| Forums: War Room → On Ji as a Firebender based off of "Firebending Student" (Extended Art) Magic TCG | 
|
| This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was: |
|---|
|
The Magic card titled "Firebending Student" will not be considered to be On Ji until there is confirmation. |
| Please do not edit this discussion. |
Background --> https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:On_Ji
Hello! I wanted to create this discussion on the basis of certain administrators inviting more conversation. I also want to explain my reasoning. The topic is whether or not On Ji should now be considered a Firebender based on the new extended artwork from "Firebending Student". In my opinion, this Magic TCG Card is not enough to label On Ji as a Firebender.This is despite the girl in the artwork having a visually similar hairstyle and appearance. The main crux of my argument is how her outfit is entirely different from what we see On Ji wearing in the original show.I believe all characters that aren't directly referenced by name in Avatar Magic previews have appeared in their original outfits.
Despite Hide potentially evident, I still feel the context given is not enough to change On Ji into a Firebender without direct confirmation. For all we know this could just be a different girl in the school from an older grade who has a similar hairstyle, this hairstyle could just be a common hairstyle in Fire Nation Academies perhaps. A change in someone fighting style is a massive shift in their character, On Ji in the main show was never presented as a firebender. I feel this has to be handled with due process unless we have direct source to confirm. User:AvatarYangchen2008 18:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello — to add onto this, it isn’t even about firebending for me. They could have easily made On Ji a non-bender fighter and I’d feel the same. The issue is that her entire demeanor and personality seem completely swapped from what was depicted in "The Headband." The show makes it very clear who is a fighter and who isn’t, and On Ji was clearly not one — bending or otherwise. The girl depicted in the artwork isn’t just a firebending fighter, she’s visibly more muscular than Azula and carries a confident, almost Korra-like energy. That’s so far removed from what we know of On Ji that it feels like an entirely new character. I’d fully expect a comic or short novel to explain how we got there with her, because such a major change shouldn’t come from a single Magic: The Gathering card. This isn’t only about whether she’s a firebender — it’s about who On Ji is as a character. Flamesofkaiya 19:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well I don't know if I would go THAT far. We saw On Ji for literally 5 minutes of screen time, I don't think we can assume that those 5 minutes are 100% indicative of her ENTIRE personality. But in my opinion that is irrelevant because... IS that On Ji? The card says Human Monk. Unless we've all agreed on some new language where "Human Monk" = "On Ji", I don't think that is enough to say the card is On Ji, let alone to say that On Ji is a Firebender due to it. Zacatero • (Wall) •
19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well I don't know if I would go THAT far. We saw On Ji for literally 5 minutes of screen time, I don't think we can assume that those 5 minutes are 100% indicative of her ENTIRE personality. But in my opinion that is irrelevant because... IS that On Ji? The card says Human Monk. Unless we've all agreed on some new language where "Human Monk" = "On Ji", I don't think that is enough to say the card is On Ji, let alone to say that On Ji is a Firebender due to it. Zacatero • (Wall) •
- The "monk" designation is just a Magic TCG category. The Southern Air Temple is put into the "shrine" category and the water whip into the "sorcery" category. The categories say nothing about the card's characters.
The card's actual title is "Firebending Student", and Magic often gives named characters descriptive names on cards - General How is dubbed "Earth King's Lieutenant", for example. You also not addressing the presence of Hide in the card's background. DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 19:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "monk" designation is just a Magic TCG category. The Southern Air Temple is put into the "shrine" category and the water whip into the "sorcery" category. The categories say nothing about the card's characters.
- So, I will just list the evidence for the card showcasing On Ji:
- 1. The card's main character and On Ji share the same hairstyle and facial structure.
- 2. Hide appears on the card, at the right. One can easily recognize him by the distinctive chin, large forehead and thin eyebrows.
- 3. The building in the card's background looks like the school building in "The Headband".
- 4. The other characters on the card look like classmates from the headband. The card's boy with the strange split hairstyle appears in several scenes of "The Headband", and the card's small girl with the ponytail looks like the girl to the left in this shot.
- IMO, besides the card's main girl looking like On Ji, the presence of Hide on the card makes this a fairly secure identification. The counter-arguments of AvatarYangchen2008 and Flamesofkaiya appear to mainly focus on the view of "The card's character does not behave like On Ji", but this is a flawed statement as we know very little about On Ji anyway and we have no idea whether the card represents the character at a later time (not to mention that martial training for kids has been repeatedly showcased in extended canon, meaning that characters can clothe or fight in a way not seen outside training). DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 19:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would argue against the notion of "That is Hide because it looks like Hide" when the things about him are superficial at best. The short girl on the left looks like Penga more than anybody from The Headband based on how short she is in the card compared to everybody else yet in The Headband she's the same height as her classmates. But based on Penga's "distinctive features"... that's Penga by that same logic, but I doubt she'd be at a Firebending Academy right? We're sort of straddling this line between "Assuming something that isn't there" vs "Assuming something based on the information we have, due to a proper story not needing to tell us every single detail explicitly". So far I'm not convinced. Zacatero • (Wall) • 19:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- "when the things about him are superficial at best" - Please show me a single character from ATLA who shares Hide's face - his face is extremely distinct among the show's characters.
Also, if it were just one character, I would agree regarding the doubts, but having at least two characters in the artwork look extremely similar to two characters from one episode (aside of art differences)... I mean, at this point we could also argue that "Earth King's Lieutenant" is not actually How because this character only looks like him and has a distinctive background, but it could really be any Earth Kingdom officer. Where do you draw the line either way? Just as one can be too lenient, one can also be too stringent, and to me the "Firebending Student" card provides enough evidence. DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- "when the things about him are superficial at best" - Please show me a single character from ATLA who shares Hide's face - his face is extremely distinct among the show's characters.
- I would argue against the notion of "That is Hide because it looks like Hide" when the things about him are superficial at best. The short girl on the left looks like Penga more than anybody from The Headband based on how short she is in the card compared to everybody else yet in The Headband she's the same height as her classmates. But based on Penga's "distinctive features"... that's Penga by that same logic, but I doubt she'd be at a Firebending Academy right? We're sort of straddling this line between "Assuming something that isn't there" vs "Assuming something based on the information we have, due to a proper story not needing to tell us every single detail explicitly". So far I'm not convinced. Zacatero • (Wall) •
My argument is not character behavior, I clearly put in bold lettering the crux of my main argument which is her outfit. I added one sentence about her personality as portrayed directly in the show. Kaiya is the one who has expanded a lot on that in here and the Talk On Ji page. I do think those points make sense and I respect their opinion. However, that is not what I am trying to discuss. All of that can be seen subjective and not concrete.
- This is what we have concrete based on the girl in the card versus On ji in the source material ATLA's Original Release.
- Counter to Point 1: The card's main character has similar hairstyle and facial structure, it is not exactly the same. The girl appears much older, with longer hair style, and has physical abs. On Ji was never shown that way in the show.
- Counter to Point 2: Hide can appear on the card, but as we know this school has many students and we have no idea if it follows a similar grade system like we got in Light it Up! Sunray Academy
- Counter to Point 3 and 4: Something that looks like a certain thing does not mean it is that. The same thought process could easily be applied to the framework of labeling On Ji a potential firebender. Did this artist use that episode as a inspiration? Most likely but again the outfit is different then what On Ji has on in the main show. This is the biggest thing because in other Avatar Magic Cards the references are indisputable since they have direct parallel outfit examples, but this is absolutely not that. Earth King's Lieutenant" is wearing a exact parallel outfit.
Something this major to make her a firebender needs to have due process. It should be in the trivia section but not to categorize her as that officially. The Wiki supposed to use sources to confirm things directly, we can't assume based on how something looks right. It has to be 100% proven right. User:AvatarYangchen2008 19:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. As much as I do personally recognize... THAT is On Ji. The hair alone tells me that's On Ji. No artist would just randomly stumble into that haircut when designing a student. But as much as I know that... that doesn't change the fact that the WIKI has high standards for inclusion and this is one of those cases where as much as that LOOKS like On Ji, unless it SAYS it's On Ji, we need to consider it objectively. Zacatero • (Wall) • 20:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think we need proof to add information to the wiki in most cases, If you say the How card doesn't say it is him, the sure, we won't say it is him if that's the consensus, although that card doesn't give us any important new information anyway. There are cases in which we can all agree it is a character based on the context and the image itself, but this other card is not that case. There are already many people disagreeing with her being On Ji for multiple reasons, so at the end, it's a discussion case by case. In this one in particular, I don't think we are reaching to a consensus in which we can say she is On Ji. Dcasawang1 • wall 20:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it appears that my assessment of On Ji and Hide looking exactly like the card's characters is not shared by the majority anyway. So this was evidently a much more controversial assessment as I had thought. As AvatarYangchen2008 and Zacatero correctly note, the wiki should deal in facts - and when most people disagree here, the identification of the card is clearly not as factual as I had thought. And that's fair; sorry for causing something of a ruckus over the matter.
Considering that we seemingly trend toward not counting the "Firebending Student" card as a secure appearance of On Ji, should we at least put it into the trivia (this was previously proposed by AvatarYangchen2008)? Or should we completely discard the card's content? DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it appears that my assessment of On Ji and Hide looking exactly like the card's characters is not shared by the majority anyway. So this was evidently a much more controversial assessment as I had thought. As AvatarYangchen2008 and Zacatero correctly note, the wiki should deal in facts - and when most people disagree here, the identification of the card is clearly not as factual as I had thought. And that's fair; sorry for causing something of a ruckus over the matter.
- If the result of this discussion was: we can't say that's On Ji, then I don't see how we could even word such a trivia point, or make it relevant for that matter. Dcasawang1 • wall 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- For example like this: "The Magic TCG card "Firebending Student" showcases a firebending character with similar features as On Ji and a character resembling Hide standing in the background. Whether the card is meant to represent On Ji and other 'The Headband' characters was not clarified by Magic TCG". DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's how imagined it, that's why I wouldn't put it that way, because it's stating that we are speculating something and thus makes the point irrelevant. Dcasawang1 • wall 20:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)