Untitled
Social forum
Posted on Aug. 22, 2021, 12:58 a.m. by Oof_Magic
This is a reaction to another thread I recently engaged in. I will not be making mention of the thread nor the commenters on that thread. Those commenters are certainly welcome to engage in this thread without fear of being labeled as trolls. This is all my own opinion and is to be understood as subjective.
The thread I’m responding to was putting the question to the community as to which groups they would like to see get more representation in Magic. On level one, I concede that the post did not explicitly state characteristic groups but from the conversation generated, it definitely went that way quickly. It would seem a shallow exercise to relate to a character based on race, gender, sexuality, or other physical or mental attributes. I completely understand that characters need vessels to channel their motivations, ideations, decisions, and machinations. Just as I don’t find the vehicle I drive across country to be a meaningful aspect of that journey, so too are these attributes to their characters. There is a lot of discussion about identity based on characteristics. But I think it’s healthier to see identity as a culmination of a character’s choices and the journey that their motivations take them on. That’s what gives their motivations meaning. Gideon being a resolute character doesn’t mean anything if we don’t see how that manifests in the story. Bolas’s ambition is meaningless if it doesn’t drive his decision making.
It is well known to novelists, screenplay writers, and story makers that conflict is the heartbeat of a functional story. Ravnica and Tarkir are good examples of motivations shared by different characteristic groups versus differing motivations shared by similar characteristic groups. On Ravnica, guilds are made up of a multitude of species but each conforms to a discrete ideology, methodology, motivation, and machination. Members of each guild may differ in their appearance but can relate to one another by their shared guild ideology. If there was only one guild on Ravnica, you wouldn’t have much of a story. It is where these guilds (and by extension their ideologies) run into one another that a conflict is seeded that blossoms into a functional story. Tarkir is a plane with five clans, each predominantly made up of humans. Despite their shared characteristics, it is their differing ideologies that generates the conflict that gives us a story. Clearly ideology and motivations are paramount in how these characters relate to one another. We can see that characters are defined by what they do, not what they are. I would extend that into saying that a character is what they choose to do. Their identity is a culmination of choices. Relating to a character based on their choices and motivations is how we understand, connect, and relate to them. Nissa is great as her ideology of a love of nature drives her to despair after the eldrazi effectively ruin Zendikar. Nahiri is great as her despair over lost Zendikar drives her to seek vengeance on Sorin. Bolas is a fantastic example of how a shared motivation can bring together characters of differing walks of life, species, and planes. The threat of Emrakul is what ultimately pushes Liliana to align with the Gatewatch. Motivations and they manifest is what truly rules over a story.
So why do we find ourselves in a an era where some seek shallow characteristics to relate to these characters when the characters themselves don’t see things that way? Have we moved so far away from looking to the traits of heroes and villains as defined by motivations and decisions? Do we care about being heroes or villains? Do we even make that distinction? Or have we peeled those titles away from motivation to be reapplied to characteristics? This is all very intriguing to me and hopefully we can get back to what’s meaningful in storytelling. Heroes and villains and the mix of motivations that creates conflict to produce a story. Why do we need to invade fantasy with reality on a crusade to make stories more relatable and meaningful? If we made Liliana a man from the beginning but that character was given all the motivations that Liliana has, it would do virtually nothing to change the story. While some might say this shows it to be harmless to have different earthly groups represented, this argument proves the equivocation of harmless with meaningless. Vice is a crutch that ultimately doesn’t solve problems. Invading fantasy with reality just for the sake of representation is a vice that is equally is as hollow. Let’s keep motivation and conflict paramount as that’s what makes Magic so magical.
Let me know what your thoughts are. Do you want more reality in Magic? Do you want Magic to be fantastical? Do you relate more to a character’s characteristics or their motivations? Does Magic have too many humans? Hit it below.
Caerwyn says... #2
You already have had this very same thread locked twice prior, both for the same reason. The reasons are the same here as they were previously.
August 22, 2021 1:31 a.m.