and harmony has been used in ways that do not imply peace. A military unit working in perfect harmony does not suggest peace, and that is what the Kithkin show in their groups.
Ok? I didn't say that kithkin weren't White, philosophically. They are. But they aren't something that can be iconically White because they don't really command respect or admiration. In a color that's all about sacred cows, symbols and icons associated with community, White needs its iconic race to display the features that consistently show up in various religions (such as purity, austerity, serenity, wisdom or stoicism to name a few) or forms of mysticism in order that we as humans living in the real world can relate to it.
Give them time, and they might. I don't see how halflings don't garner any sort of respect, or whether respect should fall into this at all. Are goblins respected as a race? If they are, is it because of their cards? If so, then give it time.
And no, they don't. I think White needs to move away from that religious aspect, because it implies too heavily good, regardless of how much bad religion can cause. Community, unity, etc. work perfectly well for White and the Kithkin show that.
The sum and total of red is not comprised by mindless, silly goblins. However, red contains an element to its philosophy that white does not - red wants to have fun. White wants to be serious. That's why it's not flavorful for white to be comical or appear foolish.
No, red works on impulses. Sometimes that results in fun, sometimes it doesn't. A community atmosphere can have fun (Hobbit birthday party from LotR, anyone?) just a different kind from the idiotic, slapstick fun of Red. Each color can have fun, there's no reason it can't. Black's getting a bit of that with the Boggarts.
even zombies have had their comic relief moments, and it's hard to be funny when you're decomposing
"Morn, good felllow."
"Fine day, ol' chap."
"You know, it's the strangest thing. I have an appetite for brains."
"Really? I also would fancy some brains."
"Hmm."
"indeed."
"Oh dear, it seems you've lost an arm there, old bean."
"Oh it's alright, it's quite alright."
"Hmm."
"Yes."
"Indeed."
EDIT: The preceding is adapted from a comic at UGMadness.net. Good times.
About Kithkin as White creatures: They work just fine so far. The superstition is a good trait. The fact that the lot of them have this thoughtweft is surely the cause for them all to inherently end up White (or Green) - it's hard not to integrate into community when you can directly empathize with each other.
The thoughtweft is everything about the Kithkin, and it's exactly why they're white. They are coordinated; and they value coordination and harmony. They can't exactly have disharmony - among each other, nothing is really unexpected, all thoughts mesh. Which is to contrast with how they must experience the boggarts, say. Not only are the boggarts annoying, but they don't have the thoughtweft. That would make the kithkin really not like them.
Sorry my thoughts are so disorganized. My right brain is generating all this and the left brain has no say in it (well, except for the part where I actually have to write words. You know, left-lateralization of language processing, eh, what-what? Indeed.)
EDIT2: But yeah, Kithkin are ugly, I'm not disputing that. I mean, when I saw Cenn's Heir on Taste the Magic... I thought it was some non-Magic painting which had been shrunk vertically... because that face is... just, ugly...
I completely agree. They're like dwarves with stretched, drastically horizontal faces. Now that I think of it, their entire being is horizontal. They're also very stout. What might have the creative team been thinking when they came up with kithkin tribal? It's ridiculous. These things are more hideous than the kami. I'm very disappointed at how they look.
As for not being white, I'm not sure why people think that so. They look happy and jolly enough. Where else do they belong? Red? Maybe... but they don't have much fiery passion. The only reason they would belong in red would be because they resemble dwarves which are red. But dwarves love mining and kithkin not so much and so they do not belong in red.
Green could also e a fit but I also find this less so. These creatures are more appropriately of the plain. They look nothing like forest creatures. Anyways, green and white share many aspects of flavor... so I wouldn't be surprised if some consider them borderline. It still doesn't make kithkin any less white though.
Numbers? Figures? How is a community-based halfling race not going to appeal to people? LotR and D&D contain halflings, and they are popular properties (for a number of reasons). I don't see how Kithkin can't appeal to people, and appealing to people outside of the hardcore Magic enthusiasts is a good thing, from their perspective.
Insofar as D&D goes, halfings are popular because they're a core race, and I'm sure they're not terribly popular compared to other core races. And when people read the Lord of the Rings, I think they're more apt to think "it'd be really sweet to be an elf" than to think the same thing about being a hobbit. Elves are the iconic race to be taken from both of these systems, and for a good reason.
I don't think you're understanding the connotation aspects of each word. Holy and Celestial, when used seperately or in relation to an angelic race connotates good, to a degree that Wizards has stressed is not inherent in the color. Holy is going to bring up ideas of good in most people's heads. It's a simple as that. Celestial, a bit, especially if they connect it to angels, which you are doing. Sorry, Holy and Celestial should not be attributes of White's iconic race, because they imply "good" far too much.
By that argument, angels shouldn't be white's iconic fatty race. Yet they are, and an immensely popular one at that.
Holiness can imply being morally good all it wants. It should, in a sense. Being righteous and strict to one's own sense of law and morality might be seen as being good, if you happen to agree with that individual. But if you're righteous and strict, you can definitely be a jerk. White is the only color where this is even remotely appropriate.
Not really. Communities can be the exact opposite of peaceful, ya know, and harmony has been used in ways that do not imply peace. A military unit working in perfect harmony does not suggest peace, and that is what the Kithkin show in their groups.
Non-peaceful communities consistently splinter and become disparate as factions decide that they hate each other for whatever mild differences that they perceive in one another. Just look at Mesopotamia: it's the cradle of civilization, but it probably contains a lot of red and black with what white is there. Anyway, white would prefer people get along, not be schismatic. Sticking to the tradition and not thinking that your new idea is better than what everyone else does is what white stands for.
Anyway, I didn't say that peace = harmony = community. They are slightly different as concepts. But they really all contribute to the same thing, and it's not particularly interesting in and of itself.
Give them time, and they might. I don't see how halflings don't garner any sort of respect, or whether respect should fall into this at all. Are goblins respected as a race? If they are, is it because of their cards? If so, then give it time.
First impressions are what make things iconic. You can't "give something time" to be iconic - historically this doesn't work (though it does tend to work for things that we later consider classics, but that's a different issue). The definition of something that is iconic is something that, in a sense, is new when it is introduced and revolutionary in its scope, and becomes so prominent that it remains a vivid source of symbolism long after the core of its significance is lost.
And no, they don't. I think White needs to move away from that religious aspect, because it implies too heavily good, regardless of how much bad religion can cause. Community, unity, etc. work perfectly well for White and the Kithkin show that.
Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that religion is essential to the flavor of white's philosophy. Religion is what makes civilization, it's what contributes to order, community and organization. It gives people a sense of collective purpose, morality and encourages them to uphold what is pious and lawful. You take religion away, and you don't get civilization, and you don't get white.
Religions always think that what their doctrines teach is good. You could feasibly take the situation of, say, the conflict of Christianity and Islam. Societies with a foundation in these religions are very white. Both sides think they're good; holy. White definitely thinks its holy, and values this (as does blue think its smart, red free, black satisfied and green nondistruptive). Having the connotation of white thinking of itself as good is not the same thing as just saying every conflict ever in magic is between good white and evil black. Konda was very pious in his own way, rigid in his own rules. He surely thought he was morally good, but his actions showed otherwise to the audience. It's white's fanatical convinctions to its ideas of holiness that allow white to be antagonistic in the first place. If Konda was just depraved and selfish, he'd be black. If he was reckless, he'd be red. And so forth.
Denying that white can be associated with religion and limiting it to "communities" strips white of the ability to be realistically evil or villainous. I mean, the most antagonistic quality you could ascribe to the kithkin is that... they're somewhat fierce. Not the bad guys.
So no, using symbols of moral goodness in white is not the problem. It's building stories where those symbols are always genuine and accurate to the nature of the actual plot. Likewise with the symbols used in black.
No, red works on impulses. Sometimes that results in fun, sometimes it doesn't. A community atmosphere can have fun (Hobbit birthday party from LotR, anyone?) just a different kind from the idiotic, slapstick fun of Red. Each color can have fun, there's no reason it can't. Black's getting a bit of that with the Boggarts.
LOL
Why do you think red works on impulses? The motivation for red to be led by emotion is the freedom to experience as much fun as possible. Strictly speaking crying when you're sad is not "fun," but red's perspective is that if you don't allow yourself to cry because you're too distant or too rigid consequently means that you don't get to do everything else that is fun, which it doesn't want.
Insofar as D&D goes, halfings are popular because they're a core race, and I'm sure they're not terribly popular compared to other core races. And when people read the Lord of the Rings, I think they're more apt to think "it'd be really sweet to be an elf" than to think the same thing about being a hobbit. Elves are the iconic race to be taken from both of these systems, and for a good reason.
And yet they aren't hated. And I've seen quite a few fangirls squee over the two main Hobbits in LotR, though that may be due to imagined sexual tension between the two and their finding Elijah Wood attractive.
By that argument, angels shouldn't be white's iconic fatty race. Yet they are, and an immensely popular one at that.
Which works in small doses. Look at each of the races that Wizards has tried for white. Leonin and Aven were not religious. They were militaristic and community based, to a degree. Kistune... were spiritual, I'd say, but that's due to the setting. Would a race of dragonlings be liked? I think it would get old, fast.
Holiness can imply being morally good all it wants. It should, in a sense. Being righteous and strict to one's own sense of law and morality might be seen as being good, if you happen to agree with that individual. But if you're righteous and strict, you can definitely be a jerk. White is the only color where this is even remotely appropriate.
And White is not about being Good. It can be, sure, but that should not be at the core of it's philosophy and as such should not be the core of its race. MaRo went over the fact that White =/= Good and Black =/= Evil in his color articles, and it seems to be something they are trying to avoid. You can be law-abiding and be a jerk about it. See every damn cop in every damn town that every kid despises. Religion is not necessary. It can come up in White from time to time, but having it be part of the iconic race would get old after a while. And besides, religion isn't exclusive to White.
Anyway, I didn't say that peace = harmony = community. They are slightly different as concepts. But they really all contribute to the same thing, and it's not particularly interesting in and of itself.
You said they were similar and I showed how they can be different, and interesting.
First impressions are what make things iconic. You can't "give something time" to be iconic - historically this doesn't work (though it does tend to work for things that we later consider classics, but that's a different issue). The definition of something that is iconic is something that, in a sense, is new when it is introduced and revolutionary in its scope, and becomes so prominent that it remains a vivid source of symbolism long after the core of its significance is lost.
Dude, seriously. If Bob Barker had only hosted for a few years, but been popular, he wouldn't be iconic of The Price is Right. He stuck with it for a very, very long time, and became iconic because of it. The people who say Alpha likely did not think "Merfolk! It's the iconic race of Blue!" It has to grow on people, and become well associated.
Main Entry: icon
Variant(s): also ikon /'I-"kän/
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek eikOn, from eikenai to resemble 1: a usually pictorial representation : IMAGE 2 [Late Greek eikOn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians 3: an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL 4: EMBLEM, SYMBOL <the house became an icon of 1960's residential architecture -- Paul Goldberger> 5 a: a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning b: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that usually suggests the type of object represented or the purpose of an available function
I see nothing about new or revolutionary. A better definition of iconic is something that well-symbolizes something else, that will immediately bring forth the other idea the moment someone sees the iconic item. People see Goblins now and think Red because they have been such an integral part of Red for so long.
Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that religion is essential to the flavor of white's philosophy. Religion is what makes civilization, it's what contributes to order, community and organization. It gives people a sense of collective purpose, morality and encourages them to uphold what is pious and lawful. You take religion away, and you don't get civilization, and you don't get white.
And above, religion is not restricted to White. And no, religion is not what makes civilization. That's garbage, and you know it. It can be a factor, but it is not the sole factor. That's as bad as stating that the moment you take religion away, people will be immoral.
Denying that white can be associated with religion and limiting it to "communities" strips white of the ability to be realistically evil or villainous. I mean, the most antagonistic quality you could ascribe to the kithkin is that... they're somewhat fierce. Not the bad guys.
Again, religion is not restricted to White, and it's silly to think so. Kithkin could be evil, certainly. If they figure that you being gone is "for the greater good," they turn towards our conception of evil. Communities can be evil, do not think otherwise.
LOL
Why do you think red works on impulses? The motivation for red to be led by emotion is the freedom to experience as much fun as possible. Strictly speaking crying when you're sad is not "fun," but red's perspective is that if you don't allow yourself to cry because you're too distant or too rigid consequently means that you don't get to do everything else that is fun, which it doesn't want.
Uh, no. The motivation for Red to be free to follow it's emotions is just that: being free and running with impulses. Anger doesn't always lead to fun, you know, and anger seems to be a prime emotion in Red. "Fun" is not it's goal. Freedom to do what it wants is.
Quote from MaRo »
Each color's philosophy revolves around how it sees the world. So how does red see the world? What does red value? To red, life is the ultimate adventure. Red feels that living life to its fullest means taking advantage of every opportunity. And what better means to drive this goal than one's own emotions? Red acts on its gut and follows its heart. If red is happy, it celebrates. If red is sad, it cries. If red is angry, it smashes things. Life is very simple for red. It does what it feels.
Or in MaRo's words. Living life to the fullest does not mean having fun every moment of your life, it means experiencing everything life has to offer. I don't think you understand the colors as well as you think you do.
They should've just made them look like halflings and called them Kithkin, like the original Amrou Kithkin. I think this is what they've ended up with, despite their best efforts to shy away from what could've been a simple, elegantly designed race.
I mean, the original evaded big creatures. That's what hobbits do.
Now, this brings to light another question: Why aren't Humans ever portrayed differently in different stories? One could argue that different races (black, Asian, etc.) could be considered different portrayals, but we don't even see those, or we hardly do. (As an aside, I suppose we saw the Asian-type Humans for the Kamigawa block...which makes me wonder if we're just too used to seeing Humans of different races that we just automatically classify them as 'Human' whereas the other races we already have a distinct concept of what they ought to be like, so any variation is noticed immediately...or is that just me?)
That made me laugh, because I got on this long thinking rant about what it would be like if they made human races into different tribes...
Ninja of the Deep Hours
3u
creature - Asian Ninja
Aladdin
2rr
creature - Arab Rogue
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
2uuu
legendary creature - African-American Wizard
Yes, to those rule Nazis out there, adding the hyphen makes African-American one single type (as opposed to African American, which is two creature types).
Well I played D&D a few years ago (I have 8-10 books, minis, and Dragon/Dungeon mags) and from my experience, halflings aren't hated. (Half-Orc and female dwarves seem to be the hated). In fact, they are iconic and cool. Rinding ab armored dog into battle is very cool. They use their size to their advantage and use Slings. I once made a halfling monk in my group. So much kung fu a$$wooping in such a small package was awesome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier & Magus of the Sheep from Scuttlemutt Productions for the cool signature and avatar.
And yet they aren't hated. And I've seen quite a few fangirls squee over the two main Hobbits in LotR, though that may be due to imagined sexual tension between the two and their finding Elijah Wood attractive.
I'm not saying that the kithkin will or should be hated, any more than I would say I hate vedalken. They just aren't interesting, and not something I'd really want to see from white consistently.
Which works in small doses. Look at each of the races that Wizards has tried for white. Leonin and Aven were not religious. They were militaristic and community based, to a degree. Kistune... were spiritual, I'd say, but that's due to the setting. Would a race of dragonlings be liked? I think it would get old, fast.
There's lots of options of spiritual and semi-spiritual races in mythology that can fit into white. That doesn't mean they're "mini-angels," but they're based on some of the same archetypes that angels are.
And White is not about being Good. It can be, sure, but that should not be at the core of it's philosophy and as such should not be the core of its race. MaRo went over the fact that White =/= Good and Black =/= Evil in his color articles, and it seems to be something they are trying to avoid. You can be law-abiding and be a jerk about it. See every damn cop in every damn town that every kid despises. Religion is not necessary. It can come up in White from time to time, but having it be part of the iconic race would get old after a while. And besides, religion isn't exclusive to White.
White is the color that is concerned with morality (as per MaRo's article). Morality is about doing what's good. Other colors have different motivations for what they do (and in the case of black, it's entirely amoral, though I'd argue all the other four colors are amoral). Everyone has different ideas about how to do or be good, but often we see that the systems they use tend to lead to extremism, and evil actions (even if in the name of that system of morality). So, in a sense, white is about being good, in its own interpretation. White is striving to be good, but that does not mean white equates with being good. I think you misinterpreted my statement about being law-abiding: I was stating that it makes you, in a sense, more likely to be a certain kind of jerk (the self-righteous, fascist jerk, specifically).
I think one could easily say (as I have already said) that a race like the kithkin "gets old after awhile" in the same way. Elves are, largely, all the same, philosophically speaking. They're pro-nature and don't tend to have a lot of depth to them in Magic settings. Goblins are consistently, well, annoying. Both of these things are iconic in the game. As a consequence, a lot of people are sick and tired of them. But their popularity prevails.
And no, religion isn't exclusive to white. Similarly, green aligned people can learn from things even though this is largely associated with blue. The point being, religion is more strongly associated with white than any other color. Religious symbols show up in white more often than in other colors, and it creates a rich flavor.
Though, my idea of an iconic white race isn't strictly along a religious theme. Specifically, I was trying to describe a sort of spiritual race of people that are perhaps joined together by the service of some deity and have powers from that deity consequently that they consider holy. An example might be the "highmen" of the Age of Wonders game, or any number of the "good-aligned" races of D&D (note that the definition of good in D&D includes basically everything that a white character might be, primarily altruism, but I wouldn't say D&D is a good source to learn about ethics and real life good and evil). So while there'd be a lot of clerics, I think there would be a lot of wizards too, and not so many soldiers, which I think contributes to the identity of white as a bland, anthropocentric analogue.
You said they were similar and I showed how they can be different, and interesting.
Ok? I didn't say they were the same, though. I never claimed they didn't have differences. Furthermore, your assertion was that somehow religion couldn't be interesting, but community could. The community theme can be interesting in the short term, but it's a limited source of flavor. Your premise fails here.
Dude, seriously. If Bob Barker had only hosted for a few years, but been popular, he wouldn't be iconic of The Price is Right. He stuck with it for a very, very long time, and became iconic because of it. The people who say Alpha likely did not think "Merfolk! It's the iconic race of Blue!" It has to grow on people, and become well associated.
Oh, I think people in alpha did seem to think that merfolk are iconically blue, in a sense. But you misinterpret me. People don't have to think things are iconic right when they're created (that's absurd). The process of becoming iconic is the result of something being immensely popular at first, and time passing. If something isn't popular at first, it can't later become iconic, except perhaps to some cult followings.
I see nothing about new or revolutionary. A better definition of iconic is something that well-symbolizes something else, that will immediately bring forth the other idea the moment someone sees the iconic item. People see Goblins now and think Red because they have been such an integral part of Red for so long.
In order for something to "well-symbolize" something else, that something else has to, at some point, have been a major aspect of the culture of its origin, hence my definition. You're just reiterating what I said above, which you've been doing repeatedly so far.
And above, religion is not restricted to White. And no, religion is not what makes civilization. That's garbage, and you know it. It can be a factor, but it is not the sole factor. That's as bad as stating that the moment you take religion away, people will be immoral.
Religion may not be restricted to white, but I think it would be odd to see a green angel or a blue holy symbol.
Anyway, I didn't say religion was the only factor in the creation of civilization. There are obviously many other factors there (agriculture, centralized government, increased economic and cultural capacities, writing, etc). But religion plays a key role in stabilizing primitive civilizations by offering support to the source of laws and structure - the centralized government. This is why monarchies and the cults of gods have been intimately related in every primitive culture across the globe. At that stage, without religion, things fall apart. People become nomadic, split up, aren't a unified civilization anymore.
You are correct that after a certain point, religion isn't vital anymore (I think). People don't suddenly become immoral if they live in an atheistic society, because cultural conventions eventually are strong enough to stand on their own. But in every early civilization that did not fall apart, religion was absolutely essential. We don't know of primitive civilizations that didn't have religious beliefs because they didn't last long enough to make any kind of mark on history. So religion plays a very necessary role in getting things established. And, because of its nature in the promotion of tradition, it usually sticks with a culture (sometimes it becomes assimilated, like with shinto within buddhism, and other times its destroyed, such as many pagan religions in the face of proselytizing Christianity or Islam, but these things generally come hand in hand with foreign influences, which more or less changes the baseline for that culture).
Again, religion is not restricted to White, and it's silly to think so. Kithkin could be evil, certainly. If they figure that you being gone is "for the greater good," they turn towards our conception of evil. Communities can be evil, do not think otherwise.
Well, clearly in the occasional scenario a community can internalize negative factors such as prejudices and superstitions that arrive at evil results.
But can you honestly see Lorwyn were the kithkin are exclusively the villains of the story? I don't think it would make for a very engaging plot.
Uh, no. The motivation for Red to be free to follow it's emotions is just that: being free and running with impulses. Anger doesn't always lead to fun, you know, and anger seems to be a prime emotion in Red. "Fun" is not it's goal. Freedom to do what it wants is.
This is circular. You're stating that red wants to be free because red wants to be free.
Red needs to value freedom for some reason. White values order and morality because it leads to peace, it's end goal. Blue values knowledge because it leads to solutions to life's problems and improvement of the world. Black values itself because it feels good. Green values following instinct because it feels that doing so doesn't interfere with the cycle of nature.
The classic complaint of being too rigid with one's rules or being too dispassionate about everything is that, though you avoid some of the negative consequences that you experience with being free and impulsive with your emotions, you also miss out on the good aspects. Red embraces the consequences of being reckless with it's anger because, in principle, it's better to sometimes make a mess than to never be able to have fun.
Or in MaRo's words. Living life to the fullest does not mean having fun every moment of your life, it means experiencing everything life has to offer. I don't think you understand the colors as well as you think you do.
I don't think you understand my argument.
I never stated that red was trying to have fun all the time (or that white always wants to be serious; these are unrealistic of real people). I said that it wanted to have fun. Which is true. MaRo's statement above matches perfectly with what I have said about red. Having fun is the benefit, what red gets out of doing what it does. There's also other consequences. Red doesn't care about the fact that there are consequences because it values having the freedom to create them more. Because no freedom means no fun. That doesn't mean always having fun, but the loss on fun is probably the main reason why anyone would adopt a red philosophy.
Middle Earth needs hobbits. Just like it needs Ents(Treefolk) and Orcs(Boggarts).
Nobody in the history of earth ever read LotR and thought "Man, out of Gandalf, Strider, Legolas and Frodo, I'd pick the poweless, skilless short hairy one for sure".
Middle Earth needs hobbits. Just like it needs Ents(Treefolk) and Orcs(Boggarts).
Nobody in the history of earth ever read LotR and thought "Man, out of Gandalf, Strider, Legolas and Frodo, I'd pick the poweless, skilless short hairy one for sure".
Which is funny, because (as far as the movie goes) the powerless, skilless short hairy one is the most important one of them all. And also probably most closely relatable to the people reading or watching LotR.
That's right, Frodo is the most important, because he's the least auspicious.
This is a deliberate plot device by Tolkien. He takes a character archetype of someone generally associated with insignificance and makes them the most monumentally important person in the world because Frodo was able to resist the evil of the One Ring when every other character could not. Or, mostly, anyway.
While doing so, he surrounds Frodo with figures of ancient elves, wise wizards and powerful warriors to highlight the fact that he doesn't really seem that remarkable by comparison.
But I don't think the hobbit archetype is really that iconic unless you're a diehard LotR fan. The traits of the hobbit, by itself, aren't intriguing unless you're using them for this very literary device that Tolkien used (namely, humility).
I think it's kind of sad that every High Fantasy has to be a carbon copy of Middle-Earth, using the same themes and archetypes, when they don't really help to accomplish the needs of the plot the way hobbits fit into Middle-Earth. I don't think Lorwyn really has any kind of them of the virtue of humility, so it feels pretty empty.
I agree that a bunch of the Kithkin look pretty goofy, but I have a beef with some merfolk too. Inkfathom Divers ? Ew. Looks like half cow/half fish to me. Then some of the other merfolk look so cool. Overall in Lorwyn I thought that many of the same race looked way to different. Almost no two merfolk look alike (Sygg looks like a boggart). Boggarts range from lizard people (Boggart Harbinger) to little humanoids (Boggart Loggers) to traditional goblins (Cauterwailing Boggart). I'd love to know how the elves define beautiful, because they all look different, especially for a race soo focused on looking a certain way. I can understand the different Treefolk and elementals (flamekin actually look pretty similar). I mean, I realize that not every creature in a race should be a cookie-cutter copy, but they could at least be similar. Some of these guys could probably get a new classification.
I'm not saying that the kithkin will or should be hated, any more than I would say I hate vedalken. They just aren't interesting, and not something I'd really want to see from white consistently.
And I completely disagree, and I'm sure others agree, just as others agree with you.
I think one could easily say (as I have already said) that a race like the kithkin "gets old after awhile" in the same way. Elves are, largely, all the same, philosophically speaking. They're pro-nature and don't tend to have a lot of depth to them in Magic settings. Goblins are consistently, well, annoying. Both of these things are iconic in the game. As a consequence, a lot of people are sick and tired of them. But their popularity prevails.
Goblins are very annoying. The Boggarts have added a bit of variety, thankfully, as has the "evil" elves. I think Lorwyn has helped give some more depth to the races it uses, compared to how they were previously used.
And no, religion isn't exclusive to white. Similarly, green aligned people can learn from things even though this is largely associated with blue. The point being, religion is more strongly associated with white than any other color. Religious symbols show up in white more often than in other colors, and it creates a rich flavor.
Because of previous associations, which I think they are pushing away from. Religion can fit into damn well near every color, just as well, depending on what religion to base it on.
Ok? I didn't say they were the same, though. I never claimed they didn't have differences. Furthermore, your assertion was that somehow religion couldn't be interesting, but community could. The community theme can be interesting in the short term, but it's a limited source of flavor. Your premise fails here.
No, it doesn't, really. Both ideas have their shortcomings, primarily in how society views each. Religion, if it strays too far from the cultural norm, begins to be too foreign and not possible to relate to. Same can go for community, but with the variation of communities within, say, the US, I'd say there's more scope there that won't alienate people than there is with religion.
Oh, I think people in alpha did seem to think that merfolk are iconically blue, in a sense. But you misinterpret me. People don't have to think things are iconic right when they're created (that's absurd). The process of becoming iconic is the result of something being immensely popular at first, and time passing. If something isn't popular at first, it can't later become iconic, except perhaps to some cult followings.
I disagree. Something can grow on people, given enough time, and especially in this sort of game. *shrugs*
Religion may not be restricted to white, but I think it would be odd to see a green angel or a blue holy symbol.
And things aren't restricted to angels. Forest spirits can fill the role of angels for Green, and a Blue religious symbol isn't that strange, really.
Anyway, I didn't say religion was the only factor in the creation of civilization. There are obviously many other factors there (agriculture, centralized government, increased economic and cultural capacities, writing, etc). But religion plays a key role in stabilizing primitive civilizations by offering support to the source of laws and structure - the centralized government. This is why monarchies and the cults of gods have been intimately related in every primitive culture across the globe. At that stage, without religion, things fall apart. People become nomadic, split up, aren't a unified civilization anymore.
Saying "Take away religion and everything falls apart" puts a lot of emphasis on it, which isn't necessary, I'd say. Agriculture, more than anything, allows people to settle into groups and begin creating civilization, as the primary food source has moved from one that moves to one that does not. Early religions were likely fertility cults, not anything that dictated morality, but mostly focused on making sure the crops grow and food is plenty. Religion helps solidify power, in the examples you provided.
Anyway, this is getting way off topic.
Well, clearly in the occasional scenario a community can internalize negative factors such as prejudices and superstitions that arrive at evil results.
But can you honestly see Lorwyn were the kithkin are exclusively the villains of the story? I don't think it would make for a very engaging plot.
Even those supporting good qualities of a community or society can lead to "evil." Not to draw too much politics into this, but the Iraq War is a prime example of this.
And no, I couldn't, because that's not how the setting was created. Could the Kithkin have had a similar mindset as the elves? Yes. That's a community going evil, that whole elf society bit.
This is circular. You're stating that red wants to be free because red wants to be free.
Because it's honestly that simple. Red wants to be free to do what it wants, whether that be out of anger or for fun. Red values freedom because it is freedom. Not for some desire for fun or what have you, but to experience whatever it wants to experience.
Red embraces the consequences of being reckless with it's anger because, in principle, it's better to sometimes make a mess than to never be able to have fun.
It's not about fun. Red embraces being reckless with it's anger because to chain that anger up and deny it would be to deny the experiences of life, and that's not living life to the fullest. Experiencing life =/= having fun. Crying, being in pain, feeling disappointment, these things aren't fun, but Red would experience them because that would be living life to it's fullest.
I don't think you understand my argument.
I never stated that red was trying to have fun all the time (or that white always wants to be serious; these are unrealistic of real people). I said that it wanted to have fun. Which is true. MaRo's statement above matches perfectly with what I have said about red. Having fun is the benefit, what red gets out of doing what it does. There's also other consequences. Red doesn't care about the fact that there are consequences because it values having the freedom to create them more. Because no freedom means no fun. That doesn't mean always having fun, but the loss on fun is probably the main reason why anyone would adopt a red philosophy.
Yes, Red has fun, but that's not the primary motivator. Experiencing life is. He even says so in the beginning of the article.
And again, this is getting off topic. I'll stop here.
The reason that they look so different is because of kamigawa. In a recent article, some wizards guy mentioned the fact that all of the akki looked the same. Lorwyn design has tried to avoid this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The guy who found the new art for shock and other 10th edition cards on the wizards site.
Butcher of Words.
Forest spirits can fill the role of angels for Green, and a Blue religious symbol isn't that strange, really.
IMO, blue is the least religious color. It's obvious why white's into religion and we can see why black likes to play with it. Green and Red are religious to a degree as well, but they're practices aren't enforced on everyone nor are they so strict on it, so g/r are probably more spiritual than religious.
Blue though, loves to experiment; it loves to test. Religious/spiritual thought are on the whole untestable. This is why the science is associated to blue. (Although strangely enough, w/b, blue's allies, are the religious colors according to rosewater).
@ Hyphen Cannon: Horns are probably a huge factor in the 'looking pretty' department since the protagonist is hunted in the novel for losing his horns.
Uh, no. The motivation for Red to be free to follow it's emotions is just that: being free and running with impulses. Anger doesn't always lead to fun, you know, and anger seems to be a prime emotion in Red. "Fun" is not it's goal. Freedom to do what it wants is.
Or in MaRo's words. Living life to the fullest does not mean having fun every moment of your life, it means experiencing everything life has to offer. I don't think you understand the colors as well as you think you do.
Quoted for truthery.
Red holds as dearest, its own subjective experience of life. It wants to feel life. Red's dislike of White is obvious and recant all the time. But the reason it doesn't like Blue is very instructive on this point:
Red can't be told what to do by Blue, because nothing Blue could say matters to Red. Red wants to enjoy life, feel life. It wants to express itself; it wants to experience everything. There's no logic to that, no 'decisions' to pore over. There's no going out to "make yourself better" with more "knowledge". Red knows everything it needs to know - "follow my heart." Under Red's view, it can't go wrong with that, because following its heart is, by definition, what will bring Red the feeling of contentment with the life it lives.
So, yes, it's not about having fun every moment of your life. It's about taking something that matters to you, and devoting your life to enriching *that* with all your will. For Blue, it is potential, but for Red, it is subjective experience.
*~*~*~
Kithkin are here to stay. Every color needed a good, stable, non-human sentient race to revisit in the core and hereafter. White didn't have much. Blue just got Vedalken, so we're good there. Black... still kind of out of that (they shouldn't go nuts with Black gobbos, IMO). Red could do with something other than Goblins... something more ... organic, too (discounting flamekin, is the move here). Green...?
... hmm, I must be forgetting something. Fellows?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Because of previous associations, which I think they are pushing away from. Religion can fit into damn well near every color, just as well, depending on what religion to base it on.
Perhaps.
But I think some things we call religion are really just philosophies with some moral paradigms. Religion strictly in the sense of participating in a community to improve one's moral character and (I guess) be rewarded in the afterlife has a good chunk of white in it.
Part of the reason that I'm attracted to white as a color is because of its religious themes, the kind of creatures it uses, the emphasis on light and righteousness. If white devolves into communes of simple people with no spiritual symbolism at all, I think I'd lose interest pretty quick.
No, it doesn't, really. Both ideas have their shortcomings, primarily in how society views each. Religion, if it strays too far from the cultural norm, begins to be too foreign and not possible to relate to. Same can go for community, but with the variation of communities within, say, the US, I'd say there's more scope there that won't alienate people than there is with religion.
But, with white, we're talking about mostly rural, pastoral communities of peaceable people that mind their business, are superstitious, and probably pretty religious even if they aren't divine agents.
That's ok as a one-time deal, but... a recurring theme?
I disagree. Something can grow on people, given enough time, and especially in this sort of game. *shrugs*
Well, let's take the example of the homarid. Some people are really into them, and might even call them iconic. Perhaps if there was a slew of them reprinted in future sets it would become so glued to the game that people wouldn't like to see it without them. But is that really necessary? Do homarids in every block fill a niche that had previously been empty and couldn't have been used for something that had more popular appeal at first? I think you have to consider marketing a little bit.
Kithkin are characterized by being mostly unremarkable as a fantasy race. They're plain. Thoughtweft is interesting, but that could be used for any white race potentially. Why does white have to settle for plain?
And things aren't restricted to angels. Forest spirits can fill the role of angels for Green, and a Blue religious symbol isn't that strange, really.
But, forest spirits are quite a bit different of an archetype than the angel, a divine messager and bastion of law and purity. If not angels, perhaps daevas, or any kind of servant of the gods. That kind of thing... really wouldn't fit into green. Spiritual forces associated with green are connected with nature. In a sense green is even a little bit materialistic.
And blue... what use does blue have for holy symbols? Blue strikes me as rather atheistic, or at least indifferent to the idea of the divine. After all, Blue is all about becoming what it wants to be, making of things what it wants to make of them, not leaving things up to divine providence.
Saying "Take away religion and everything falls apart" puts a lot of emphasis on it, which isn't necessary, I'd say. Agriculture, more than anything, allows people to settle into groups and begin creating civilization, as the primary food source has moved from one that moves to one that does not. Early religions were likely fertility cults, not anything that dictated morality, but mostly focused on making sure the crops grow and food is plenty. Religion helps solidify power, in the examples you provided.
Well obviously a city without agriculture cannot sustain its food supply and starves. White would want to avoid that, but then, so would blue, black, red and green. Yet only white is terribly concerned with people sticking together. A red civilization is almost certainly going to split up into multiple factions, for example. Religion is a necessary element for the beginning stages of a civilization that white wants to create, or rather, that white becomes a product of.
The very early stages of religion were concerned with fertility, but this contains a moral element: in order to ensure that the gods would make the lands fertile and support the people, they had to follow certain customs, make sacrifices, etc. Morality formed very early as a natural complement to religion.
Even those supporting good qualities of a community or society can lead to "evil." Not to draw too much politics into this, but the Iraq War is a prime example of this.
Well, yes, but it's probably not going to come up in a magic story plotline.
Because it's honestly that simple. Red wants to be free to do what it wants, whether that be out of anger or for fun. Red values freedom because it is freedom. Not for some desire for fun or what have you, but to experience whatever it wants to experience.
If you are trying to experience things, and you do, then you are stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain, and thus, "have fun". This is, in a sense, what motivates anyone to do anything, and is why people with depression often find a lack of energy to even try to do things they like.
It's not about fun. Red embraces being reckless with it's anger because to chain that anger up and deny it would be to deny the experiences of life, and that's not living life to the fullest. Experiencing life =/= having fun. Crying, being in pain, feeling disappointment, these things aren't fun, but Red would experience them because that would be living life to it's fullest.
And, to red, to deny one experience of life on a certain principle means that you must deny all of them on that principle.
I don't think it's correct to say that red goes out of its way to cry, be in pain, or be disappointed. No one does. But, if red is sad, it cries. And so forth. It doesn't try to avoid expressing these things, like white or blue might. Red chooses to be guided by its emotions to make decisions, and impulsively, we're going to tend to try to pursue actions that we perceive we might enjoy. When it doesn't go as planned, then red cries. Just as impulses are the source of red's decisions in how to act, they are also involved in how to react.
Yes, Red has fun, but that's not the primary motivator. Experiencing life is. He even says so in the beginning of the article.
Well, in risk of seeming blasphemous, I don't think Mark Rosewater is infallible (for example, his description of "fascism" is kind of inaccurate).
Anyway, if you look at what I originally said (that red wanted to have fun as part of expressing its impulses, and white wanted to be serious as part of showing its own discipline) I wasn't saying that it was a primary motivator. But now, I think it is, actually. If you get into a situation that makes you feel sad, you experience sadness whether you cry or not. And you're not going to seek out situations that make you sad, or angry, or other negative emotions. But if you're attitude is the more free you are, the more you get to do what you want, then you might think that there's no point in holding back on emotions in general. Fun is the "primary" part of it because it becomes first in the development of the philosophy (in the same way you might initially develop a deontological perspective on morality when you become upset that someone lied you you). The complete form of the philosophy is to just do what you emotions tell you to do. But no human-minded person would start at the completed form without going through the initial motivators. Some experience has to restrict your having of fun or doing what you want to do in order for you to value the freedom to do it. It's just the nature of life.
They should've just made them look like halflings and called them Kithkin, like the original Amrou Kithkin. I think this is what they've ended up with, despite their best efforts to shy away from what could've been a simple, elegantly designed race.
I mean, the original evaded big creatures. That's what hobbits do.
That made me laugh, because I got on this long thinking rant about what it would be like if they made human races into different tribes...
Ninja of the Deep Hours
3u
creature - Asian Ninja
Aladdin
2rr
creature - Arab Rogue
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
2uuu
legendary creature - African-American Wizard
Yes, to those rule Nazis out there, adding the hyphen makes African-American one single type (as opposed to African American, which is two creature types).
Waitwaitwait, why would Teferi be African-American instead of just plain African? There's no America in Magic. Granted, none of those other countries you mentioned either, but those are for purely ethnic descriptions. And furthermore, separating ethnicities would be nonsensical. The only differences between humans of Middle-Eastern, Asian, and African descent is in pigment and slight variation in bone structure. You're not gonna need a separate Engineered Plague for each.
As far as Kithkin go, yeah, they're kind of goofy in Lorwyn, but if you haven't noticed, the whole set is kind of goofy. Boggarts anyone? If they do decide to keep kithkin as the hallmark white race, they'll probably go with a more Amrou-esque version in the future. As far as the idea of kithin as white's marquee race, I like them. Every fantasy needs its midgets, and being midgets requires cooperation and teamwork (which white likes), and dwarves are lame anyways. But meh, white is lame anyways, so who cares what it gets.
*runs off to play green and red*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
Well, let's take the example of the homarid. Some people are really into them, and might even call them iconic. Perhaps if there was a slew of them reprinted in future sets it would become so glued to the game that people wouldn't like to see it without them. But is that really necessary? Do homarids in every block fill a niche that had previously been empty and couldn't have been used for something that had more popular appeal at first? I think you have to consider marketing a little bit.
Kithkin are characterized by being mostly unremarkable as a fantasy race. They're plain. Thoughtweft is interesting, but that could be used for any white race potentially.
Anything could be used by any race, potentially. And I wouldn't characterize the Kithkin as "plain" whatever that implies. Are humans plain? Elves? Giants? Aven? What makes them plain or not-plain? Personally I find Kithkin more interesting than any of those races mentioned with the exception of humans, but obviously humans are out of the picture for Lorwyn block.
Why does white have to settle for plain?
Because Island, Forest, Swamp, and Mountain were already taken. Maybe they could invest in some of the snow-covered variety to spice things up a little.
Anything could be used by any race, potentially. And I wouldn't characterize the Kithkin as "plain" whatever that implies. Are humans plain? Elves? Giants? Aven? What makes them plain or not-plain? Personally I find Kithkin more interesting than any of those races mentioned with the exception of humans, but obviously humans are out of the picture for Lorwyn block.
Alright. What stands out about them and makes them interesting to you?
-Elves: In Magic? Yes, quite plain. In most other fantasy settings? Again, yes. Originally? They had their place.
-Giants: Not really an iconic race. Giants usually show up in small numbers, and that's ok. Every once in awhile it makes sense for a setting to have supersized characters.
-Aven: Kind of interesting, I think, but they didn't follow through with them.
Alright. What stands out about them and makes them interesting to you?
I find them interesting because they have many aspects that can be made into interesting cards or abilities. They are farmers and warriors. They have rudimentary government and organized villages. They utilize both magic and engineering. They ride both beasts and machines into battle. The Thoughtweft is an interesting idea that helps give them some extra flavour too. Mechanically I like the variations on the "protection from converted mana cost" that seem to be a signature ability of theirs.
I just look at the different aspects of their society that are pictured on cards like Kinsbaile Balloonist, Galepowder Mage, Springjack Knight, Plover Knights, Burrenton Forge Tender, Mistmeadow Skulk, Cenn's Heir, Thoughtweft Trio, etc. and I see a society that has enough variety to keep me interested for more than 5 minutes.
As for the artwork, I agree some of it is downright fugly (Kithkin Harbinger, Goldmeadow Harrier). But some of it I find very appealing as well (Kithkin Daggerdare, Goldmeadow Stalwart).
-Elves: In Magic? Yes, quite plain. In most other fantasy settings? Again, yes. Originally? They had their place.
-Giants: Not really an iconic race. Giants usually show up in small numbers, and that's ok. Every once in awhile it makes sense for a setting to have supersized characters.
-Aven: Kind of interesting, I think, but they didn't follow through with them.
I chose those races because one is the iconic green race, one is probably what people would have considered the most iconic white race pre-Kithkin, and one has been showing up all over the place since alpha. I find all three of them to be much less developed and less interesting than Kithkin. And they are featured on far more cards and have had far more time to establish themselves in the game. At least with Lorwyn they actually gave Elves something else to do other than love nature and protect the forest. The addition of black to Elves greatly enhances their depth, and interestingly enough moves them closer to Tolkien-style Elves.
I know, check out my awesome ego sig, I was much loved!
Seriously, though, I'm just exploring other games right now and Magic has taken a back seat. If I do nothing else with this game, I'd love to finish my Magic: Legends project at some point.
What we're doing here is akin to taking the text of Moby Dick, locating specific words therein, rearranging them to create a passage from Fight Club, and concluding from this evidence that Tyler Durden is based on Ahab.
Hm, we really should have had Leonin as an iconic race. Of course, that doesn't fit in with Irish fantasy at all, but they're everything that makes an iconic race awesome and they're not humans. In fact, Cats fit in the same colors as Kithkin - white and green primarily.
They are adaquet in mechanics, small efficient agressive beaters that used to be cats or soldiers or clerics or antelopes. yes, antelopes know how to beatdown.
Does wizards want to make a new iconic white race? yes. did they impress anyone with the art style in lorwyn? NO! these kithkins look so weird that i really dont want to play with them. lol, on paper they look good, but if i was playing with them, i couldnt keep my hand because I didnt like anything i saw.
some magic cards have bad art/style and it makes it difficult to play with them on that basis. I guess wizards saw this coming, and made the art on the cards more ugly then they should be, so kithkins wouldnt be overplayed. I have uncovered the conspiricy!:o
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
They are adaquet in mechanics, small efficient agressive beaters that used to be cats or soldiers or clerics or antelopes. yes, antelopes know how to beatdown.
Does wizards want to make a new iconic white race? yes. did they impress anyone with the art style in lorwyn? NO! these kithkins look so weird that i really dont want to play with them. lol, on paper they look good, but if i was playing with them, i couldnt keep my hand because I didnt like anything i saw.
some magic cards have bad art/style and it makes it difficult to play with them on that basis. I guess wizards saw this coming, and made the art on the cards more ugly then they should be, so kithkins wouldnt be overplayed. I have uncovered the conspiricy!:o
Well if we're talking purely matters of taste, I am impressed with the art style in Lorwyn. The fact that it turns a lot of people off is enough to make me interested in it. I suppose I'm a contrarian that way.
-E
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Numbers? Figures? How is a community-based halfling race not going to appeal to people? LotR and D&D contain halflings, and they are popular properties (for a number of reasons). I don't see how Kithkin can't appeal to people, and appealing to people outside of the hardcore Magic enthusiasts is a good thing, from their perspective.
I don't think you're understanding the connotation aspects of each word. Holy and Celestial, when used seperately or in relation to an angelic race connotates good, to a degree that Wizards has stressed is not inherent in the color. Holy is going to bring up ideas of good in most people's heads. It's a simple as that. Celestial, a bit, especially if they connect it to angels, which you are doing. Sorry, Holy and Celestial should not be attributes of White's iconic race, because they imply "good" far too much.
Not really. Communities can be the exact opposite of peaceful, ya know, and harmony has been used in ways that do not imply peace. A military unit working in perfect harmony does not suggest peace, and that is what the Kithkin show in their groups.
Give them time, and they might. I don't see how halflings don't garner any sort of respect, or whether respect should fall into this at all. Are goblins respected as a race? If they are, is it because of their cards? If so, then give it time.
And no, they don't. I think White needs to move away from that religious aspect, because it implies too heavily good, regardless of how much bad religion can cause. Community, unity, etc. work perfectly well for White and the Kithkin show that.
No, red works on impulses. Sometimes that results in fun, sometimes it doesn't. A community atmosphere can have fun (Hobbit birthday party from LotR, anyone?) just a different kind from the idiotic, slapstick fun of Red. Each color can have fun, there's no reason it can't. Black's getting a bit of that with the Boggarts.
"Morn, good felllow."
"Fine day, ol' chap."
"You know, it's the strangest thing. I have an appetite for brains."
"Really? I also would fancy some brains."
"Hmm."
"indeed."
"Oh dear, it seems you've lost an arm there, old bean."
"Oh it's alright, it's quite alright."
"Hmm."
"Yes."
"Indeed."
EDIT: The preceding is adapted from a comic at UGMadness.net. Good times.
About Kithkin as White creatures: They work just fine so far. The superstition is a good trait. The fact that the lot of them have this thoughtweft is surely the cause for them all to inherently end up White (or Green) - it's hard not to integrate into community when you can directly empathize with each other.
The thoughtweft is everything about the Kithkin, and it's exactly why they're white. They are coordinated; and they value coordination and harmony. They can't exactly have disharmony - among each other, nothing is really unexpected, all thoughts mesh. Which is to contrast with how they must experience the boggarts, say. Not only are the boggarts annoying, but they don't have the thoughtweft. That would make the kithkin really not like them.
Sorry my thoughts are so disorganized. My right brain is generating all this and the left brain has no say in it (well, except for the part where I actually have to write words. You know, left-lateralization of language processing, eh, what-what? Indeed.)
EDIT2: But yeah, Kithkin are ugly, I'm not disputing that. I mean, when I saw Cenn's Heir on Taste the Magic... I thought it was some non-Magic painting which had been shrunk vertically... because that face is... just, ugly...
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
As for not being white, I'm not sure why people think that so. They look happy and jolly enough. Where else do they belong? Red? Maybe... but they don't have much fiery passion. The only reason they would belong in red would be because they resemble dwarves which are red. But dwarves love mining and kithkin not so much and so they do not belong in red.
Green could also e a fit but I also find this less so. These creatures are more appropriately of the plain. They look nothing like forest creatures. Anyways, green and white share many aspects of flavor... so I wouldn't be surprised if some consider them borderline. It still doesn't make kithkin any less white though.
Insofar as D&D goes, halfings are popular because they're a core race, and I'm sure they're not terribly popular compared to other core races. And when people read the Lord of the Rings, I think they're more apt to think "it'd be really sweet to be an elf" than to think the same thing about being a hobbit. Elves are the iconic race to be taken from both of these systems, and for a good reason.
By that argument, angels shouldn't be white's iconic fatty race. Yet they are, and an immensely popular one at that.
Holiness can imply being morally good all it wants. It should, in a sense. Being righteous and strict to one's own sense of law and morality might be seen as being good, if you happen to agree with that individual. But if you're righteous and strict, you can definitely be a jerk. White is the only color where this is even remotely appropriate.
Non-peaceful communities consistently splinter and become disparate as factions decide that they hate each other for whatever mild differences that they perceive in one another. Just look at Mesopotamia: it's the cradle of civilization, but it probably contains a lot of red and black with what white is there. Anyway, white would prefer people get along, not be schismatic. Sticking to the tradition and not thinking that your new idea is better than what everyone else does is what white stands for.
Anyway, I didn't say that peace = harmony = community. They are slightly different as concepts. But they really all contribute to the same thing, and it's not particularly interesting in and of itself.
First impressions are what make things iconic. You can't "give something time" to be iconic - historically this doesn't work (though it does tend to work for things that we later consider classics, but that's a different issue). The definition of something that is iconic is something that, in a sense, is new when it is introduced and revolutionary in its scope, and becomes so prominent that it remains a vivid source of symbolism long after the core of its significance is lost.
Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that religion is essential to the flavor of white's philosophy. Religion is what makes civilization, it's what contributes to order, community and organization. It gives people a sense of collective purpose, morality and encourages them to uphold what is pious and lawful. You take religion away, and you don't get civilization, and you don't get white.
Religions always think that what their doctrines teach is good. You could feasibly take the situation of, say, the conflict of Christianity and Islam. Societies with a foundation in these religions are very white. Both sides think they're good; holy. White definitely thinks its holy, and values this (as does blue think its smart, red free, black satisfied and green nondistruptive). Having the connotation of white thinking of itself as good is not the same thing as just saying every conflict ever in magic is between good white and evil black. Konda was very pious in his own way, rigid in his own rules. He surely thought he was morally good, but his actions showed otherwise to the audience. It's white's fanatical convinctions to its ideas of holiness that allow white to be antagonistic in the first place. If Konda was just depraved and selfish, he'd be black. If he was reckless, he'd be red. And so forth.
Denying that white can be associated with religion and limiting it to "communities" strips white of the ability to be realistically evil or villainous. I mean, the most antagonistic quality you could ascribe to the kithkin is that... they're somewhat fierce. Not the bad guys.
So no, using symbols of moral goodness in white is not the problem. It's building stories where those symbols are always genuine and accurate to the nature of the actual plot. Likewise with the symbols used in black.
LOL
Why do you think red works on impulses? The motivation for red to be led by emotion is the freedom to experience as much fun as possible. Strictly speaking crying when you're sad is not "fun," but red's perspective is that if you don't allow yourself to cry because you're too distant or too rigid consequently means that you don't get to do everything else that is fun, which it doesn't want.
And yet they aren't hated. And I've seen quite a few fangirls squee over the two main Hobbits in LotR, though that may be due to imagined sexual tension between the two and their finding Elijah Wood attractive.
Which works in small doses. Look at each of the races that Wizards has tried for white. Leonin and Aven were not religious. They were militaristic and community based, to a degree. Kistune... were spiritual, I'd say, but that's due to the setting. Would a race of dragonlings be liked? I think it would get old, fast.
And White is not about being Good. It can be, sure, but that should not be at the core of it's philosophy and as such should not be the core of its race. MaRo went over the fact that White =/= Good and Black =/= Evil in his color articles, and it seems to be something they are trying to avoid. You can be law-abiding and be a jerk about it. See every damn cop in every damn town that every kid despises. Religion is not necessary. It can come up in White from time to time, but having it be part of the iconic race would get old after a while. And besides, religion isn't exclusive to White.
You said they were similar and I showed how they can be different, and interesting.
Dude, seriously. If Bob Barker had only hosted for a few years, but been popular, he wouldn't be iconic of The Price is Right. He stuck with it for a very, very long time, and became iconic because of it. The people who say Alpha likely did not think "Merfolk! It's the iconic race of Blue!" It has to grow on people, and become well associated.
I see nothing about new or revolutionary. A better definition of iconic is something that well-symbolizes something else, that will immediately bring forth the other idea the moment someone sees the iconic item. People see Goblins now and think Red because they have been such an integral part of Red for so long.
And above, religion is not restricted to White. And no, religion is not what makes civilization. That's garbage, and you know it. It can be a factor, but it is not the sole factor. That's as bad as stating that the moment you take religion away, people will be immoral.
Again, religion is not restricted to White, and it's silly to think so. Kithkin could be evil, certainly. If they figure that you being gone is "for the greater good," they turn towards our conception of evil. Communities can be evil, do not think otherwise.
Uh, no. The motivation for Red to be free to follow it's emotions is just that: being free and running with impulses. Anger doesn't always lead to fun, you know, and anger seems to be a prime emotion in Red. "Fun" is not it's goal. Freedom to do what it wants is.
Or in MaRo's words. Living life to the fullest does not mean having fun every moment of your life, it means experiencing everything life has to offer. I don't think you understand the colors as well as you think you do.
I mean, the original evaded big creatures. That's what hobbits do.
That made me laugh, because I got on this long thinking rant about what it would be like if they made human races into different tribes...
Ninja of the Deep Hours
3u
creature - Asian Ninja
Aladdin
2rr
creature - Arab Rogue
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir
2uuu
legendary creature - African-American Wizard
Yes, to those rule Nazis out there, adding the hyphen makes African-American one single type (as opposed to African American, which is two creature types).
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier & Magus of the Sheep from Scuttlemutt Productions for the cool signature and avatar.
-Playing-
I got Soul, but I'm not a Soldier...oh wait [Mono White Soldiers]
I'm not saying that the kithkin will or should be hated, any more than I would say I hate vedalken. They just aren't interesting, and not something I'd really want to see from white consistently.
There's lots of options of spiritual and semi-spiritual races in mythology that can fit into white. That doesn't mean they're "mini-angels," but they're based on some of the same archetypes that angels are.
White is the color that is concerned with morality (as per MaRo's article). Morality is about doing what's good. Other colors have different motivations for what they do (and in the case of black, it's entirely amoral, though I'd argue all the other four colors are amoral). Everyone has different ideas about how to do or be good, but often we see that the systems they use tend to lead to extremism, and evil actions (even if in the name of that system of morality). So, in a sense, white is about being good, in its own interpretation. White is striving to be good, but that does not mean white equates with being good. I think you misinterpreted my statement about being law-abiding: I was stating that it makes you, in a sense, more likely to be a certain kind of jerk (the self-righteous, fascist jerk, specifically).
I think one could easily say (as I have already said) that a race like the kithkin "gets old after awhile" in the same way. Elves are, largely, all the same, philosophically speaking. They're pro-nature and don't tend to have a lot of depth to them in Magic settings. Goblins are consistently, well, annoying. Both of these things are iconic in the game. As a consequence, a lot of people are sick and tired of them. But their popularity prevails.
And no, religion isn't exclusive to white. Similarly, green aligned people can learn from things even though this is largely associated with blue. The point being, religion is more strongly associated with white than any other color. Religious symbols show up in white more often than in other colors, and it creates a rich flavor.
Though, my idea of an iconic white race isn't strictly along a religious theme. Specifically, I was trying to describe a sort of spiritual race of people that are perhaps joined together by the service of some deity and have powers from that deity consequently that they consider holy. An example might be the "highmen" of the Age of Wonders game, or any number of the "good-aligned" races of D&D (note that the definition of good in D&D includes basically everything that a white character might be, primarily altruism, but I wouldn't say D&D is a good source to learn about ethics and real life good and evil). So while there'd be a lot of clerics, I think there would be a lot of wizards too, and not so many soldiers, which I think contributes to the identity of white as a bland, anthropocentric analogue.
Ok? I didn't say they were the same, though. I never claimed they didn't have differences. Furthermore, your assertion was that somehow religion couldn't be interesting, but community could. The community theme can be interesting in the short term, but it's a limited source of flavor. Your premise fails here.
Oh, I think people in alpha did seem to think that merfolk are iconically blue, in a sense. But you misinterpret me. People don't have to think things are iconic right when they're created (that's absurd). The process of becoming iconic is the result of something being immensely popular at first, and time passing. If something isn't popular at first, it can't later become iconic, except perhaps to some cult followings.
In order for something to "well-symbolize" something else, that something else has to, at some point, have been a major aspect of the culture of its origin, hence my definition. You're just reiterating what I said above, which you've been doing repeatedly so far.
Religion may not be restricted to white, but I think it would be odd to see a green angel or a blue holy symbol.
Anyway, I didn't say religion was the only factor in the creation of civilization. There are obviously many other factors there (agriculture, centralized government, increased economic and cultural capacities, writing, etc). But religion plays a key role in stabilizing primitive civilizations by offering support to the source of laws and structure - the centralized government. This is why monarchies and the cults of gods have been intimately related in every primitive culture across the globe. At that stage, without religion, things fall apart. People become nomadic, split up, aren't a unified civilization anymore.
You are correct that after a certain point, religion isn't vital anymore (I think). People don't suddenly become immoral if they live in an atheistic society, because cultural conventions eventually are strong enough to stand on their own. But in every early civilization that did not fall apart, religion was absolutely essential. We don't know of primitive civilizations that didn't have religious beliefs because they didn't last long enough to make any kind of mark on history. So religion plays a very necessary role in getting things established. And, because of its nature in the promotion of tradition, it usually sticks with a culture (sometimes it becomes assimilated, like with shinto within buddhism, and other times its destroyed, such as many pagan religions in the face of proselytizing Christianity or Islam, but these things generally come hand in hand with foreign influences, which more or less changes the baseline for that culture).
Well, clearly in the occasional scenario a community can internalize negative factors such as prejudices and superstitions that arrive at evil results.
But can you honestly see Lorwyn were the kithkin are exclusively the villains of the story? I don't think it would make for a very engaging plot.
This is circular. You're stating that red wants to be free because red wants to be free.
Red needs to value freedom for some reason. White values order and morality because it leads to peace, it's end goal. Blue values knowledge because it leads to solutions to life's problems and improvement of the world. Black values itself because it feels good. Green values following instinct because it feels that doing so doesn't interfere with the cycle of nature.
The classic complaint of being too rigid with one's rules or being too dispassionate about everything is that, though you avoid some of the negative consequences that you experience with being free and impulsive with your emotions, you also miss out on the good aspects. Red embraces the consequences of being reckless with it's anger because, in principle, it's better to sometimes make a mess than to never be able to have fun.
I don't think you understand my argument.
I never stated that red was trying to have fun all the time (or that white always wants to be serious; these are unrealistic of real people). I said that it wanted to have fun. Which is true. MaRo's statement above matches perfectly with what I have said about red. Having fun is the benefit, what red gets out of doing what it does. There's also other consequences. Red doesn't care about the fact that there are consequences because it values having the freedom to create them more. Because no freedom means no fun. That doesn't mean always having fun, but the loss on fun is probably the main reason why anyone would adopt a red philosophy.
Nobody in the history of earth ever read LotR and thought "Man, out of Gandalf, Strider, Legolas and Frodo, I'd pick the poweless, skilless short hairy one for sure".
Which is funny, because (as far as the movie goes) the powerless, skilless short hairy one is the most important one of them all. And also probably most closely relatable to the people reading or watching LotR.
This is a deliberate plot device by Tolkien. He takes a character archetype of someone generally associated with insignificance and makes them the most monumentally important person in the world because Frodo was able to resist the evil of the One Ring when every other character could not. Or, mostly, anyway.
While doing so, he surrounds Frodo with figures of ancient elves, wise wizards and powerful warriors to highlight the fact that he doesn't really seem that remarkable by comparison.
But I don't think the hobbit archetype is really that iconic unless you're a diehard LotR fan. The traits of the hobbit, by itself, aren't intriguing unless you're using them for this very literary device that Tolkien used (namely, humility).
I think it's kind of sad that every High Fantasy has to be a carbon copy of Middle-Earth, using the same themes and archetypes, when they don't really help to accomplish the needs of the plot the way hobbits fit into Middle-Earth. I don't think Lorwyn really has any kind of them of the virtue of humility, so it feels pretty empty.
Mono Black Aggro
:symb::symg: ElfRack:symg::symb:
:symu::symb: Colenfor's Fae :symb::symu:
:symb::symu::symw: Momentary Mannequin :symw::symu::symb:
Thou hath been owned
-Blooregard Q Kazoo
And I completely disagree, and I'm sure others agree, just as others agree with you.
Goblins are very annoying. The Boggarts have added a bit of variety, thankfully, as has the "evil" elves. I think Lorwyn has helped give some more depth to the races it uses, compared to how they were previously used.
Because of previous associations, which I think they are pushing away from. Religion can fit into damn well near every color, just as well, depending on what religion to base it on.
No, it doesn't, really. Both ideas have their shortcomings, primarily in how society views each. Religion, if it strays too far from the cultural norm, begins to be too foreign and not possible to relate to. Same can go for community, but with the variation of communities within, say, the US, I'd say there's more scope there that won't alienate people than there is with religion.
I disagree. Something can grow on people, given enough time, and especially in this sort of game. *shrugs*
And things aren't restricted to angels. Forest spirits can fill the role of angels for Green, and a Blue religious symbol isn't that strange, really.
Saying "Take away religion and everything falls apart" puts a lot of emphasis on it, which isn't necessary, I'd say. Agriculture, more than anything, allows people to settle into groups and begin creating civilization, as the primary food source has moved from one that moves to one that does not. Early religions were likely fertility cults, not anything that dictated morality, but mostly focused on making sure the crops grow and food is plenty. Religion helps solidify power, in the examples you provided.
Anyway, this is getting way off topic.
Even those supporting good qualities of a community or society can lead to "evil." Not to draw too much politics into this, but the Iraq War is a prime example of this.
And no, I couldn't, because that's not how the setting was created. Could the Kithkin have had a similar mindset as the elves? Yes. That's a community going evil, that whole elf society bit.
Because it's honestly that simple. Red wants to be free to do what it wants, whether that be out of anger or for fun. Red values freedom because it is freedom. Not for some desire for fun or what have you, but to experience whatever it wants to experience.
It's not about fun. Red embraces being reckless with it's anger because to chain that anger up and deny it would be to deny the experiences of life, and that's not living life to the fullest. Experiencing life =/= having fun. Crying, being in pain, feeling disappointment, these things aren't fun, but Red would experience them because that would be living life to it's fullest.
Yes, Red has fun, but that's not the primary motivator. Experiencing life is. He even says so in the beginning of the article.
And again, this is getting off topic. I'll stop here.
Butcher of Words.
Made by Spiderboy4
IMO, blue is the least religious color. It's obvious why white's into religion and we can see why black likes to play with it. Green and Red are religious to a degree as well, but they're practices aren't enforced on everyone nor are they so strict on it, so g/r are probably more spiritual than religious.
Blue though, loves to experiment; it loves to test. Religious/spiritual thought are on the whole untestable. This is why the science is associated to blue. (Although strangely enough, w/b, blue's allies, are the religious colors according to rosewater).
@ Hyphen Cannon: Horns are probably a huge factor in the 'looking pretty' department since the protagonist is hunted in the novel for losing his horns.
Quoted for truthery.
Red holds as dearest, its own subjective experience of life. It wants to feel life. Red's dislike of White is obvious and recant all the time. But the reason it doesn't like Blue is very instructive on this point:
Red can't be told what to do by Blue, because nothing Blue could say matters to Red. Red wants to enjoy life, feel life. It wants to express itself; it wants to experience everything. There's no logic to that, no 'decisions' to pore over. There's no going out to "make yourself better" with more "knowledge". Red knows everything it needs to know - "follow my heart." Under Red's view, it can't go wrong with that, because following its heart is, by definition, what will bring Red the feeling of contentment with the life it lives.
So, yes, it's not about having fun every moment of your life. It's about taking something that matters to you, and devoting your life to enriching *that* with all your will. For Blue, it is potential, but for Red, it is subjective experience.
*~*~*~
Kithkin are here to stay. Every color needed a good, stable, non-human sentient race to revisit in the core and hereafter. White didn't have much. Blue just got Vedalken, so we're good there. Black... still kind of out of that (they shouldn't go nuts with Black gobbos, IMO). Red could do with something other than Goblins... something more ... organic, too (discounting flamekin, is the move here). Green...?
... hmm, I must be forgetting something. Fellows?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Perhaps.
But I think some things we call religion are really just philosophies with some moral paradigms. Religion strictly in the sense of participating in a community to improve one's moral character and (I guess) be rewarded in the afterlife has a good chunk of white in it.
Part of the reason that I'm attracted to white as a color is because of its religious themes, the kind of creatures it uses, the emphasis on light and righteousness. If white devolves into communes of simple people with no spiritual symbolism at all, I think I'd lose interest pretty quick.
But, with white, we're talking about mostly rural, pastoral communities of peaceable people that mind their business, are superstitious, and probably pretty religious even if they aren't divine agents.
That's ok as a one-time deal, but... a recurring theme?
Well, let's take the example of the homarid. Some people are really into them, and might even call them iconic. Perhaps if there was a slew of them reprinted in future sets it would become so glued to the game that people wouldn't like to see it without them. But is that really necessary? Do homarids in every block fill a niche that had previously been empty and couldn't have been used for something that had more popular appeal at first? I think you have to consider marketing a little bit.
Kithkin are characterized by being mostly unremarkable as a fantasy race. They're plain. Thoughtweft is interesting, but that could be used for any white race potentially. Why does white have to settle for plain?
But, forest spirits are quite a bit different of an archetype than the angel, a divine messager and bastion of law and purity. If not angels, perhaps daevas, or any kind of servant of the gods. That kind of thing... really wouldn't fit into green. Spiritual forces associated with green are connected with nature. In a sense green is even a little bit materialistic.
And blue... what use does blue have for holy symbols? Blue strikes me as rather atheistic, or at least indifferent to the idea of the divine. After all, Blue is all about becoming what it wants to be, making of things what it wants to make of them, not leaving things up to divine providence.
Well obviously a city without agriculture cannot sustain its food supply and starves. White would want to avoid that, but then, so would blue, black, red and green. Yet only white is terribly concerned with people sticking together. A red civilization is almost certainly going to split up into multiple factions, for example. Religion is a necessary element for the beginning stages of a civilization that white wants to create, or rather, that white becomes a product of.
The very early stages of religion were concerned with fertility, but this contains a moral element: in order to ensure that the gods would make the lands fertile and support the people, they had to follow certain customs, make sacrifices, etc. Morality formed very early as a natural complement to religion.
Well, yes, but it's probably not going to come up in a magic story plotline.
If you are trying to experience things, and you do, then you are stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain, and thus, "have fun". This is, in a sense, what motivates anyone to do anything, and is why people with depression often find a lack of energy to even try to do things they like.
And, to red, to deny one experience of life on a certain principle means that you must deny all of them on that principle.
I don't think it's correct to say that red goes out of its way to cry, be in pain, or be disappointed. No one does. But, if red is sad, it cries. And so forth. It doesn't try to avoid expressing these things, like white or blue might. Red chooses to be guided by its emotions to make decisions, and impulsively, we're going to tend to try to pursue actions that we perceive we might enjoy. When it doesn't go as planned, then red cries. Just as impulses are the source of red's decisions in how to act, they are also involved in how to react.
Well, in risk of seeming blasphemous, I don't think Mark Rosewater is infallible (for example, his description of "fascism" is kind of inaccurate).
Anyway, if you look at what I originally said (that red wanted to have fun as part of expressing its impulses, and white wanted to be serious as part of showing its own discipline) I wasn't saying that it was a primary motivator. But now, I think it is, actually. If you get into a situation that makes you feel sad, you experience sadness whether you cry or not. And you're not going to seek out situations that make you sad, or angry, or other negative emotions. But if you're attitude is the more free you are, the more you get to do what you want, then you might think that there's no point in holding back on emotions in general. Fun is the "primary" part of it because it becomes first in the development of the philosophy (in the same way you might initially develop a deontological perspective on morality when you become upset that someone lied you you). The complete form of the philosophy is to just do what you emotions tell you to do. But no human-minded person would start at the completed form without going through the initial motivators. Some experience has to restrict your having of fun or doing what you want to do in order for you to value the freedom to do it. It's just the nature of life.
Waitwaitwait, why would Teferi be African-American instead of just plain African? There's no America in Magic. Granted, none of those other countries you mentioned either, but those are for purely ethnic descriptions. And furthermore, separating ethnicities would be nonsensical. The only differences between humans of Middle-Eastern, Asian, and African descent is in pigment and slight variation in bone structure. You're not gonna need a separate Engineered Plague for each.
As far as Kithkin go, yeah, they're kind of goofy in Lorwyn, but if you haven't noticed, the whole set is kind of goofy. Boggarts anyone? If they do decide to keep kithkin as the hallmark white race, they'll probably go with a more Amrou-esque version in the future. As far as the idea of kithin as white's marquee race, I like them. Every fantasy needs its midgets, and being midgets requires cooperation and teamwork (which white likes), and dwarves are lame anyways. But meh, white is lame anyways, so who cares what it gets.
*runs off to play green and red*
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
Anything could be used by any race, potentially. And I wouldn't characterize the Kithkin as "plain" whatever that implies. Are humans plain? Elves? Giants? Aven? What makes them plain or not-plain? Personally I find Kithkin more interesting than any of those races mentioned with the exception of humans, but obviously humans are out of the picture for Lorwyn block.
Because Island, Forest, Swamp, and Mountain were already taken. Maybe they could invest in some of the snow-covered variety to spice things up a little.
Alright. What stands out about them and makes them interesting to you?
-Elves: In Magic? Yes, quite plain. In most other fantasy settings? Again, yes. Originally? They had their place.
-Giants: Not really an iconic race. Giants usually show up in small numbers, and that's ok. Every once in awhile it makes sense for a setting to have supersized characters.
-Aven: Kind of interesting, I think, but they didn't follow through with them.
I find them interesting because they have many aspects that can be made into interesting cards or abilities. They are farmers and warriors. They have rudimentary government and organized villages. They utilize both magic and engineering. They ride both beasts and machines into battle. The Thoughtweft is an interesting idea that helps give them some extra flavour too. Mechanically I like the variations on the "protection from converted mana cost" that seem to be a signature ability of theirs.
I just look at the different aspects of their society that are pictured on cards like Kinsbaile Balloonist, Galepowder Mage, Springjack Knight, Plover Knights, Burrenton Forge Tender, Mistmeadow Skulk, Cenn's Heir, Thoughtweft Trio, etc. and I see a society that has enough variety to keep me interested for more than 5 minutes.
As for the artwork, I agree some of it is downright fugly (Kithkin Harbinger, Goldmeadow Harrier). But some of it I find very appealing as well (Kithkin Daggerdare, Goldmeadow Stalwart).
I chose those races because one is the iconic green race, one is probably what people would have considered the most iconic white race pre-Kithkin, and one has been showing up all over the place since alpha. I find all three of them to be much less developed and less interesting than Kithkin. And they are featured on far more cards and have had far more time to establish themselves in the game. At least with Lorwyn they actually gave Elves something else to do other than love nature and protect the forest. The addition of black to Elves greatly enhances their depth, and interestingly enough moves them closer to Tolkien-style Elves.
Seriously, though, I'm just exploring other games right now and Magic has taken a back seat. If I do nothing else with this game, I'd love to finish my Magic: Legends project at some point.
Guildmaster Jarad
They are adaquet in mechanics, small efficient agressive beaters that used to be cats or soldiers or clerics or antelopes. yes, antelopes know how to beatdown.
Does wizards want to make a new iconic white race? yes. did they impress anyone with the art style in lorwyn? NO! these kithkins look so weird that i really dont want to play with them. lol, on paper they look good, but if i was playing with them, i couldnt keep my hand because I didnt like anything i saw.
some magic cards have bad art/style and it makes it difficult to play with them on that basis. I guess wizards saw this coming, and made the art on the cards more ugly then they should be, so kithkins wouldnt be overplayed. I have uncovered the conspiricy!:o
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
Well if we're talking purely matters of taste, I am impressed with the art style in Lorwyn. The fact that it turns a lot of people off is enough to make me interested in it. I suppose I'm a contrarian that way.
-E