IJace is so bisexual. Venser had a crush on Joirha so I'm guessing he's not. Shame. But he's dead so
If anything he's asexual. He's shown absolutely no romantic interest in any character whatsoever. Stylistically the word you are looking for is either "emo" or "scene" depending on which particular card you are looking at.
But Magic mostly tells its story in little snippets of artwork and text that depict a magical war between powerful sorcerers. I don't think love/relationships/sex should be categorically off the table, but this isn't exactly the most natural environment for them to make prominent appearances.
Given that the game is also supported by relatively much more deep media (in terms of storytelling) such as comics, novels and online short stories, MtG certainly has avenues it can use and has used to explore love, sex and relationships. For heterosexual pairings as well as, potentially, same-sex pairings. If we were ever to get an LGBT planeswalker or other major character, I would expect their orientation to only really come up in one of those settings and not on the cards themselves. And that's quite alright, it would still support Magic as a brand pursuing LGBT representation within its products.
Think of all the forced romantic subplots in all the action and adventure movies you've seen. Most of them, the conventional wisdom goes, are only there to prove that the main character isn't gay. But would it really be any better, narratively speaking, if there was a forced romantic subplot that was only there to prove the main character is gay? No; the problem with these subplots is that they're poorly developed and irrelevant to the larger story.
Incidentally, I'd be ecstatic with that. In an ideal world, LGBT people would be represented in all reasonable genres to varying degrees of quality. Right now, I'm concerned with good representation because when the quantity of representatives is relatively low, you want the ones to do get to be quality characters. But if being represented was no longer an issue, cliched romance subplots in action flicks would be fine by me. I mean, the orientation of the pairing doesn't make a narrative better or worse in forced settings like that, though all things being equal I'd rather see a same-sex pairing than otherwise. If only for the novelty at this point.
Wizards of the coast is a company out to make a profit, not a charity out to push social agendas. Don't criticize them for not going far enough to push a social agenda you agree with. Support them for pushing it at all.
No? I don't have an agenda, I just called this the tentative half step it is. Also, as a consumer, I'm the person they're trying to profit from...so....you know... don't tell me what to do?
If you want to promote homosexual acceptance, you have an agenda as far as bLatch's post was concerned. And you're not the only person they're selling to, I think you're being a bit ridiculous by assuming he was trying to tell you how to act.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Given that the game is also supported by relatively much more deep media (in terms of storytelling) such as comics, novels and online short stories, MtG certainly has avenues it can use and has used to explore love, sex and relationships.
I view those as having much the same irrelevance as the Star Wars Expanded Universe. The bulk of the audience is casual, and is only ever going to see the core product: the cards.
I mean, the orientation of the pairing doesn't make a narrative better or worse in forced settings like that...
Of course not. My point was that the subplot makes the narrative worse regardless of the orientation, because romance doesn't really have a natural fit in the genre. The creators don't have the narrative space to develop the relationship in the middle of a movie that has completely different themes, so it comes across as shallow and artificial.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I view those as having much the same irrelevance as the Star Wars Expanded Universe. The bulk of the audience is casual, and is only ever going to see the core product: the cards.
I don't view that as irrelevant. When much of the storyline of the game is conveyed through those means, and LGBT representation is more likely to be found in the actual storyline than on the cards (which I view as entirely acceptable given that LGBT representation requires a bit more space to properly depict than, say, racial minorities and/or women - space that the cards themselves by and large don't allow for), comics, novels and mothership short stories all contribute to the overall brand. Those media may not have the relevance of the cards themselves in terms of visibility to players, but I think when we're talking about representation, they do a great amount of contributing and that's a good thing. Though not the core of the game, they are still sanctioned and influenced by the core players in WotC so they aren't that far removed from the core of the brand unlike the Star Wars Expanded Universe. If LGBT characters are represented in novels and comics, we can be sure it's because WotC and Creative endorsed it.
Think of all the forced romantic subplots in all the action and adventure movies you've seen. Most of them, the conventional wisdom goes, are only there to prove that the main character isn't gay. But would it really be any better, narratively speaking, if there was a forced romantic subplot that was only there to prove the main character is gay? No; the problem with these subplots is that they're poorly developed and irrelevant to the larger story.
This could be said about romantic subplots in general. Most of them feel tacked-on, a way to get your girlfriend to see an action movie.
Of course, the real problem is, that's the only way to make a character gay.
I should add that I don't think Guardians of Meletis is forced. I think it handled the genre issue quite well, by setting up a dramatic contrast between war and love.
And it also speaks of revisionist history. I can't help but think of Final Fantasy Tactics, which basically makes this its whole point.
Revisionist history has a long, well, history in fantasy, largely because most fantasy has traditionally been set in a time when most of the population was illiterate.
What makes GOM work is that they're not "just" lovers, but work on all these levels. It's entirely likely that their factions went to war later and decided these champions were bitter enemies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Wizards of the coast is a company out to make a profit, not a charity out to push social agendas. Don't criticize them for not going far enough to push a social agenda you agree with. Support them for pushing it at all.
No? I don't have an agenda, I just called this the tentative half step it is. Also, as a consumer, I'm the person they're trying to profit from...so....you know... don't tell me what to do?
If you want to promote homosexual acceptance, you have an agenda as far as bLatch's post was concerned. And you're not the only person they're selling to, I think you're being a bit ridiculous by assuming he was trying to tell you how to act.
Is maintaining the idea that people of the same sex have relationships with each other really promoting homosexuality? No. It is simply acknowledging it as a basic human reality, not promoting it. It reminds me of the myth (not saying you are saying this) back in the 90's that homosexual groups were roaming around trying to convert people (as if that is possible). Saying that something that really exists, really exists is not promotion of it- it would be like saying that showing that milking cows exist in a world is promoting the ingestion of diary.
I mean, the orientation of the pairing doesn't make a narrative better or worse in forced settings like that...
Of course not. My point was that the subplot makes the narrative worse regardless of the orientation, because romance doesn't really have a natural fit in the genre. The creators don't have the narrative space to develop the relationship in the middle of a movie that has completely different themes, so it comes across as shallow and artificial.
Oh, as an amature writer who has taken several screen writing courses I heartily disagree. You have to show motivation of your characters no matter how simple your plot is, and what is more elemental to the human condition than love and lust? You have to scale it to the plot, and a good action movie should have a plot that is either plausible or allows enough suspension of disbelief, so the romance or lust element should be equally elemental, but when done well it works.
A few examples of good action films with a good relationship: Gone in 60 Seconds (remake): The plot of this film could not be simpler- guy used to steal cars, little brother wants to be like big brother and steals cars, little brother gets in trouble with bad guy while stealing cards, big brother has to save him by stealing cars. Almost too simplistic, but IMO eternally entertaining. The relationship that deepens the main character as much as it really needs to in this simple plot is made up of some lusty glances, hints of a history, and one saucy make out scene (while stealing a car). Just right.
The Transporter: The plot is a little less simple but still simple, man drives cars well and has rules, man breaks rules while working for bad guy due to humanity, man finds more humanity, man has to drive in order to defeat bad guy. Brutally simple so it can handle only the most elemental of relationships and does this plausibly. Could have EASILY been a man in that trunk and the relationship could have proceeded in the same way.
The Replacement Killers: This plot involves some politcal machinations of a specific highly ordered criminal organization, so the plot is slightly more complex still. I won't type it out, but it is a story (like the others coincidentally) of a bad guy trying to regain his humanity. This story has a slightly more involved romantic sub-plot to fit the slightly more involved plot, but the key is that the balance is just right. Another good example is Romeo must Die, which takes Romeo and Juliet and makes it a great action movie. The love plot is pushed into a sub-plot to make room for the action and the plot is simplified, but the key is the balance is right.
All of these would have worked equally well as homosexual relationships regardless if it was likely at the time these movies were made.
As I was typing these out it occurred to me that there is a good reason to have heterosexual relationships in action movies, which is that I am not sure there would be any female speaking roles in any of the movies if there weren't. This, however, speaks way more to sexism in film, and in particular action movies, than it is a real argument against relationships in action movies.
EDIT: LOL, apparently 1998-2002 was a good period of action movies for me.
Is maintaining the idea that people of the same sex have relationships with each other really promoting homosexuality? No. It is simply acknowledging it as a basic human reality, not promoting it. It reminds me of the myth (not saying you are saying this) back in the 90's that homosexual groups were roaming around trying to convert people (as if that is possible). Saying that something that really exists, really exists is not promotion of it- it would be like saying that showing that milking cows exist in a world is promoting the ingestion of diary.
If cows aren't relevant to your story, you don't mention them. Adding them is generally seen as superfluous and most good writers would tell you to cut the cows.
That being said, I have no issue with this card. Like others have been saying, it doesn't feel forced at all. In fact, it feels very Greek to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Oh, as an amature writer who has taken several screen writing courses I heartily disagree. You have to show motivation of your characters no matter how simple your plot is, and what is more elemental to the human condition than love and lust? You have to scale it to the plot, and a good action movie should have a plot that is either plausible or allows enough suspension of disbelief, so the romance or lust element should be equally elemental, but when done well it works.
Never said it couldn't be done well. I could name some favorites of my own. I was just pointing out that it usually isn't done well, and there are natural reasons for that. Basically, the "get the guy/girl" motivation is usually floating off independent of the "beat the bad guy" motivation and doing nothing for the story as a whole.
Ah, but resonance. It's like how we always picture Aztecs sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl, though most of their sacrifices were men, and Quetzalcoatl wasn't really into the whole human sacrifice thing. It just happens "virgin sacrifice" is more sensational (but if she's slept with one guy, it's not sensational anymore), and Quetzalcoatl is the only Aztec god most people can name.
Maro's always going on and on about resonance wrt: top-down sets. And I tend to agree; something with no resonance would be like if I started speaking to you in a language you didn't understand a word of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Guess that shows you how much about ancient Greece I know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Didn't Jace have a fling with Liliana?
Given that the game is also supported by relatively much more deep media (in terms of storytelling) such as comics, novels and online short stories, MtG certainly has avenues it can use and has used to explore love, sex and relationships. For heterosexual pairings as well as, potentially, same-sex pairings. If we were ever to get an LGBT planeswalker or other major character, I would expect their orientation to only really come up in one of those settings and not on the cards themselves. And that's quite alright, it would still support Magic as a brand pursuing LGBT representation within its products.
Incidentally, I'd be ecstatic with that. In an ideal world, LGBT people would be represented in all reasonable genres to varying degrees of quality. Right now, I'm concerned with good representation because when the quantity of representatives is relatively low, you want the ones to do get to be quality characters. But if being represented was no longer an issue, cliched romance subplots in action flicks would be fine by me. I mean, the orientation of the pairing doesn't make a narrative better or worse in forced settings like that, though all things being equal I'd rather see a same-sex pairing than otherwise. If only for the novelty at this point.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
If you want to promote homosexual acceptance, you have an agenda as far as bLatch's post was concerned. And you're not the only person they're selling to, I think you're being a bit ridiculous by assuming he was trying to tell you how to act.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Of course not. My point was that the subplot makes the narrative worse regardless of the orientation, because romance doesn't really have a natural fit in the genre. The creators don't have the narrative space to develop the relationship in the middle of a movie that has completely different themes, so it comes across as shallow and artificial.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't view that as irrelevant. When much of the storyline of the game is conveyed through those means, and LGBT representation is more likely to be found in the actual storyline than on the cards (which I view as entirely acceptable given that LGBT representation requires a bit more space to properly depict than, say, racial minorities and/or women - space that the cards themselves by and large don't allow for), comics, novels and mothership short stories all contribute to the overall brand. Those media may not have the relevance of the cards themselves in terms of visibility to players, but I think when we're talking about representation, they do a great amount of contributing and that's a good thing. Though not the core of the game, they are still sanctioned and influenced by the core players in WotC so they aren't that far removed from the core of the brand unlike the Star Wars Expanded Universe. If LGBT characters are represented in novels and comics, we can be sure it's because WotC and Creative endorsed it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
This could be said about romantic subplots in general. Most of them feel tacked-on, a way to get your girlfriend to see an action movie.
Of course, the real problem is, that's the only way to make a character gay.
And it also speaks of revisionist history. I can't help but think of Final Fantasy Tactics, which basically makes this its whole point.
Revisionist history has a long, well, history in fantasy, largely because most fantasy has traditionally been set in a time when most of the population was illiterate.
What makes GOM work is that they're not "just" lovers, but work on all these levels. It's entirely likely that their factions went to war later and decided these champions were bitter enemies.
On phasing:
Oh, as an amature writer who has taken several screen writing courses I heartily disagree. You have to show motivation of your characters no matter how simple your plot is, and what is more elemental to the human condition than love and lust? You have to scale it to the plot, and a good action movie should have a plot that is either plausible or allows enough suspension of disbelief, so the romance or lust element should be equally elemental, but when done well it works.
A few examples of good action films with a good relationship:
Gone in 60 Seconds (remake): The plot of this film could not be simpler- guy used to steal cars, little brother wants to be like big brother and steals cars, little brother gets in trouble with bad guy while stealing cards, big brother has to save him by stealing cars. Almost too simplistic, but IMO eternally entertaining. The relationship that deepens the main character as much as it really needs to in this simple plot is made up of some lusty glances, hints of a history, and one saucy make out scene (while stealing a car). Just right.
The Transporter: The plot is a little less simple but still simple, man drives cars well and has rules, man breaks rules while working for bad guy due to humanity, man finds more humanity, man has to drive in order to defeat bad guy. Brutally simple so it can handle only the most elemental of relationships and does this plausibly. Could have EASILY been a man in that trunk and the relationship could have proceeded in the same way.
The Replacement Killers: This plot involves some politcal machinations of a specific highly ordered criminal organization, so the plot is slightly more complex still. I won't type it out, but it is a story (like the others coincidentally) of a bad guy trying to regain his humanity. This story has a slightly more involved romantic sub-plot to fit the slightly more involved plot, but the key is that the balance is just right. Another good example is Romeo must Die, which takes Romeo and Juliet and makes it a great action movie. The love plot is pushed into a sub-plot to make room for the action and the plot is simplified, but the key is the balance is right.
All of these would have worked equally well as homosexual relationships regardless if it was likely at the time these movies were made.
As I was typing these out it occurred to me that there is a good reason to have heterosexual relationships in action movies, which is that I am not sure there would be any female speaking roles in any of the movies if there weren't. This, however, speaks way more to sexism in film, and in particular action movies, than it is a real argument against relationships in action movies.
EDIT: LOL, apparently 1998-2002 was a good period of action movies for me.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I believe that was his point.
No, I don't think it is. Sexual orientation is not relevant to a genre with no interest in romance.
Such a great game
If cows aren't relevant to your story, you don't mention them. Adding them is generally seen as superfluous and most good writers would tell you to cut the cows.
That being said, I have no issue with this card. Like others have been saying, it doesn't feel forced at all. In fact, it feels very Greek to me.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Like I said, it kind of isn't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ah, but resonance. It's like how we always picture Aztecs sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl, though most of their sacrifices were men, and Quetzalcoatl wasn't really into the whole human sacrifice thing. It just happens "virgin sacrifice" is more sensational (but if she's slept with one guy, it's not sensational anymore), and Quetzalcoatl is the only Aztec god most people can name.
Maro's always going on and on about resonance wrt: top-down sets. And I tend to agree; something with no resonance would be like if I started speaking to you in a language you didn't understand a word of.
On phasing:
Guess that shows you how much about ancient Greece I know.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited