I believe what Ryu was originally saying is that movement implies location. For any plane to move, all planes must have locations, relative to it and to each other.
EDIT: Also, I remember Planeswalker repeatedly bringing up distances to planes like Serra's Realm, Phyrexia, and Equilor. So yes, planes have locations, so certain planes must be easier to reach from some planes than from others. Therefore, it is understandable that everything we're seeing in the story happens in one small corner of the multiverse, and things tend to interconnect. The planes involved are near each other.
Where are you guys getting this "The Sun Empire is nonviolent" idea from? All the last fiction said was that Huatli and her warriors managed to triumph in their last battle without any lives lost on either side. Engagements like this have happened in real life.
Just because they won a bloodless victory doesn't mean they don't fight bloody battles as well. They're an expansionist empire, after all, who command dinosaurs with names like "Carnage Tyrant."
Agreed. All but the most bloodthirsty regimes generally recognize a bloodless victory as a noteworthy accomplishment by a warrior. "Not the most bloodthirsty" is a rather backhanded compliment. If anything, the second story set up Huatli as a hero, not the Sun Empire generally.
Am I the only one who's a bit miffed by the mention of "panther" in the latest story? Like, nothing at all indicates that the continent's megafauna is anything but dinosaurs. And where would a panther even fit into with theropod apex predators?
It struck me as odd, too... but I imagine neither the writers nor most of their audience spend much time thinking about how ecological systems actually work. It's Magic, after all...
Very intriguing... could very well see Modern play as a replacement to Ghost Quarter in some decks, although others might do better without the mana payment. Pay for the effect, or go down a land? Interesting deck design choice.
There is nothing villainous about cultures finding the most effective means of satisfying their needs over the course of centuries of adaptation. Humans are exceptionally brilliant creatures that will find solutions to their problems. Sometimes, the best available solution is beautiful, sometimes, it's horrifying, but that doesn't make it any less ingenious.
It is pretty intriguing when that need transforms into superstition or simple tradition to the point where the practice is carried out when there's no longer any need for it. That can also have beautiful or horrific consequences.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a broader point, so I'll simply agree with your statement. It is fascinating how different cultures' traditions develop.
The broader point is we're good at adapting to the situation, but as far as ancient civilizations go, we seem to have a bad track record with realizing when we can move away from said adaptation.
Very true, but that apparent irrationality can, in fact, be quite rational. When you lack the tools to form cause-and-effect explanations, it is foolish to abandon what worked for your ancestors. Why waste resources looking for new solutions (which may not exist) when solutions have already been found? This is what makes modern ideas like the scientific method and free market entrepreneurial capitalism so powerful - they allow us to expend relatively small amounts of resources to search for new ideas in a systematic manner.
There is nothing villainous about cultures finding the most effective means of satisfying their needs over the course of centuries of adaptation. Humans are exceptionally brilliant creatures that will find solutions to their problems. Sometimes, the best available solution is beautiful, sometimes, it's horrifying, but that doesn't make it any less ingenious.
It is pretty intriguing when that need transforms into superstition or simple tradition to the point where the practice is carried out when there's no longer any need for it. That can also have beautiful or horrific consequences.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a broader point, so I'll simply agree with your statement. It is fascinating how different cultures' traditions develop.
Waging war to gain captives to sacrifice and eat isnt evil?
Is it better to let your child die of malnutrition?
I'm not saying the conquistadors or the Aztecs were blameless saints or depraved villains. They were nothing more or less than you or me - people doing the best they could with the knowledge and resources they had.
I read a bit that Ixalan plane has an unusual property that, at worst, forbids anyone from planeswalking out of it.
If this really is the case, doesn't that pretty much means the Guildpact will NEVER return to Ravnica, ever? Which would mean then that Ravnica is pretty going to fall to Bolas' control now that he has an agent who, as far as I know, is all to eager to fill in the gap. Or worse?
I have a sneaking suspicion Jace is going to find a way out of Ixalan...
The Aztecs' conquest of others in the context of precolombian history has little bearing on the current oppression of that tribe (or any of the other tribes, for that matter) today.
I'm sorry, it really bothers me when people refer to the Triple Alliance, or the Mayan city-states or Tawantinsuyu, for that matter, as "tribes." These were most emphatically not tribal societies, any more than Persia, Greece, or Han-dynasty China. These were fully-developed states, and calling them tribes simply because they arose in the Americas is more than a little problematic.
The spanish conquered the Aztecs and Mayans for a no more villainous cause then the Aztecs and Mayans conquered their neighbors.
Arguably less so because they werent sacrificing them and eating them.
There is nothing villainous about cultures finding the most effective means of satisfying their needs over the course of centuries of adaptation. Humans are exceptionally brilliant creatures that will find solutions to their problems. Sometimes, the best available solution is beautiful, sometimes, it's horrifying, but that doesn't make it any less ingenious.
If you want to go off in the anthropological weeds, based on certain theories of the origins of human sacrifice in Mesoamerican societies, Aztecs with tame dinos would probably never develop human sacrifice.
After the late Pleistocene extinctions, the Americas had few large, domesticable animals, and llamas and their relatives were confined to South America. Small, band- and tribe-level societies could obtain needed protein by hunting, but civilizations (I use the word "civilization" in the strict sense, to refer to cultures with large, permanent settlements, i.e., cities) had no reliable source of protein. Sacrifices of livestock in Eurasian civilizations were almost always occasions to feast - on the animals slaughtered in the ritual. I'd prefer not to spell out where I'm going with this, but with domesticated dinosaurs, the Empire of the Sun may simply have no reason to develop the institution of human sacrifice.
burning_paladin, im sorry are you really trying to play off the people who committed genocide, instituted slavery, and practised brutal economic exploitation for centuries as the victims in this conflict?
History is seldom as black-and-white as people like to imagine. Any time different peoples come into conflict, you can find heroes and villains on both sides. It is also important to bear in mind that the most powerful weapon in the conquistadors' arsenal was one they didn't know they had, and, having met humans from a wide variety of backgrounds, I suspect that most of the Spaniards would have been horrified at what the microbes they carried could do to the people they met. Cortez and his comrades were initially heroes to many natives who they helped to overthrow the oppressive Triple Alliance that dominated much of northern Mexico. Then introduced European diseases began to ravage native populations, and the Spanish found that they were dealing with peoples that had lost the ability to govern themselves. Wave after wave of disease kept disrupting these societies. How could a good person not step in, take over, to try to help these people whose social fabric had been torn apart, and continued to be torn apart? How could a selfish person not take advantage of the situation? We are all motivated by a complex web of selfish and altruistic impulses, and this was an unparalleled moment in human history where the most benign of intentions could lead to great evil, and opportunities for self-enrichment were unbounded. It would take many extraordinary people on the Spanish side to prevent what happened, but like every human society, the vast majority of people available to them were quite ordinary. That is, in my mind, the greatest tragedy of contact - it was inevitable.
The other point is that the conquistadores, even when originally spanish, they ended aso being part of Latin american heritage... Im latin american and I lived in Spain for a while. Most Spanish peoplle don't even know much of how the Conquista was. So i think the right move was to base the adaptation from the input from latin america. (It´s like you were going to ask to the british about how would you portray the pilgrims that came to north america when adapting it. They descendants, by blood and cultural heritage, are not there anymore)
I'm not sure that's an entirely valid point. You're comparing settlers whose explicit intention was to leave the mother country with agents of the state, even if those agents' descendants are no longer affiliated with their nation of origin. A more valid comparison would be to ask the Brits how they feel about portrayals of British fighters in the French and Indian War (the American theater of the Seven Years' War), although I'm not aware of any particularly strong feelings on that front.
Yeah, I can't really argue against that. But I'd rather wait for the magic stories before assuming that it's all black and white.
The Legion of Dusk is all black and white... *ducks*
From what I've seen so far, all the factions seem morally gray to me, although, so far at least, I get the impression that the River Heralds may have the lightest shade.
I actually think mashing up Mesoamerican influences and feathered dinosaurs is a pretty brilliant way to do an offbeat, unique fantasy setting. Going beyond the simplistic "the Jurassic/Cretaceous world was tropical, and so is Mesoamerica, so the background looks the same," Mesoamerican cultures have some aspects - a distinct love for feathers in their art, and Quetzalcoatl (a FEATHERED SERPENT) - that helps the concept feel organic, at least imho.
For the sake of accuracy, THEROPODS were most likely feathered, the Paleo community is still out for deliberation on other families, still, looks great! I just hope Vraska gets a great card as well.
Speaking as a fairly informed amateur, the presence of pycnofibers on pterosaurs, the sister-group of dinosaurs, seems to me suggestive (though not quite dispositive) of the presence of proto-feathers in the last common ancestor of all dinosaurs. Structures resembling primitive feathers have also been found in several ornithischians, further backing up this hypothesis. More than likely, feathers were reduced in larger animals without much need for them, much as we see in humans, elephants, rhinos, hippos, and cetaceans today, but I find it likely that fur-like feathers were quite common among dinosaurs.
Agree with all these points. Gideon definitely had to go last, and Liliana had to go early. I would add, though, that Jace had to go before Liliana. He was both Lili's main connection to the rest of the GW, and the most rational member, therefore most likely to see things Lili's way and attempt to convince the others to see things her way. Purely on this basis, the order had to be Jace, Liliana, Chandra or Nissa, the third GW lady, Gideon. Finally, Chandra would be at her most emotional, and therefore most predictable, immediately after Lili's "betrayal," so the sensible moment for Bolas to deal with her would be immediately after the necromancer's departure. So the most sensible order for Bolas to take out our heroes would be Jace, Liliana, Chandra, Nissa, Gideon, exactly as in the story. They really did think it out.
EDIT: Also, I remember Planeswalker repeatedly bringing up distances to planes like Serra's Realm, Phyrexia, and Equilor. So yes, planes have locations, so certain planes must be easier to reach from some planes than from others. Therefore, it is understandable that everything we're seeing in the story happens in one small corner of the multiverse, and things tend to interconnect. The planes involved are near each other.
Agreed. All but the most bloodthirsty regimes generally recognize a bloodless victory as a noteworthy accomplishment by a warrior. "Not the most bloodthirsty" is a rather backhanded compliment. If anything, the second story set up Huatli as a hero, not the Sun Empire generally.
It struck me as odd, too... but I imagine neither the writers nor most of their audience spend much time thinking about how ecological systems actually work. It's Magic, after all...
Very true, but that apparent irrationality can, in fact, be quite rational. When you lack the tools to form cause-and-effect explanations, it is foolish to abandon what worked for your ancestors. Why waste resources looking for new solutions (which may not exist) when solutions have already been found? This is what makes modern ideas like the scientific method and free market entrepreneurial capitalism so powerful - they allow us to expend relatively small amounts of resources to search for new ideas in a systematic manner.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a broader point, so I'll simply agree with your statement. It is fascinating how different cultures' traditions develop.
Is it better to let your child die of malnutrition?
I'm not saying the conquistadors or the Aztecs were blameless saints or depraved villains. They were nothing more or less than you or me - people doing the best they could with the knowledge and resources they had.
I have a sneaking suspicion Jace is going to find a way out of Ixalan...
I'm sorry, it really bothers me when people refer to the Triple Alliance, or the Mayan city-states or Tawantinsuyu, for that matter, as "tribes." These were most emphatically not tribal societies, any more than Persia, Greece, or Han-dynasty China. These were fully-developed states, and calling them tribes simply because they arose in the Americas is more than a little problematic.
EDIT:
There is nothing villainous about cultures finding the most effective means of satisfying their needs over the course of centuries of adaptation. Humans are exceptionally brilliant creatures that will find solutions to their problems. Sometimes, the best available solution is beautiful, sometimes, it's horrifying, but that doesn't make it any less ingenious.
After the late Pleistocene extinctions, the Americas had few large, domesticable animals, and llamas and their relatives were confined to South America. Small, band- and tribe-level societies could obtain needed protein by hunting, but civilizations (I use the word "civilization" in the strict sense, to refer to cultures with large, permanent settlements, i.e., cities) had no reliable source of protein. Sacrifices of livestock in Eurasian civilizations were almost always occasions to feast - on the animals slaughtered in the ritual. I'd prefer not to spell out where I'm going with this, but with domesticated dinosaurs, the Empire of the Sun may simply have no reason to develop the institution of human sacrifice.
History is seldom as black-and-white as people like to imagine. Any time different peoples come into conflict, you can find heroes and villains on both sides. It is also important to bear in mind that the most powerful weapon in the conquistadors' arsenal was one they didn't know they had, and, having met humans from a wide variety of backgrounds, I suspect that most of the Spaniards would have been horrified at what the microbes they carried could do to the people they met. Cortez and his comrades were initially heroes to many natives who they helped to overthrow the oppressive Triple Alliance that dominated much of northern Mexico. Then introduced European diseases began to ravage native populations, and the Spanish found that they were dealing with peoples that had lost the ability to govern themselves. Wave after wave of disease kept disrupting these societies. How could a good person not step in, take over, to try to help these people whose social fabric had been torn apart, and continued to be torn apart? How could a selfish person not take advantage of the situation? We are all motivated by a complex web of selfish and altruistic impulses, and this was an unparalleled moment in human history where the most benign of intentions could lead to great evil, and opportunities for self-enrichment were unbounded. It would take many extraordinary people on the Spanish side to prevent what happened, but like every human society, the vast majority of people available to them were quite ordinary. That is, in my mind, the greatest tragedy of contact - it was inevitable.
I'm not sure that's an entirely valid point. You're comparing settlers whose explicit intention was to leave the mother country with agents of the state, even if those agents' descendants are no longer affiliated with their nation of origin. A more valid comparison would be to ask the Brits how they feel about portrayals of British fighters in the French and Indian War (the American theater of the Seven Years' War), although I'm not aware of any particularly strong feelings on that front.
The Legion of Dusk is all black and white... *ducks*
From what I've seen so far, all the factions seem morally gray to me, although, so far at least, I get the impression that the River Heralds may have the lightest shade.
Speaking as a fairly informed amateur, the presence of pycnofibers on pterosaurs, the sister-group of dinosaurs, seems to me suggestive (though not quite dispositive) of the presence of proto-feathers in the last common ancestor of all dinosaurs. Structures resembling primitive feathers have also been found in several ornithischians, further backing up this hypothesis. More than likely, feathers were reduced in larger animals without much need for them, much as we see in humans, elephants, rhinos, hippos, and cetaceans today, but I find it likely that fur-like feathers were quite common among dinosaurs.