Talk:Khans of Tarkir block

Plot flaws in the Tarkir block

Hello.

I just recently got interested in the Tarkir story on MtGStory.com. I accidentally read on the last chapter (before reading the rest) that Sarkhan Vol changed the past. As far as I am concerned, this is a plot flaw. Wikipedia relates that this type of time paradox is called "grandfather paradox" and it violates the self-consistency of the story. In other words, "changing the past" is proven to be a plot flaw.

All of this is overthinking, I know, but if you overthink, too, you have to choose:

• either the authors of the Tarkir story took it very lightly;
• or the events in the Khans of Tarkir set are non-canon.

I wait for your comments. ---Abacos (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this may be “overthinking” things, but paradox-free time travel is not necessarily impossible according to recent research. There is an interesting NPR article from 2020 that discusses this in case you are interested: Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Theoretically Possible, Researchers Say. This raises other questions of course, but (pardon the pun) only time will tell. The bottom line is that the story (regardless of flaws) is indeed canon. Sarkhan Vol traveled through time to save Ugin which resulted in a new timeline in which Ugin’s descendants now reign.Nivmizzetreborn (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice article. I am surprised that someone published a scientific paper about this. I could have written the same paper myself 10 years ago (I am a professor of physics), but I always considered "time travel debate" just as a hobby.
I guess you read the article title only. According to what is written in the article you linked, the authors of the Tarkir storyline could have done paradox-free time travel by never writing anything included in the timeline on the right (labeled "False"). Therefore the storyline of the "Khans of Tarkir" set *is* false, indeed. The "True" timeline on the left is self-consistent and paradox-free on its own.
Therefore, my position still stands, unchallenged AND supported by the article you posted. ---Abacos (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In a literary point of view the story works out because the viewpoint character is not one who knows or cares about multiversal (the other explanation) or temporal mechanics, so (IIRC) no character makes any attempt to properly define the nature of Ugin's time travel, as opposed to someone like Teferi or Saheeli who certainly would question it. This means that there is technically no "scientific incorrectness" as it has not attempted to be scientific about it.
I personally found the dynamic of a single plane in the multiverse undergoing a millennium of change being more curious, as it implies that no planeswalker ever visited Tarkir and formed memories of the dragonless plane in the meantime. Sorin barely counts because he probably disregarded anything on with the plane not related to Ugin being incapacitated. If you wanted to find more issues, the fact that seven (five khans, two background) individual characters still exist under only slightly different contexts is improbable to the extreme, and also has no bearing on the Ugin half of the story.
All in all, the fact that Ugin is so powerful — him being merely "only mostly dead" still leads to dragonstorms on a plane that he doesn't even hail from is an impressive show of power — means that realistic physics gives way to his extremely powerful contingency plan and magical ability. "A Wizard Did It" is not a particularly satisfying trope, but time travel literature is rarely written for the purpose of having accurate temporal mechanics. 218.103.142.150 23:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In short, you are saying that nobody, not even the characters, cares about the consistency of the Tarkir story, then you add two more weaknesses of the plot. Are we converging towards an agreement that the Tarkir storyline is bad? ---Abacos (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that "physics" (or "scientific accuracy") is completely different from "internal consistency" (or "logic"). Magic is there to break all the rules of science, but it still should be submitted to internal consistency. The nature of my objection to the Tarkir plot is about internal consistency, not about science. ---Abacos (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What I attempted to establish above was that by not elaborating on the logic of time travel the writer attempts to sidestep the issue of precedent. To form a rebuttal, "consistent" with what? What established rules within the Magic universe does it break? One may argue that the temporal studies of Urza block may be Magic's basis for time travel, but I believe they never actively used it to change anything. My other counterpoint here is that some writers do not consider paradoxes in their work to be an issue and you may find that grating. You'll have to ask Clarke-Wilkes for the why. There's a large collection of time travel fiction that don't even bother to try to stick to any particular mechanical consistency - whether or not that makes them all bad is up to the reader.
Why I would consider the Tarkir storyline sub-par is that it hits a bunch of mandated story beats (Ugin returns for BfZ, Sarkhan does a time travel for Act 2, allied-color Dragonlords make up the third set/act) but I'm uncertain on any personal development Sarkhan undergoes, which would go a long way to excusing the logical misses. Such is the problem with franchise creative writing.
The last section of the story summary may shed some light to it. From what you've written I'd bet it won't though. 218.103.142.150 22:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that I liked the section you pointed me to ("The Consequences"). I felt compelled to make a new "timeline diagram".

• "Khans of Tarkir never happened: the setting of Khans of Tarkir has been erased from history, along with all of the stories that took place there. There was no Zurgo Helmsmasher, no Dragon Throne of Tarkir, no Surrak Dragonclaw. Sorin's visit to Tarkir never happened, and Ugin was never dead." I agree with all of the above. I hope those specific chapters will soon be erased from MtGStory.com, too. A small note: it never happened, not because of Sarkhan's actions, but simply because Fate (re)Forged and Dragons of Tarkir openly state that it never did.
• Dragons of Tarkir is the true and final timeline. This is exactly what I wrote in my diagram above.

A little below, another paragraph gave me pause, though:

• "Sarkhan Vol was never born. He appeared one day on whatever world he first planeswalked to, remembering a full life history that never happened. [...] One could say that he appeared out of nowhere, remembering a world that never existed." I agree with this portion only. The rest of the paragraph is nonsense. It is official that the "alternate" timeline never happened. It is written right there!!! Could the authors please be consistent within the same page? Stating that Sarkhan comes from that never-happening timeline would mean that something did happen along it, therefore the never-happening timeline did happen. This is a blatant contradiction.

If it was up to me, I would say that Sarkhan Vol "appeared one day on whatever world he first planeswalked to" (Tarkir?) with artificial memories created by Ugin. I started reading from the chapter A New Tarkir of Old (skipping the starting paragraph in italic) with this mindset, and so far it does make sense. This version would solve the two weaknesses you highlighted above (no planeswalker visited in 12 centuries and the same seven characters exist under slightly different context) simply because Khans of Tarkir only exists inside Sarkhan Vol's mind. ---Abacos (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Two bottom lines:

• You asked: "Consistent" with what? Consistent with he rules of logic (that is not science, but both science and storytelling should obey it).
• You wrote: Some writers do not consider paradoxes in their work to be an issue and you may find that grating. Of course I do find it grating, and I am not alone, but I decided to write it down. I find it even more grating since the first time I found a time travel story that was perfectly consistent ("Elnard - The 7th Saga", 1992. You can read my analysis here, on strategywiki.org, if interested). ---Abacos (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As interesting as this conversation is, policy on this wiki is that talk pages are discussion on article improvements, not in place of a forum, so this will my last contribution on the matter. I made the rebuttal too pithy, and what I was trying to say was that the consistency, as I understand it, "does not contradict surrounding statements", but because the Magic story has not covered time travel since the Revisionist era, the Khans story would not have statements on time travel it needs to follow. I do find your "only in Sarkhan's memory" concept a good resolution for some amount of the issues, though some might be because the audience gets to remember it and wiping that doesn't do much for a story. 218.103.142.150 10:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Exposing and solving plot flaws (time paradoxes included) is a discussion on article improvements. I am happy that you like the "only in Sarkhan's memory" logical consequence of the official information. Someday it should be implemented in the Fandom pages. --Abacos (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)