Back in July MaRo revisited his five color articles and I was hoping that in the intervening time what the colors represent would have had a more balanced view. What came out was a portrait of Black only White could love, almost completely devoid of the good attributes of the color - I say almost because there was a passing mention of individuality.
I've been working on an RPG setting that uses color alignment, but a key need of the setting is that any color can be the hero. The way black is portrayed by MaRo it is a painful stretch to consider black the hero, or white a villain for that matter.
So here's the list of things I think MaRo gets wrong about black, and it's relations to the other colors.
Morality
Maro says black is amoral. Wrong. Morals are values - things we care about in the world. To be amoral is to care for nothing. To be Amoral is an Eldrazi, colorless trait, not black.
Here's Black's morals: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Morality therefore is the tension trait of white and black, belonging to neither. All five pairings have a tension trait. White's view of morality puts the community first and the individual is an afterthought. The idea form of government to white is a monarchy enforced by the divine right of kings, a right Jefferson rebukes in the quote above from the Declaration of Independence. To black the idea for of government - where necessary - is a democracy. Black's view of morality puts the individual first, and the community is only thought of in terms of how it serves the individual. White is socialist, Black is capitalist. In US politics White's a Democrat, Black's a Republican.
To white all people are good until corrupted. To black all people are evil until enlightened. Good black sees things from an enlightened self interest prism. Evil black, well, we're all familiar with that since for the last few sets that's the only side of black we ever get to see.
Not Life v. Death -- Birth v. Death
Maro says green represents life. Hardly. Life is the tension trait of black and green, and green's place is birth, not life overall. Calling green the life color is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of death in maintaining life as a whole. Life feeds on life, and that can only occur if something dies. It's sad, but it's necessary. Green and black lie at opposite ends of a chain.
I am mine
Maro says that Black is ultimately about power. This isn't true - black is ultimately about Ego - the self, I. Individuality. Gathering power is usually good for the self, but the difference between good and evil within black is a recognition that too much power can be a bad thing. Think back to Freudian Psychology - Black is Ego, Red & Green are Id, White & Blue are Super Ego. Much of the internal struggle of the individual is balancing base needs, urges and desires with higher thoughts, goals and plans.
Of all the five colors, black is the only one that accepts death is part of life. That doesn't stop some black wizards from trying to delay death through undeath magic, but the reason this magic works the way it does is black magic is fundamentally entropic. Individuals die. Concepts such as knowledge (blue), society (white), nature (green) and freedom (red) do not.
In my own setting's mythology the goddess attached to Black, Sodra, chose to renounce her divinity for a time, become mortal, live a mortal life, age and die, so that she might fully understand her place. The other four powers have no concept of death, wholly do not understand it and why mortals fear it.
No such thing as Utopia
White and Green will give you everything you want - a Utopia - if you can accept having everything that makes you an individual taken away from you. They believe and work together to form a utopia where everyone gets alone and there is no strife. Black rejects utopia as an impossible concept so long as anyone cares for their own interests. There will always be strife. When Jefferson says, "All men are created equal" to black the rider must be added, "before the law." People aren't equal - some are stronger, some smarter, some prettier, but all have a right to be equal before the law. White rejects this - white prefers systems of honor, duty and privilege which include an aristocracy to an outright caste system in extreme cases. Predestination is a green concept, but one white is sympathetic to, and one black and blue thoroughly revile and reject - this notion of fate.
Conclusion
This is getting long so I'll wrap it up. MaRo isn't totally off base with black - he's 95% there. But the small tweaks above wouldn't affect how any cards are made, but would improve the flavor by allowing black to have heroes. That there is no black hero in the Oath of the Gatewatch story is a very telling clue that the creative team at WotC has contented themselves with making sure black is always a villain.
In my own setting I go a couple of steps beyond what can be done in Magic. For starters, I don't use the colors black and white because both those colors are emotionally loaded. Instead I use purple and yellow respectively - which also works because in light yellow is the result of mixing the colors blue and green; in pigment purple is the result of mixing red and blue. There are other minor adjustments to the color philosophies done with the goal of making sure knowing a creature's alignment doesn't indicate good or evil - friend or foe.
And overall it makes for a more fun system to play.
Morals are values - things we care about in the world. To be amoral is to care for nothing.
No, morals are codes of behavior. Believing that cats are better dogs is a value but has nothing to do with morality. Black cares nothing for morality because to have a code of conduct imposed upon it violate Black's ability to do what it wants.
To black the idea for of government - where necessary - is a democracy. Black's view of morality puts the individual first, and the community is only thought of in terms of how it serves the individual.
Black does not care about the individual in general, Black cares about itself. It is Red that cares about other people's freedom. Black would never accept a democracy because that means accepting restrictions on its will. Black only cares about government insofar as it can use them to further its own goals.
Calling green the life color is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of death in maintaining life as a whole.
Death may be a part of life but caring about death doesn't mean Black is a color of life. Green is the color of life because it is, more broadly, the color of growth and wishes for there to be as much (natural) life as possible. If it could prevent death it would and damn the consequences.
would improve the flavor by allowing black to have heroes
Black can and does have heroes, they're just not the pseudo-Objectivist characters you seem to want. Although, yes, a noble capitalist character would be a good example of a Black hero.
A perfect example would be Rider from Fate/Zero (a romanticized version of Alexander the Great). Saber (King Arthur) accuses him of being a tyrant who cares for nothing but his own bottomless greed. Rider agrees with that. It is, he says, the most important part of leadership. "The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh louder and rage harder. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him." Rider is amoral but still clearly a hero. He does good largely because he does not care to do evil. To Rider, and to a truly Black character, that is the only reason to be good and indeed the only true form of goodness. To Black if you wish to do evil then you should do evil, allowing White to impose rules on you is much worse than being an evil person.
There lots of heroic Black traits: To be Black is to strive for greatness above all else. To be Black is to become more than what you are. To be Black is to have no regrets because your choices are yours alone.
But to care about "rights" and "equality before the law", that is not Black. It is Blue/White. Those are the problems of other people. If Black's actions help others so much the better but they are not the goal. Black does not seek to help others because Black does not believe such a thing is possible, others must help themselves. If the slaves will not revolt then fighting to free them is meaningless.
I liked this post. I agree that Planeswalker-wise, Wizards seems to think that Black should be villainous. Other than Sorin, who really didn't need to have White added to him to feel noble, there is no black walker that we can REALLY admire. Sorin could have remained straight-black and remained in character. He feels like he needs to protect HIS world, and the Eldrazi need to be put down, to him, because they threaten ALL worlds. Including his. He doesn't really care about planar conflicts that won't affect his world, I feel.
Conclusion
This is getting long so I'll wrap it up. MaRo isn't totally off base with black - he's 95% there. But the small tweaks above wouldn't affect how any cards are made, but would improve the flavor by allowing black to have heroes. That there is no black hero in the Oath of the Gatewatch story is a very telling clue that the creative team at WotC has contented themselves with making sure black is always a villain.
The BFZ story line did have a black hero in Drana, who's short story was one of the best of the story line's entries. Whether or not she shows up in an Oath entry is to be seen, but her portrayal thus far shows not all black heroes can be done decently.
Morality
Maro says black is amoral. Wrong. Morals are values - things we care about in the world. To be amoral is to care for nothing. To be Amoral is an Eldrazi, colorless trait, not black.
That's not what amorality means. All amorality means is that you don't recognize a set of values as mandatory and that each set of values has the potential to hinder individuals. To Black, reinforcing society that "You should never hurt another", for instance, leads people to self-destructive thinking, such as doing nothing when someone is threatening you with physical violence. This doesn't mean that everyone should just kill and maim each other just because they can, it just means that when your own self is at stake, nothing is out of line. If someone is trying to kill you, kill them first if that's what it takes. If you're hungry, find a way, any way, to get food. "Eating animals is wrong"? Says who? I'm starving here! In short, all amorality means is that when someone tells you an act is right or wrong, you always question "Why?".
Calling green the life color is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of death in maintaining life as a whole.
Death may be a part of life but caring about death doesn't mean Black is a color of life. Green is the color of life because it is, more broadly, the color of growth and wishes for there to be as much (natural) life as possible. If it could prevent death it would and damn the consequences.
That is not true. Green accepts natural death and abhors unnatural prolonging of life. The quarrel between Green and Black with life and death is on what is acceptable death. To green, killing just enough to stay alive is an acceptable death, whether for food or protection. To black, any kill is acceptable as long as it's for your own benefit. A person could survive by going out into the wilds and killing a squirrel several times a week, but it's far more convenient to farm thousands of chickens, slaughter a whole lot, freeze them up, and consume them at your leisure. To green this is overkill and unsustainable to the environment. To black, this is assurance that you never go hungry.
The BFZ story line did have a black hero in Drana, who's short story was one of the best of the story line's entries. Whether or not she shows up in an Oath entry is to be seen, but her portrayal thus far shows not all black heroes can be done decently.
I wouldn't call sending children as live bait to a horde of spawns from world-rending abominations as "heroic". Drana's an anti-hero. She doesn't care what it takes as long as the world is saved at the end of the day.
[quote from="TearingEons »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/662210-black-the-most-misunderstood-color?comment=6"]
The BFZ story line did have a black hero in Drana, who's short story was one of the best of the story line's entries. Whether or not she shows up in an Oath entry is to be seen, but her portrayal thus far shows not all black heroes can be done decently.
I wouldn't call sending children as live bait to a horde of spawns from world-rending abominations as "heroic". Drana's an anti-hero. She doesn't care what it takes as long as the world is saved at the end of the day.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Are you really trying to draw equivalence between a child foolishly getting his friends killed and a general coldly deciding to send children on a suicide mission?
Morals are values - things we care about in the world. To be amoral is to care for nothing.
No, morals are codes of behavior. Believing that cats are better dogs is a value but has nothing to do with morality. Black cares nothing for morality because to have a code of conduct imposed upon it violate Black's ability to do what it wants.
To black the idea for of government - where necessary - is a democracy. Black's view of morality puts the individual first, and the community is only thought of in terms of how it serves the individual.
Black does not care about the individual in general, Black cares about itself. It is Red that cares about other people's freedom. Black would never accept a democracy because that means accepting restrictions on its will. Black only cares about government insofar as it can use them to further its own goals.
Calling green the life color is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of death in maintaining life as a whole.
Death may be a part of life but caring about death doesn't mean Black is a color of life. Green is the color of life because it is, more broadly, the color of growth and wishes for there to be as much (natural) life as possible. If it could prevent death it would and damn the consequences.
would improve the flavor by allowing black to have heroes
Black can and does have heroes, they're just not the pseudo-Objectivist characters you seem to want. Although, yes, a noble capitalist character would be a good example of a Black hero.
A perfect example would be Rider from Fate/Zero (a romanticized version of Alexander the Great). Saber (King Arthur) accuses him of being a tyrant who cares for nothing but his own bottomless greed. Rider agrees with that. It is, he says, the most important part of leadership. "The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh louder and rage harder. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him." Rider is amoral but still clearly a hero. He does good largely because he does not care to do evil. To Rider, and to a truly Black character, that is the only reason to be good and indeed the only true form of goodness. To Black if you wish to do evil then you should do evil, allowing White to impose rules on you is much worse than being an evil person.
There lots of heroic Black traits: To be Black is to strive for greatness above all else. To be Black is to become more than what you are. To be Black is to have no regrets because your choices are yours alone.
But to care about "rights" and "equality before the law", that is not Black. It is Blue/White. Those are the problems of other people. If Black's actions help others so much the better but they are not the goal. Black does not seek to help others because Black does not believe such a thing is possible, others must help themselves. If the slaves will not revolt then fighting to free them is meaningless.
Well put, and I agree but for a few details.
Green doesn't hate death, nor would it stop everything from dying if it could. Green/White may aspire to that, but Green is the color of the predator, after all. Green is fine with death, but only as it is naturally supposed to occur; killing only what you need to survive. Killing for food is fine. Killing for greed or power or whatever else is not.
Rights and equality before the law as you put it is what I see as the aspiring, idealistic law student who wants to be a public defender because they believe everyone deserves equal representation. That's more just White. Blue/White I would see more as the judge who cares more about the "letter of the law" whereas the White law student would care more about the "spirit of the law".
Come to think of it I actually agree with everything you said about Black, which was the main point, lol.
Black can be a Hero, but we live in a society with White ideals, so it can be hard to pull off in that context. Because of that social context, Black is far more likely to be what we call an anti-hero than a straight up hero: doing good things but only the good things that they want to do. The Black hero isn't going to be the person that puts their own life at risk to save that of a complete stranger unless it would somehow get them something they want. That just isn't Black.
Green doesn't hate death, nor would it stop everything from dying if it could. Green/White may aspire to that, but Green is the color of the predator, after all. Green is fine with death, but only as it is naturally supposed to occur; killing only what you need to survive. Killing for food is fine. Killing for greed or power or whatever else is not.
That is not true. Green accepts natural death and abhors unnatural prolonging of life. The quarrel between Green and Black with life and death is on what is acceptable death.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Are you really trying to draw equivalence between a child foolishly getting his friends killed and a general coldly deciding to send children on a suicide mission?
I would agree with said equivalence. At least Drana did her objective for a purpose and knew what she was doing. Kytheon's friends died because he was stupid, Drana's children died to distract the Eldrazi.
That's not what amorality means. All amorality means is that you don't recognize a set of values as mandatory and that each set of values has the potential to hinder individuals.
Let us return to the definition of morality: "Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior." (Meriam Webster dictionary). So amorality is having no such beliefs.
Every color views the pursuit of what it values to be right and denying that pursuit to be wrong. In black's case it views self-denial as wrong. Weakening yourself for any reason is wrong to black. Failing to do what is necessary to advance yourself is wrong. That isn't amorality. It's selfish. White labels it as immoral, and perhaps taken to extremes it can be, but that's why the two colors don't get along.
To Black, reinforcing society that "You should never hurt another", for instance, leads people to self-destructive thinking, such as doing nothing when someone is threatening you with physical violence. This doesn't mean that everyone should just kill and maim each other just because they can, it just means that when your own self is at stake, nothing is out of line.
I say that black takes it further to call such failure to defend oneself as immoral, or at the very least just plain stupid. The focus of white's morality is on the community - the focus of black's is on the self (as is pretty much all the focus of black). Black isn't a champion for the little guy, but it is smart enough to have this thing called "enlightened self interest." To wit, whatever the government can do to someone else they might do to me. The loss of freedom by any individual is a loss of freedom by all individuals.
Does this run contrary to Magic canon? Yes. I thought I made it clear though that I was calling the canon interpretation into question because it has a fatal flaw - it makes heroic black characters a stretch and "good" black characters impossible to play. I don't want such an alignment system - I want one where all colors can be played in a good or evil manner. This does mean black has to be adjusted some - and so does white to allow it to be outright evil.
The quarrel between Green and Black with life and death is on what is acceptable death. To green, killing just enough to stay alive is an acceptable death, whether for food or protection. To black, any kill is acceptable as long as it's for your own benefit.
No, to black any kill is acceptable - full stop. Death is. Green has no concept of death. Green sees the world as an eternal unbroken and unbreakable cycle. Animals in nature do kill, but green itself seeks to transcend that messy business and become one with nature as a whole which is undying - immortal. Black knows death and decay in all forms because that's what it does.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Are you really trying to draw equivalence between a child foolishly getting his friends killed and a general coldly deciding to send children on a suicide mission?
I would agree with said equivalence. At least Drana did her objective for a purpose and knew what she was doing. Kytheon's friends died because he was stupid, Drana's children died to distract the Eldrazi.
Whoa when did [knowingly sending people to their death]=[Making a stupid and short sighted decision resulting in the death of others] does the reason the things are done really somehow make them equivalent? Heck lets add the reason and see [Sending children to their deaths so you have a chance at killing a nigh unstoppable killing machine]=[Trying to strike down a god for letting loose a nigh unstoppable killing machine]? No with the added reason Gideon becomes a much larger favorite as they both had good reasons to do what they did, sure one is dumb if you stop to think about what your doing and the other is murdering children so...whatever floats your boat.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Are you really trying to draw equivalence between a child foolishly getting his friends killed and a general coldly deciding to send children on a suicide mission?
I would agree with said equivalence. At least Drana did her objective for a purpose and knew what she was doing. Kytheon's friends died because he was stupid, Drana's children died to distract the Eldrazi.
Do you know what equivalence means? Because if they're different then they're not equivalent.
Black isn't a champion for the little guy, but it is smart enough to have this thing called "enlightened self interest." To wit, whatever the government can do to someone else they might do to me. The loss of freedom by any individual is a loss of freedom by all individuals.
You don't lose any freedom if you run the government or exist outside the laws. Black has absolutely no reason to support the freedom of others.
heroic black characters a stretch and "good" black characters impossible to play. I don't want such an alignment system - I want one where all colors can be played in a good or evil manner. This does mean black has to be adjusted some - and so does white to allow it to be outright evil.
How can you possibly think White needs any help to allow it to be outright evil? The extremely negative traits of White are well documented. I guess you could say that White always has noble intentions but all five colors consider their actions to be for the best.
Again, I'd point to Rider as an example of an unambiguously good character who is mainly Black. He's not an antihero either.
I guess the question is: What do you consider a requirement for being good? Because if the requirement is "follows the strictures of an externally imposed system of behavior" then neither Red nor Black can be heroic. But both Black and Red would disagree with you about that definition of good.
You don't lose any freedom if you run the government or exist outside the laws.
Existing outside the law or running the government is not an option most of the time. I don't accept that being black aligned requires a character to be a pariah in exile - indeed I find that to be utter nonsense. Characters of all alignments must function within their societies. This is inevitable, humans are social creatures.
Black has absolutely no reason to support the freedom of others.
I'll allow Martin Niemöler the rebuttal to that...
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
"They" in the passage above refers to fascists - specifically Nazis. Fascism is white at it's most evil. Black has a very important reason to support the freedom of others - when others lose their freedom so does black. A loss by one is a loss by all.
I don't accept that being black aligned requires a character to be a pariah in exile - indeed I find that to be utter nonsense.
You don't have to be a pariah in exile. You can overthrow the government to replace it with one you want. You can plot to keep yourself safe by working your way into a position of power. Now maybe you'll respond that such a way of life is very difficult. So what? As far as Black is concerned if you cannot enforce your will upon the world you don't deserve to anyway.
Also its pretty rare for a government to be so awful you have to take drastic action of any kind.
Again an intensely White point of view. Black would say we are first and foremost individuals. Make your way in the world and then be part of society. Besides Black characters can function almost anywhere in society, the drive to be the best is quite broad.
"They" in the passage above refers to fascists - specifically Nazis. Black has a very important reason to support the freedom of others - when others lose their freedom so does black.
The Nazi's did not come for everyone, you know, nor did they choose their targets at random. Now if the Black character is a Jewish Socialist in a Trade Union then obviously its time to start a revolution but if the Black character stands to benefit they're not going to be worried about some abstract "loss of freedom". (Yes the government might turn on them but that's true of everyone all the time.) Which isn't to say Black characters need be supportive or even neutral toward genocide. Black characters can have a sense of honor or a person code or even just disgust at the waste of lives but it is not the Black part of their nature that would compel action. Like a Blue character they might also object on pragmatic grounds.
Only White believes that living outside the law is not an option. Black would not temper its ambition by assuming it cannot rise to leadership.
So, what about the merchant who seeks profit before all else - say Scrooge? Any one of a number of selfish, narcissistic characters in literature - you're saying they can't have a black alignment unless they turn to crime or forge out into the wilderness? I'm sorry, but I find that unworkable in an alignment system - it forces black into the "always evil" mode which is rather boring to me. As to rising to leadership, that more often than not involves gaming and manipulating the system, but not outright destroying it.
You portray black in a sophomoric one dimensional manner that precludes members of the alignment from being able to interact with each other at all. I reject this notion.
You don't have to be a pariah in exile.
How do you reject the law and not be a pariah? It's not possible.
Black doesn't pay taxes cause it's the right thing to do - it pays taxes because it's the expedient thing to do. It follows the law and pays taxes because someone stronger than me will hurt me if it doesn't, and it stays in the city because life there is more comfortable (and profitable) than staying out in the wilderness outside the law. Black, if anything, is pragmatic.
You can overthrow the government to replace it with one you want.
How? Further why if I can game the system to my own needs.
You can plot to keep yourself safe by working your way into a position of power. Now maybe you'll respond that such a way of life is very difficult. So what? As far as Black is concerned if you cannot enforce your will upon the world you don't deserve to anyway.
There are more ways to impose your will on the world than naked force. I reject your proposition that force is the only way.
Also its pretty rare for a government to be so awful you have to take drastic action of any kind.
In 1776 it did occur.
Again an intensely White point of view.
So white has a monopoly on social interaction? That's completely unworkable in any game where characters are expected to interact with each other - and completely unworkable as a model for interactions between individuals.
Black would say we are first and foremost individuals. Make your way in the world and then be part of society. Besides Black characters can function almost anywhere in society, the drive to be the best is quite broad.
All of that is correct, what you are missing is that none of what you say precludes black from being social. How to approach society is the primary point of white and black's contention - not whether or not societies will exist. As soon as there are two people in the world, there is a society - unless you want to live as a hermit with no contact with anyone at all you have to work with others.
The difference isn't that complex:
White is about we.
Black is about me.
That's it. Everything in white's moral structure is about putting the needs of the society first. Everything in black's moral structure is about putting the needs of the individual (usually, but not always, the self) first.
White weighs individuals by their value to society, and discards them if they have no value.
Black weighs societies by their value to individuals (usually, but again not always), and discards them if they have no value.
Black has no problem living in a city, obeying the law, paying the taxes, if there is a personal profit for doing so - walls to keep the barbarians away, protection from others.
Crucially though, white seeks perfect harmony. Black rejects harmony because the only way to achieve harmony is to remove individuality. Black understands that as long as there is free will there will be different ideas on how to get things done. Those ideas will come into conflict and strife is the natural outcome.
White sees strife as bad, as always weakening society.
Black sees strife as good, as always strengthening society. The only way to discover the strong ideas is to contest them. To discover the best and brightest, they must compete.
... but if the Black character stands to benefit they're not going to be worried about some abstract "loss of freedom".
I must reject that, because without enlightened self interest black is forced to always be a villain. It is not beyond black's capacity to understand that what is applied to someone else could one day be applied the themselves. Black wants freedom for itself first and if others gain it too through black's actions, well, whatever. Black doesn't fight for the group's freedom - it fights for it's own. Often though the best way to secure your own freedom is to secure the freedom of a group to which you belong.
Just like in mechanics, the color pie is unjustly distributed when it comes to personality traits and goals.
Everything good is white, everything inteligent is blue, the rest are stupid, selfish barbarians with a couple nice words thrown in to make the fans of those colors feel like they matter.
Just like in mechanics, the color pie is unjustly distributed when it comes to personality traits and goals.
Everything good is white, everything inteligent is blue, the rest are stupid, selfish barbarians with a couple nice words thrown in to make the fans of those colors feel like they matter.
That's what I'm trying to address. The results of that redistribution will be similar to but not exactly the same as Magic's canon interpretation of the colors.
You really are better off discussing this kind of thing in a rpg forum or even /tg/. A good bunch of MtG players act like the halfassed flavor we get is dogma and MaRo speaks just vaguely enough that you could somehow shove anything on your "color identity" if you bend-over just enough.
Sorin didn't need to turn white, The Obzedat has zero white traits, Atheros has zero black traits, none of this ***** makes sense, its all just lackadaisy, a bunch of holes around which we imagine there is meant to be some cheese.
I don't agree with the original poster about black in MtG, but I think that is ok. I think some degree of vagueness is good when interpreting the colour pie as that allows players to see in said colour pie what most appeals to them and their subjective desires about said colour's characteristics. This allows for more personalization and love of the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
White is socialist, Black is capitalist. In US politics White's a Democrat, Black's a Republican.
Correct, but in reality, capitalists and Republicans are both indisputably evil. It doesn't support your argument to say that black isn't always a villain by comparing it to two of the most villainous institutions on this planet.
A cursory examination of Alpha shows that black is intended to be the evil color from the start. "Black magic" is always associated with villains in every major fantasy series. Voldemort, Gul'dan, Sauron, etc. Maro just tries to spice things up a bit by creating some black anti-heroes because antiheroes appeal strongly to INT(J/P) types, (as classified under the iffy Myers-Briggs system), whom Maro views as a key consumer base for Magic.
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been working on an RPG setting that uses color alignment, but a key need of the setting is that any color can be the hero. The way black is portrayed by MaRo it is a painful stretch to consider black the hero, or white a villain for that matter.
So here's the list of things I think MaRo gets wrong about black, and it's relations to the other colors.
Morality
Maro says black is amoral. Wrong. Morals are values - things we care about in the world. To be amoral is to care for nothing. To be Amoral is an Eldrazi, colorless trait, not black.
Here's Black's morals: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Morality therefore is the tension trait of white and black, belonging to neither. All five pairings have a tension trait. White's view of morality puts the community first and the individual is an afterthought. The idea form of government to white is a monarchy enforced by the divine right of kings, a right Jefferson rebukes in the quote above from the Declaration of Independence. To black the idea for of government - where necessary - is a democracy. Black's view of morality puts the individual first, and the community is only thought of in terms of how it serves the individual. White is socialist, Black is capitalist. In US politics White's a Democrat, Black's a Republican.
To white all people are good until corrupted. To black all people are evil until enlightened. Good black sees things from an enlightened self interest prism. Evil black, well, we're all familiar with that since for the last few sets that's the only side of black we ever get to see.
Not Life v. Death -- Birth v. Death
Maro says green represents life. Hardly. Life is the tension trait of black and green, and green's place is birth, not life overall. Calling green the life color is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of death in maintaining life as a whole. Life feeds on life, and that can only occur if something dies. It's sad, but it's necessary. Green and black lie at opposite ends of a chain.
I am mine
Maro says that Black is ultimately about power. This isn't true - black is ultimately about Ego - the self, I. Individuality. Gathering power is usually good for the self, but the difference between good and evil within black is a recognition that too much power can be a bad thing. Think back to Freudian Psychology - Black is Ego, Red & Green are Id, White & Blue are Super Ego. Much of the internal struggle of the individual is balancing base needs, urges and desires with higher thoughts, goals and plans.
Of all the five colors, black is the only one that accepts death is part of life. That doesn't stop some black wizards from trying to delay death through undeath magic, but the reason this magic works the way it does is black magic is fundamentally entropic. Individuals die. Concepts such as knowledge (blue), society (white), nature (green) and freedom (red) do not.
In my own setting's mythology the goddess attached to Black, Sodra, chose to renounce her divinity for a time, become mortal, live a mortal life, age and die, so that she might fully understand her place. The other four powers have no concept of death, wholly do not understand it and why mortals fear it.
No such thing as Utopia
White and Green will give you everything you want - a Utopia - if you can accept having everything that makes you an individual taken away from you. They believe and work together to form a utopia where everyone gets alone and there is no strife. Black rejects utopia as an impossible concept so long as anyone cares for their own interests. There will always be strife. When Jefferson says, "All men are created equal" to black the rider must be added, "before the law." People aren't equal - some are stronger, some smarter, some prettier, but all have a right to be equal before the law. White rejects this - white prefers systems of honor, duty and privilege which include an aristocracy to an outright caste system in extreme cases. Predestination is a green concept, but one white is sympathetic to, and one black and blue thoroughly revile and reject - this notion of fate.
Conclusion
This is getting long so I'll wrap it up. MaRo isn't totally off base with black - he's 95% there. But the small tweaks above wouldn't affect how any cards are made, but would improve the flavor by allowing black to have heroes. That there is no black hero in the Oath of the Gatewatch story is a very telling clue that the creative team at WotC has contented themselves with making sure black is always a villain.
In my own setting I go a couple of steps beyond what can be done in Magic. For starters, I don't use the colors black and white because both those colors are emotionally loaded. Instead I use purple and yellow respectively - which also works because in light yellow is the result of mixing the colors blue and green; in pigment purple is the result of mixing red and blue. There are other minor adjustments to the color philosophies done with the goal of making sure knowing a creature's alignment doesn't indicate good or evil - friend or foe.
And overall it makes for a more fun system to play.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
No, morals are codes of behavior. Believing that cats are better dogs is a value but has nothing to do with morality. Black cares nothing for morality because to have a code of conduct imposed upon it violate Black's ability to do what it wants.
Black does not care about the individual in general, Black cares about itself. It is Red that cares about other people's freedom. Black would never accept a democracy because that means accepting restrictions on its will. Black only cares about government insofar as it can use them to further its own goals.
Death may be a part of life but caring about death doesn't mean Black is a color of life. Green is the color of life because it is, more broadly, the color of growth and wishes for there to be as much (natural) life as possible. If it could prevent death it would and damn the consequences.
Black can and does have heroes, they're just not the pseudo-Objectivist characters you seem to want. Although, yes, a noble capitalist character would be a good example of a Black hero.
A perfect example would be Rider from Fate/Zero (a romanticized version of Alexander the Great). Saber (King Arthur) accuses him of being a tyrant who cares for nothing but his own bottomless greed. Rider agrees with that. It is, he says, the most important part of leadership. "The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh louder and rage harder. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him." Rider is amoral but still clearly a hero. He does good largely because he does not care to do evil. To Rider, and to a truly Black character, that is the only reason to be good and indeed the only true form of goodness. To Black if you wish to do evil then you should do evil, allowing White to impose rules on you is much worse than being an evil person.
There lots of heroic Black traits: To be Black is to strive for greatness above all else. To be Black is to become more than what you are. To be Black is to have no regrets because your choices are yours alone.
But to care about "rights" and "equality before the law", that is not Black. It is Blue/White. Those are the problems of other people. If Black's actions help others so much the better but they are not the goal. Black does not seek to help others because Black does not believe such a thing is possible, others must help themselves. If the slaves will not revolt then fighting to free them is meaningless.
Standard:
GMono-Green CountersG
Modern:
URStormUR
XMyr OverflowX
BWBlack-White TokensBW
EDH:
WUGrand Arbiter Augustine's Spell DenialWU
WGRhys's TokensWG
RKrenko's CommandR
The BFZ story line did have a black hero in Drana, who's short story was one of the best of the story line's entries. Whether or not she shows up in an Oath entry is to be seen, but her portrayal thus far shows not all black heroes can be done decently.
That is not true. Green accepts natural death and abhors unnatural prolonging of life. The quarrel between Green and Black with life and death is on what is acceptable death. To green, killing just enough to stay alive is an acceptable death, whether for food or protection. To black, any kill is acceptable as long as it's for your own benefit. A person could survive by going out into the wilds and killing a squirrel several times a week, but it's far more convenient to farm thousands of chickens, slaughter a whole lot, freeze them up, and consume them at your leisure. To green this is overkill and unsustainable to the environment. To black, this is assurance that you never go hungry.
I wouldn't call sending children as live bait to a horde of spawns from world-rending abominations as "heroic". Drana's an anti-hero. She doesn't care what it takes as long as the world is saved at the end of the day.
That's Gideon, but in White. It's the exact reason why his friends died and his Spark ignited.
But it's okay for white.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
Are you really trying to draw equivalence between a child foolishly getting his friends killed and a general coldly deciding to send children on a suicide mission?
Well put, and I agree but for a few details.
Green doesn't hate death, nor would it stop everything from dying if it could. Green/White may aspire to that, but Green is the color of the predator, after all. Green is fine with death, but only as it is naturally supposed to occur; killing only what you need to survive. Killing for food is fine. Killing for greed or power or whatever else is not.
Rights and equality before the law as you put it is what I see as the aspiring, idealistic law student who wants to be a public defender because they believe everyone deserves equal representation. That's more just White. Blue/White I would see more as the judge who cares more about the "letter of the law" whereas the White law student would care more about the "spirit of the law".
Come to think of it I actually agree with everything you said about Black, which was the main point, lol.
Black can be a Hero, but we live in a society with White ideals, so it can be hard to pull off in that context. Because of that social context, Black is far more likely to be what we call an anti-hero than a straight up hero: doing good things but only the good things that they want to do. The Black hero isn't going to be the person that puts their own life at risk to save that of a complete stranger unless it would somehow get them something they want. That just isn't Black.
Fair enough.
I would agree with said equivalence. At least Drana did her objective for a purpose and knew what she was doing. Kytheon's friends died because he was stupid, Drana's children died to distract the Eldrazi.
Let us return to the definition of morality: "Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior." (Meriam Webster dictionary). So amorality is having no such beliefs.
Every color views the pursuit of what it values to be right and denying that pursuit to be wrong. In black's case it views self-denial as wrong. Weakening yourself for any reason is wrong to black. Failing to do what is necessary to advance yourself is wrong. That isn't amorality. It's selfish. White labels it as immoral, and perhaps taken to extremes it can be, but that's why the two colors don't get along.
I say that black takes it further to call such failure to defend oneself as immoral, or at the very least just plain stupid. The focus of white's morality is on the community - the focus of black's is on the self (as is pretty much all the focus of black). Black isn't a champion for the little guy, but it is smart enough to have this thing called "enlightened self interest." To wit, whatever the government can do to someone else they might do to me. The loss of freedom by any individual is a loss of freedom by all individuals.
Does this run contrary to Magic canon? Yes. I thought I made it clear though that I was calling the canon interpretation into question because it has a fatal flaw - it makes heroic black characters a stretch and "good" black characters impossible to play. I don't want such an alignment system - I want one where all colors can be played in a good or evil manner. This does mean black has to be adjusted some - and so does white to allow it to be outright evil.
No, to black any kill is acceptable - full stop. Death is. Green has no concept of death. Green sees the world as an eternal unbroken and unbreakable cycle. Animals in nature do kill, but green itself seeks to transcend that messy business and become one with nature as a whole which is undying - immortal. Black knows death and decay in all forms because that's what it does.
Those aren't the same thing. I want to adjust the colors to allow for black heroes, not black anti-heroes.
Whoa when did [knowingly sending people to their death]=[Making a stupid and short sighted decision resulting in the death of others] does the reason the things are done really somehow make them equivalent? Heck lets add the reason and see [Sending children to their deaths so you have a chance at killing a nigh unstoppable killing machine]=[Trying to strike down a god for letting loose a nigh unstoppable killing machine]? No with the added reason Gideon becomes a much larger favorite as they both had good reasons to do what they did, sure one is dumb if you stop to think about what your doing and the other is murdering children so...whatever floats your boat.
Do you know what equivalence means? Because if they're different then they're not equivalent.
You don't lose any freedom if you run the government or exist outside the laws. Black has absolutely no reason to support the freedom of others.
How can you possibly think White needs any help to allow it to be outright evil? The extremely negative traits of White are well documented. I guess you could say that White always has noble intentions but all five colors consider their actions to be for the best.
Again, I'd point to Rider as an example of an unambiguously good character who is mainly Black. He's not an antihero either.
I guess the question is: What do you consider a requirement for being good? Because if the requirement is "follows the strictures of an externally imposed system of behavior" then neither Red nor Black can be heroic. But both Black and Red would disagree with you about that definition of good.
Existing outside the law or running the government is not an option most of the time. I don't accept that being black aligned requires a character to be a pariah in exile - indeed I find that to be utter nonsense. Characters of all alignments must function within their societies. This is inevitable, humans are social creatures.
I'll allow Martin Niemöler the rebuttal to that...
"They" in the passage above refers to fascists - specifically Nazis. Fascism is white at it's most evil. Black has a very important reason to support the freedom of others - when others lose their freedom so does black. A loss by one is a loss by all.
Only White believes that living outside the law is not an option. Black would not temper its ambition by assuming it cannot rise to leadership.
You don't have to be a pariah in exile. You can overthrow the government to replace it with one you want. You can plot to keep yourself safe by working your way into a position of power. Now maybe you'll respond that such a way of life is very difficult. So what? As far as Black is concerned if you cannot enforce your will upon the world you don't deserve to anyway.
Also its pretty rare for a government to be so awful you have to take drastic action of any kind.
Again an intensely White point of view. Black would say we are first and foremost individuals. Make your way in the world and then be part of society. Besides Black characters can function almost anywhere in society, the drive to be the best is quite broad.
The Nazi's did not come for everyone, you know, nor did they choose their targets at random. Now if the Black character is a Jewish Socialist in a Trade Union then obviously its time to start a revolution but if the Black character stands to benefit they're not going to be worried about some abstract "loss of freedom". (Yes the government might turn on them but that's true of everyone all the time.) Which isn't to say Black characters need be supportive or even neutral toward genocide. Black characters can have a sense of honor or a person code or even just disgust at the waste of lives but it is not the Black part of their nature that would compel action. Like a Blue character they might also object on pragmatic grounds.
So, what about the merchant who seeks profit before all else - say Scrooge? Any one of a number of selfish, narcissistic characters in literature - you're saying they can't have a black alignment unless they turn to crime or forge out into the wilderness? I'm sorry, but I find that unworkable in an alignment system - it forces black into the "always evil" mode which is rather boring to me. As to rising to leadership, that more often than not involves gaming and manipulating the system, but not outright destroying it.
You portray black in a sophomoric one dimensional manner that precludes members of the alignment from being able to interact with each other at all. I reject this notion.
How do you reject the law and not be a pariah? It's not possible.
Black doesn't pay taxes cause it's the right thing to do - it pays taxes because it's the expedient thing to do. It follows the law and pays taxes because someone stronger than me will hurt me if it doesn't, and it stays in the city because life there is more comfortable (and profitable) than staying out in the wilderness outside the law. Black, if anything, is pragmatic.
How? Further why if I can game the system to my own needs.
There are more ways to impose your will on the world than naked force. I reject your proposition that force is the only way.
In 1776 it did occur.
So white has a monopoly on social interaction? That's completely unworkable in any game where characters are expected to interact with each other - and completely unworkable as a model for interactions between individuals.
All of that is correct, what you are missing is that none of what you say precludes black from being social. How to approach society is the primary point of white and black's contention - not whether or not societies will exist. As soon as there are two people in the world, there is a society - unless you want to live as a hermit with no contact with anyone at all you have to work with others.
The difference isn't that complex:
White is about we.
Black is about me.
That's it. Everything in white's moral structure is about putting the needs of the society first. Everything in black's moral structure is about putting the needs of the individual (usually, but not always, the self) first.
White weighs individuals by their value to society, and discards them if they have no value.
Black weighs societies by their value to individuals (usually, but again not always), and discards them if they have no value.
Black has no problem living in a city, obeying the law, paying the taxes, if there is a personal profit for doing so - walls to keep the barbarians away, protection from others.
Crucially though, white seeks perfect harmony. Black rejects harmony because the only way to achieve harmony is to remove individuality. Black understands that as long as there is free will there will be different ideas on how to get things done. Those ideas will come into conflict and strife is the natural outcome.
White sees strife as bad, as always weakening society.
Black sees strife as good, as always strengthening society. The only way to discover the strong ideas is to contest them. To discover the best and brightest, they must compete.
I must reject that, because without enlightened self interest black is forced to always be a villain. It is not beyond black's capacity to understand that what is applied to someone else could one day be applied the themselves. Black wants freedom for itself first and if others gain it too through black's actions, well, whatever. Black doesn't fight for the group's freedom - it fights for it's own. Often though the best way to secure your own freedom is to secure the freedom of a group to which you belong.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Everything good is white, everything inteligent is blue, the rest are stupid, selfish barbarians with a couple nice words thrown in to make the fans of those colors feel like they matter.
Sorin didn't need to turn white, The Obzedat has zero white traits, Atheros has zero black traits, none of this ***** makes sense, its all just lackadaisy, a bunch of holes around which we imagine there is meant to be some cheese.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Correct, but in reality, capitalists and Republicans are both indisputably evil. It doesn't support your argument to say that black isn't always a villain by comparing it to two of the most villainous institutions on this planet.
A cursory examination of Alpha shows that black is intended to be the evil color from the start. "Black magic" is always associated with villains in every major fantasy series. Voldemort, Gul'dan, Sauron, etc. Maro just tries to spice things up a bit by creating some black anti-heroes because antiheroes appeal strongly to INT(J/P) types, (as classified under the iffy Myers-Briggs system), whom Maro views as a key consumer base for Magic.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit