Imprison

Enchantment — Aura

On the Topic of Depictions of Racism in Magic.

Enchant creature

Whenever a player plays an activated ability of enchanted creature with Tap in its cost that isn't a mana ability, you may pay {1}. If you do, counter that ability. If you don't, sacrifice Imprison.

Whenever enchanted creature attacks or blocks, you may pay {1}. If you do, tap the creature and remove it from combat. Creatures it blocked that no other creatures blocked this combat become unblocked. If you don't pay {1}, sacrifice Imprison.

Legality

Format	Legality
Archenemy	Legal
Casual	Legal
Commander: Rule 0	Legal
Custom	Legal
Duel Commander	Legal
Highlander	Legal
Leviathan	Legal
Limited	Legal
Oathbreaker	Legal
Oldschool 93/94	Legal
Planechase	Legal
Quest Magic	Legal
Tiny Leaders	Legal
Vanguard	Legal

Discussion (11)

Sproet on Legacy Banlist

1 year ago

You forgot Crusade, Jihad, Invoke Prejudice, Pradesh Gypsies, Cleanse, Stone-Throwing Devils, and Imprison

Icbrgr on Censorship

2 years ago

Times are just different now... even in the history of magic cards/art there are now forbidden Crusade, Invoke Prejudice, Jihad, Cleanse, Stone-Throwing Devils, Imprison ect ect...

This hasnt happened to me personally no....but iv'e seen wild threads in the blind eternities that went on that had less to do with magic/the game than Oof_Magic's original/copied posts.

If someone where to make a post saying that they were upset with the author of the war of the sparks decision to undo Nissa and Chandras relationship/sexual preferences that would be allowed to let the conversation develop..... I cant say the same would be allowed/tolerated if it went the other direction. If someone were to make a post/thread about Niko Aris and their opinions surrounding the planswalkers lore and creation I could also only assume the conversation would be allowed to go one way as well.

DemonDragonJ on Will we see less cards …

3 years ago

enpc, Dromar39, I agree with those statements, and I am almost afraid to address a sensitive subject, but should that not have meant that cards such as Imprison , Cleanse , and Crusade should not have been deemed taboo, since they are in no way related to real world events?

derekross305 on None

3 years ago

I can understand the Invoke Prejudice one. I guess you could make the case for it representing medieval executioners but I'm not going to get into that. If Cleanse is going to be considered racist than Virtue's Ruin should be too. Personally though, I think that's a slippery slope and kind of ridiculous to say Black/White creatures in the game are like Black/White people in real life. This game has always had the 5 colors and they are not about race. Crusade and Jihad seem more focused on religion than race and the artwork on those aren't bad at all. I don't see how Predash Gypsies is racist and I personally have never heard the word Gypsy used as a racial slur. Are gypsies even a race? Even if they were, that card says nothing bad about them. As far as Imprison and Stone-Throwing Devils go, it seems like they're just creating racism where it isn't. You'd basically have to be racist yourself to see some of these as racist. I don't see why we have to have politics/race seep into every aspect of our lives anyway. Just let us play our card games.

Deadpoo111 on None

3 years ago

Wow, this was a really interesting move by WotC I honestly didn't see it coming, but I think I'm glad it did.

To start, I don't think this banning affects gameplay at all, the last time I saw any of these cards in a commander deck or other deck was never. Sure Crusade may be okay for white decks, but there are other, better, cards.

Onto each card:

1. Invoke Prejudice: I think everyone can agree that this card has no place in our game. When I learned it existed like 2 years ago, I was surprised it was ever printed (which is also what Wizard's said in their article)

2. Cleanse: a lot of people think this shouldn't be banned. The tone seems like exactly what Wizards said in the article.

3. Stone-Throwing Devils: I honestly didn't know this card existed. I can certainly see why it's banned now, again, I don't think this banning actually hurts anyone.

4. Pradesh Gypsies: The term is a slur, I'm almost uncomfortable putting the card name here. This card shouldn't have been created in the first place. I saw an argument from someone that said they felt this excluded people who identified as (and these are their words) "a gypsie" and that they felt the banning of this card took away their ability to relate to the game. The only question is if the person knew this card existed. It's really freakin' obscure.

5. Jihad: very straight forward card. I agree with the decision to ban it. Also, I've never seen ANYONE play this card in my 4+ years of constant commander and no I never will sooo

6. Imprison: Again, very surprised this card existed. I'll make a point about old magic cards soon but like...damn, WotC was messed up in the early days. The art is a clear depiction of what others have said above, I don't think there should be any argument about this cards banning.

7. Crusade: This might be the most debated card aside from cleanse. While I've never played against or seen it, I do know people that run this card in mono white decks. The card legitimately references the actual crusades, especially with the OG art and while a lot of people use: "it's time for another crusade" ironically, the historical event is a terrifying glimpse of how bad humanity actually is, I agree with this banning, though it may affect a few players within the community (EDH speaking.

For one, I don't disagree with the bannings, Wizards essentially removing cards that depict or reference real-world (yes it's important to distinguish between real world and reality)intolerance is a good thing as it will promote a healthier game. Overall, the bans don't affect anyone other than Crusade for which there is a functional reprint.

I've got two last points to make. The first is that these cards are from the beginning of Magic's history. These old sets simply weren't regulated like they are today. The company didn't put a ton of care into it's public image like they do today.

Finally, I do think this is Wizard's hopping on a corporate bandwagon. While I do agree these cards should've been banned a long time ago (Tbh they shouldn't have been made at all), I think Wizards could've banned them at any time, but now that people are taking a closer look into companies in light of the recent events in america, Wizards felt some pressure to erase past mistakes (which is still a good thing). At least those cards are finally out of here, they didn't have a good use anyway.

Boza on None

3 years ago

The only one I can get behind is Invoke Prejudice - the artist is a white supremacist and the depiction of KKK members was never OK.

The rest are weird:

• Pradesh Gypsies - how is it banned, but Jhoira of the Ghitu and all the other cards depictiping gypsies are fine?
• Cleanse is extremely far-fetched. How is Absolute Grace not implying black people lack grace and white people are shining with it? Does Righteous War fuel racial conflict because it gives protection from the opposite race?
• Stone-Throwing Devils - is it the reference to the bible or the reference to real world practises? Or is it neither of those at the same time?
• crusade and jihad - while having references to the real world, these are far from connected to what the real events do. There are 21 cards with "crusade" or "crusader" in their name, none of them banned. Heck Tivadar's Crusade literally has a goblin being tortured on a cross.
• Imprison - is this the way to honor the work of the late Christopher Rush, who made the Black Lotus and is singlehandedly responsible for much of Magic's popularity thanks to his super famous card? Even if it is OK to do, why is Oubliette not banned, despite being an extremely similar card in terms of theme. Or Wheel of Torture which directly conflates real-world game shows with torture for a laugh (it is a hilarious flavor text).

Most importantly, why now? Why after 3 weeks of protests and not 2 weeks? Why not in 2016 when similar protests were occurring? Or at any point prior to that? These have been part of the game for 20 years. How were these cards printed, when all of these were contentious topics even back then?

The bandwagon is strong with this announcement.

golgarigirl on None

3 years ago

dingusdingo

I agree, it was a quick, attention-grabbing, lazy option for WOTC to take with these cards. But do we really need more? Honestly curious if there are constructive ideas besides the ban for those who find it that distasteful.

Option 1: Functional Reprints:

Would anyone play a functional reprint of Imprison? It would probably color-shifted into white or maybe blue, at which point the card pretty much exists already. What does a functional reprint of Invoke Prejudice even look like? Ice Cave, Erayo's Essence, and Decree of Silence are as close as I can see them printing. They already functionally reprinted Crusade as Honor of the Pure, and they don't print such wide-ranging color hosers as Jihad and Cleanse any more. I could see Jihad is a color-specific Riders of Gavony-type card. The two creatures don't even bear mentioning.

Option 2: Attach a Disclaimer:

This works fine in digital, but it's the paper copies that are the challenge. Someone playing the game isn't going to take time out to Gatherer search a card to see that WOTC doesn't approve. Putting an errata online doesn't do much for cards on a table, especially when it's the art or the card name that's the problem. The flavor is the problem. Not all parts of the history of the game need to be kept for posterity like they're a winning pro-tour play or something as ubiquitous or historic as Lightning Bolt or Black Lotus. Maybe some can be sacrificed for the Greater Good.

Option 3 The Ban-Hammer:

Not a great look, but at least (and most important for the company) it costs minimal resources.

One further comment...perhaps 28 decks out of the whole database is a statistically insignificant number, BUT we're comparing decks that run Cleanse for racist connotations to the ones that don't. At that point we're asking 'how much racism is too much?' Are we setting the racism tolerance at 15% or less? 10%? Is only 10% racist better than 26% racist?

kpres on None

3 years ago

I don't understand why Imprison is on the list. Is it because the character in the art has dark skin? Would it be better if the character in the art had white skin, or would that be racist, too? I guess the only way to fix that would be to make it a lizard man or something.