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.
That is not Gideon. His friends' deaths was due to his reckless use of his powers, not a willful sacrifice. Also, Gideon would never deceivingly send people to their doom. To Drana, those kids were decoys, and she had no intentions of telling them that. Gideon at least informs his allies on the dangers that they're getting into.
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.
Black believes what's "good" or "bad" depends on the individual. "Weakening yourself" for one person may mean "living one more day" for another. To Black, there isn't one holistic world view. Instead they believe that every individual has their own vision of an ideal life. Does helping others make you happy? Great. Does planting trees make you happy? Or hitting yourself on the head with a hammer? Or staring at a wall for ten hours a day? Great. Black amorality is a blank canvas. You write down what's good and bad for yourself, no one else does.
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.
See, but "enlightened self interest" doesn't work for everyone. What about the ruling class of society? If the subservience of the masses is in someone's best interest, why should they lose that? That's the blank moral canvas that black uses. If it ain't broke (for you), don't fix it. If is it broke (for you), fix it.
I agree that the positive traits of black aren't usually given their proper treatment in Magic. I disagree that it's because of Black's philosophical share of the color pie that they're usually portrayed as bad guys. Black heroes are more than possible within the color pie. Seeking glory and fame, for instance, is a Black attribute that can be seen as positive. For whatever reason, though, these aspects get pushed into white, such as cards like Glory Seeker.
@AkiTendo If we keep replying the way we are the thread is going to collapse under its own weight so let me summarize my position:
By making the defining feature of Black "enlightened self interest leading to American Libertarian schools of thought" you've narrowed it far too much to be useful as the broad tendency that the colors really are. Black is about simply "self interest". It is valid for a black character to think the way you describe (I'd say enlightened self interest is more of a blue/black thing than monocolor but if you really think black needs it on its own that fine) but it cannot be the be all and end all of what Black is. Every color can reflect a variety of political philosophies and behaviors, depending on individual personality and the intensity with which the color is expressed.
White might say "we must have a theocracy to enforce order" but it might also say "only mixed market democracy can ultimately promote harmony" (though the first is certainly more likely).
Black might say "we must have a theocracy so I can never be questioned" but it might also say "we must have high social mobility so that I can rise as high as possible" (which is more likely depends on how you interpret Black).
What about love, empathy, individuality, freedom, creativity, joy, self preservation, and progress? At the end of the day White doesn't really care about you, just about building a stable society.
I mean I guess if you don't consider those good then White is absolutely "the color of good" but that really says more about you than the color pie. A truly mono-white society would be awful for most people. The fact that Creative frequently lets white have traits it shouldn't is an issue but not one that can be solved by reorganizing the color pie.
Arguably the only color lacking any important "good" traits is Green on account of Green thinking being rather alien.
Green's good traits are mostly in the interest of propagating the species. A mother caring for her baby is something that is both positive and green. Correspondingly, green's evil is natural evil: that same mother dying of cancer during the child's teen years. Green cares not: she's already reproduced, after all. Her role in the circle of life is complete.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
@AkiTendo If we keep replying the way we are the thread is going to collapse under its own weight so let me summarize my position:
By making the defining feature of Black "enlightened self interest leading to American Libertarian schools of thought" you've narrowed it far too much to be useful as the broad tendency that the colors really are. Black is about simply "self interest". It is valid for a black character to think the way you describe (I'd say enlightened self interest is more of a blue/black thing than monocolor but if you really think black needs it on its own that fine) but it cannot be the be all and end all of what Black is. Every color can reflect a variety of political philosophies and behaviors, depending on individual personality and the intensity with which the color is expressed.
White might say "we must have a theocracy to enforce order" but it might also say "only mixed market democracy can ultimately promote harmony" (though the first is certainly more likely).
Black might say "we must have a theocracy so I can never be questioned" but it might also say "we must have high social mobility so that I can rise as high as possible" (which is more likely depends on how you interpret Black).
What about love, empathy, individuality, freedom, creativity, joy, self preservation, and progress? At the end of the day White doesn't really care about you, just about building a stable society.
I mean I guess if you don't consider those good then White is absolutely "the color of good" but that really says more about you than the color pie. A truly mono-white society would be awful for most people. The fact that Creative frequently lets white have traits it shouldn't is an issue but not one that can be solved by reorganizing the color pie.
Arguably the only color lacking any important "good" traits is Green on account of Green thinking being rather alien.
Exept for freedom and creativity all those traits are constantly represented by mono-white characters. But when Origins was spoiled people were thinking Liliana would now be BW because risking her life to save her brother was not black and effectively WotC turned The Raven's Eye's story of love into a story of ego in The Fourth Pact because apparently black inst allowed to feel love for YOUR family and act on YOUR feelings. All their talk about how individualism can be a force for good goes off the window when they avoid all opportunities they get to show how.
I hate to be that guy, but I think you misunderstood some concepts (which is fine, some of them are very complicated to describe).
To be amoral is not to care for nothing. To be amoral is a completely different way to evaluate actions and means that lead to certain ways. You can evaluate them normatively, in that case you are displaying moral concerns about a particular course of action, which can be moral (right) or imoral (wrong). You can also evaluate them instrumentally, that is, weighting costs and benefits in a self-interested manner. When you do so, you are displaying amoral concerns about a course of action, which can be effective (right) or inefficient (wrong).
In this sense, black is indeed, amoral.
White is not socialist, white is communitarian (check out the communitarian citizenship model, specially from ancient sparta. That’s almost a perfect fit for white).
Black is indeed ultimately about power. Power is defined as “the capacity for the individual to persuade or coerce other individuals to pursue a set course of action or mean, either positively (compliance) or negatively (deterrence) This concept embeds individuality and self-interest by definition.
Also, black does not make any distinction between “good” and “evil”. Those are moral concerns.
I deeply disagree with the notion that black backs up democracy. It really makes no sense.
I think if you can't find anything good and heroic in black that's because of your own naivete. Black is the color that promotes greatness as it's end goal, how can this not be a heroic color ?
I don't really admire heroes that just go out there solving random people's problems, like Gideon. Normally my admiration lies in characters that go incredible lengths to achieve something no one else achieved before, for the sake of being at the top.
Actually, a couple of the more popular authors in the fantasy genre make use of heroes who are Black in nature.
Joe Abercrombie, known for his First Law trilogy: Sand dan Glokta - Glokta is a Guantanamo Bay style inquisitor. He ferrets out conspiracies to keep the government running smoothly. His job involves the use of torture to get information. Glokta enjoys his work. Prior to becoming an inquisitor, Glokta was one of the Union's best soldiers. Dashing, handsome, all that jazz. He got captured, tortured, and turned into a broken-toothed cripple with periodic bouts of incontinence. For Glokta, his rather cruel job is an outlet for his anger at the injustice dealt to him. He's a hero because he takes the front line in this trilogy against the main antagonist, and helps blunt the cruelty of the...lesser antagonist that's playing on the side of the protagonists against the main antagonist.
Mark Lawrence, known for his Broken Empire trilogy: Jorg Ancrath - Jorg was dealt an injustice by his father, and so tried to spite the man by releasing a band of known murderers, thieves, and rapists from his father's prison. Jorg falls in with this band and, as we see in the opening chapter, does what he needs to do in order to survive with his band. Maintain his street cred, essentially. Jorg's twisted path puts him in a position to save the Broken Empires from the threat of the Dead King and an impending apocalypse at the hands of the Makers. Deception, murder, and bribery are what give him the tools to save the Broken Empires and find catharsis for his past. So here's another Black hero for you.
Black is only misunderstood in the sense that players' might have preconceived notions of the color. Black, like any of the colors, is ultimately a tool. Neither good nor bad - it is what the wielder makes of it.
Wizards sucks at printing black cards now because they won't take risks or make anything too dark. Black is wussified. Bring back cards like pox that just ruin gamestates. Playing against black isnt supposed to be fun wizards get your ***** together
Furthermore - morals and codes of conduct are absolutist, and black is the most situationist color. What is right for a black-aligned person may not be right for another, or indeed for the same person in a different situation. This is because black operates on goals, not on methods.
Take pre-walker Liliana and her willingness to do literally anything to reach her goal of curing her brother. And that is also the great failing of heroic black - if white fails, at least it's made friends along the way. If black fails, it has left a trail of bodies and fire with nothing but good intentions to show for it.
I don't think black would go for democracy - black would probably favor a benevolent dictatorship, which can deal with problems much faster than democracy ever could. Of course, benevolent dictatorships rarely remain benevolent for long.
Actually, a couple of the more popular authors in the fantasy genre make use of heroes who are Black in nature.
Joe Abercrombie, known for his First Law trilogy: Sand dan Glokta - Glokta is a Guantanamo Bay style inquisitor. He ferrets out conspiracies to keep the government running smoothly. His job involves the use of torture to get information. Glokta enjoys his work. Prior to becoming an inquisitor, Glokta was one of the Union's best soldiers. Dashing, handsome, all that jazz. He got captured, tortured, and turned into a broken-toothed cripple with periodic bouts of incontinence. For Glokta, his rather cruel job is an outlet for his anger at the injustice dealt to him. He's a hero because he takes the front line in this trilogy against the main antagonist, and helps blunt the cruelty of the...lesser antagonist that's playing on the side of the protagonists against the main antagonist.
Mark Lawrence, known for his Broken Empire trilogy: Jorg Ancrath - Jorg was dealt an injustice by his father, and so tried to spite the man by releasing a band of known murderers, thieves, and rapists from his father's prison. Jorg falls in with this band and, as we see in the opening chapter, does what he needs to do in order to survive with his band. Maintain his street cred, essentially. Jorg's twisted path puts him in a position to save the Broken Empires from the threat of the Dead King and an impending apocalypse at the hands of the Makers. Deception, murder, and bribery are what give him the tools to save the Broken Empires and find catharsis for his past. So here's another Black hero for you.
Ooh, that could be a fun thread. I'd put forward Elric of Melniboné by Michael Moorcock. He has to take special drugs to keep himself active, due to frailty from birth. Alternatively, he can draw strength from his bloodthirsty sword, Stormbringer, so long as he feeds the sword with the souls of those he kills with it. He also has inherited pacts with a number of entities, including Arioch, the Lord of Chaos and Duke of Hell. Elric simultaneously recognizes the problem with the decadence of his people, as well as the threat posed to his empire by the Young Kingdoms.
I could see an argument for Elric being WB (possibly even Bx, considering from of the elementals he has pacts with), but I'd say he falls more solidly in the black categorization, especially later in his timeline when he's using Stormbringer more and more over his medicine to keep himself healthy, and he has directly or indirectly caused the death of just about everyone he holds close.
I'm pretty sure the only government black would enjoy would be one where it's the leader, or there is no government. Dictatorships, socialism, democracy, monarchy, all would be fine if black is the leader of them, or at least not hampered by the laws. If not, they gotta go.
I think it's a big mistake to blur the big conflicts between the colors into a spectrum. Morality is a defining feature of W, to which B stands in contrast. A good way to sum up B's viewpoint on morality is that nothing is off the table when considering how to accomplish its goals - morals are an unnecessary restraint.
In the G vs. B conflict, Life is a primary tool of G. G benefits from having access to the full cycle of life. G accepts Death, and honestly probably has a better understanding of its place in the cycle than B, which sees no inherent value in understanding the cycle except inasmuch as it benefits B. In contrast, B focuses on Death as a tool, which it views as the most exploitable part of the cycle.
The biggest problem with your alternate black (Other then as Vorthospike has excellently pointed out that black doesn't need a rework to allow for heroic characters and positive sides, it just needs creative to start showing these sides...), is that you seem to be mixing up black and red. You mention the word "Freedom" a lot, but Freedom is one of Red's most important traits, if not the most important (Only Emotions would arguably be more important to red). Small government that serves the people instead of ruling over them? Red.
(On a side note, Red's another color that gets it's positive sides never shown on cards. How have we not gotten an Act of Treason effect flavored as falling in love yet? Though at least there are "good" red characters depicted so it's not as bad as black...)
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.
Objectivism does not lack morality. Indeed, the very point of any given philosophy (see also: Objectivism) is to apply a structured morality. And while I realize that your quote from Fate/Zero was meant to satirize the term "greed" more than define it, it still misses the mark in truly identifying what greed is--especially with respect to Objectivism. Making all the money you can, and absorbing all assets possible is not conducive to the general understanding of "greed" beyond what the popular narrative disseminates to public schools and OWS wastoids. Greed is, above all else, identified according to the harm it does to oneself and society around you, but despite what the "greed" narrative would have you believe, there have been plenty of capitalists out there making money without harming either themselves or anyone else in the process. In fact, the creation of capital--which allows people who otherwise aren't wealthy the opportunity to start a business and get rich--would be impossible were it not for the consumption and investment of so-called "greedy" businessmen. It is possible to OVER-consume and, therefore, harm yourself and the people around you through bad business practices. In which case, that is unarguably greed-driven ruin, but that is not to be confused with the mere enterprise of making large sums of money.
Logically, Objectvist character should be red. That paradigm strikes me as the most industrial and rationally self-interested. If you really think about it, white comes off as being too altruistic. Blue is concerned with mysticism more than anything else. Green is definitely filled with hippies. And black has an air of pure evil that's more concerned with conquering and coercing than with dealing and free trade.
As for the topic, I don't really see black as "black". I see it as darkness. And black is just the color of darkness. John 3:19-21 sums it up for me:
19 And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For everyone that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth cometh to the light. That his works may be made manifest because they are done in God.
Black isn't evil. But evil dwells in darkness, which is black. So there.
And while I realize that your quote from Fate/Zero was meant to satirize the term "greed" more than define it, it still misses the mark in truly identifying what greed is--especially with respect to Objectivism.
It wasn't meant to satirize or define anything.
Rider is explaining how greed and tyranny can be positive forces, at least in his world view. The debate between Rider and Saber is a classic Black vs White conflict. Rider feels that Saber denied herself an actual life during her kingship. To borrow from Neitzche this is the point of view that perceives self sacrifice as a "life denying" behavior (IIRC something Rand believed as well). Rider may have been a tyrant but his was a life well lived and ultimately one that benefited far more people than hers.
The major difference between Rider and most monoBlack heroes is that he's also nice person.
Gideon and Drana are completely different. Drana used others as bait so that she would be safe. Gideon chose to be bait and then let his Irregulars spring the trap. Drana made others have the dangerous job, Gideon volunteered for it. When he took on Erebos, it was out of arrogance that his friends died, not selfish calculation.
If you want to see the most positive aspects of Black, check out of Atlas Shrugged. Read the book or watch the movie on Netflix. Hank Rearden is a perfect example of a black protagonist; arguably even a hero.
Rider is explaining how greed and tyranny can be positive forces, at least in his world view. The debate between Rider and Saber is a classic Black vs White conflict. Rider feels that Saber denied herself an actual life during her kingship. To borrow from Neitzche this is the point of view that perceives self sacrifice as a "life denying" behavior (IIRC something Rand believed as well). Rider may have been a tyrant but his was a life well lived and ultimately one that benefited far more people than hers.
I don't mean you personally were satirizing. I mean the quote itself: if you deconstruct a negatively connotative term with the intent of revealing positive implications, then you are, in effect, satirizing the popular culture that holds it in negative esteem.
Tyranny refers to coercion and oppression. There is no positive from that, and it cannot be satirized in the same manner as could the popular misconception of what constitutes "greed". It seems as though you're treating Objectivism as some kind of Willy Wonka brand machine where you could place within it a seemingly negative connotation and watch it get broken down into something positive. Rand's main point was simply that selfishness and capitalism are not the horrible, awful, "greedy", or "tyrannical" concepts that everyone believes them to be; she didn't reshape them into something more functional, but rather they were always functional.
I'm very curious how you see Red as the color of rational self interest.
I have to correct myself it seems. After reading the Salvation Wiki on the official philosophy of Red, it makes the color out to be totally irrational, non-inquisitive, and non-introspective. Apparently, Blue is the color of rationality that puts enterprise before social virtues and behaviors. This confuses the hell out of me seeing as how blue is the larger source of magic spells and alchemy, two disciplines completely bereft of objective antecedents to be considered anything other than mystical in nature....But I suppose the realms of MTG have somehow ground the mystical nature of magic down into what the lore of the game itself would consider a fine science. That being said, the existence of Mirrodin and Phyrexia would suggest a distinction between magic and scientifically-developed technology.
To answer your question, however, Red produces the most ideal environment for a free market where everyone's in the game for his individual self. The chaotic venue offers no concept of predestination or ordered placement, and therefore is not constrained by totalitarian regulatory burdens or Authoritarian matrices.
The issue has become more ambiguous for me seeing as how Objectivist characters need a well-defined moral structure to meet Rand's requirements. But the only color that seems at all concerned with applied morality is White, which comes across as being far too collectivist to house--let alone produce--a Howard Roark or a Henry Rearden. At this point, I'm convinced that a hero of rational self-interest would be a color combination character consisting of either white and blue or white and red. In the case of the former, the character would strike a balance between morality and enterprise whereas the latter would combine religiously applied philosophy with free-radical, anti-social behavior. Henry Rearden would, perhaps, be a White/Blue character whereas Howard Roark would be White/Red. For that matter, Gail Wynand could probably qualify as White/Black since he implements an idealistic tyranny derived from his sense of morality--which views everyone as disgusting and perverse, and, as such, totally deserving of the suffrage he doles out.
All of that being said, it might be possible to have a monochrome Objectivist character. For instance, I could see Rorschach or The Question as an exclusively white card seeing as how those are purely ethos-derived characters. Yes, I defied all temptation and refrained from knee-jerk labeling those characters as Black/White.
(On a side note, Red's another color that gets it's positive sides never shown on cards. How have we not gotten an Act of Treason effect flavored as falling in love yet?
I think it's a big mistake to blur the big conflicts between the colors into a spectrum. Morality is a defining feature of W, to which B stands in contrast. A good way to sum up B's viewpoint on morality is that nothing is off the table when considering how to accomplish its goals - morals are an unnecessary restraint.
The core of the issue lies here.
We have an Everest explorer, he wants to climb Everest, he NEEDS to climb Everest, there's no foundation or charity, no mcguffin to get, he just wants to, for himself, his ego demands it.
Unless he eats his guide to get there WotC will make this a red or white character. All talk of selfishness, ego, self-assurance, self-love, they don't mean *****. You're not black until you do evil, meanwhile they slot you into another color.
Kain, from the Legacy of Kain series, is arguably a Mardu hero. All his plans, machinations and actions are driven by an overwhelming emotional component (fear), and by the end of the series he genuinely evolves a sense of guilt and responsability that compels him to find a way to avert the impending apocalypse. But is he black because from beggining to end the strings that move him are his own massive sense of self-importance and the fear of his particular death, or because he's a merciless murderer and a vampire?
So far according to WotC, if he hadn't killed no-one that need not be killed, and hadn't been so cruel to those who did need to be killed, he'd be completely within Boros or even Jeskai territory and lauded as a goody two-shoes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Latina, Oedipus, loquituri id?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Black believes what's "good" or "bad" depends on the individual. "Weakening yourself" for one person may mean "living one more day" for another. To Black, there isn't one holistic world view. Instead they believe that every individual has their own vision of an ideal life. Does helping others make you happy? Great. Does planting trees make you happy? Or hitting yourself on the head with a hammer? Or staring at a wall for ten hours a day? Great. Black amorality is a blank canvas. You write down what's good and bad for yourself, no one else does.
See, but "enlightened self interest" doesn't work for everyone. What about the ruling class of society? If the subservience of the masses is in someone's best interest, why should they lose that? That's the blank moral canvas that black uses. If it ain't broke (for you), don't fix it. If is it broke (for you), fix it.
I agree that the positive traits of black aren't usually given their proper treatment in Magic. I disagree that it's because of Black's philosophical share of the color pie that they're usually portrayed as bad guys. Black heroes are more than possible within the color pie. Seeking glory and fame, for instance, is a Black attribute that can be seen as positive. For whatever reason, though, these aspects get pushed into white, such as cards like Glory Seeker.
I think Oath limited would like to show you a few things...
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
By making the defining feature of Black "enlightened self interest leading to American Libertarian schools of thought" you've narrowed it far too much to be useful as the broad tendency that the colors really are. Black is about simply "self interest". It is valid for a black character to think the way you describe (I'd say enlightened self interest is more of a blue/black thing than monocolor but if you really think black needs it on its own that fine) but it cannot be the be all and end all of what Black is. Every color can reflect a variety of political philosophies and behaviors, depending on individual personality and the intensity with which the color is expressed.
White might say "we must have a theocracy to enforce order" but it might also say "only mixed market democracy can ultimately promote harmony" (though the first is certainly more likely).
Black might say "we must have a theocracy so I can never be questioned" but it might also say "we must have high social mobility so that I can rise as high as possible" (which is more likely depends on how you interpret Black).
What about love, empathy, individuality, freedom, creativity, joy, self preservation, and progress? At the end of the day White doesn't really care about you, just about building a stable society.
I mean I guess if you don't consider those good then White is absolutely "the color of good" but that really says more about you than the color pie. A truly mono-white society would be awful for most people. The fact that Creative frequently lets white have traits it shouldn't is an issue but not one that can be solved by reorganizing the color pie.
Arguably the only color lacking any important "good" traits is Green on account of Green thinking being rather alien.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Exept for freedom and creativity all those traits are constantly represented by mono-white characters. But when Origins was spoiled people were thinking Liliana would now be BW because risking her life to save her brother was not black and effectively WotC turned The Raven's Eye's story of love into a story of ego in The Fourth Pact because apparently black inst allowed to feel love for YOUR family and act on YOUR feelings. All their talk about how individualism can be a force for good goes off the window when they avoid all opportunities they get to show how.
Lilliana of the Veil?
My current trade binder.
"People most likely to cry "troll" are those who can't fathom holding a position for reasons unrelated to how they want to be perceived"
To be amoral is not to care for nothing. To be amoral is a completely different way to evaluate actions and means that lead to certain ways. You can evaluate them normatively, in that case you are displaying moral concerns about a particular course of action, which can be moral (right) or imoral (wrong). You can also evaluate them instrumentally, that is, weighting costs and benefits in a self-interested manner. When you do so, you are displaying amoral concerns about a course of action, which can be effective (right) or inefficient (wrong).
In this sense, black is indeed, amoral.
White is not socialist, white is communitarian (check out the communitarian citizenship model, specially from ancient sparta. That’s almost a perfect fit for white).
Black is indeed ultimately about power. Power is defined as “the capacity for the individual to persuade or coerce other individuals to pursue a set course of action or mean, either positively (compliance) or negatively (deterrence) This concept embeds individuality and self-interest by definition.
Also, black does not make any distinction between “good” and “evil”. Those are moral concerns.
I think if you can't find anything good and heroic in black that's because of your own naivete. Black is the color that promotes greatness as it's end goal, how can this not be a heroic color ?
I don't really admire heroes that just go out there solving random people's problems, like Gideon. Normally my admiration lies in characters that go incredible lengths to achieve something no one else achieved before, for the sake of being at the top.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Joe Abercrombie, known for his First Law trilogy: Sand dan Glokta - Glokta is a Guantanamo Bay style inquisitor. He ferrets out conspiracies to keep the government running smoothly. His job involves the use of torture to get information. Glokta enjoys his work. Prior to becoming an inquisitor, Glokta was one of the Union's best soldiers. Dashing, handsome, all that jazz. He got captured, tortured, and turned into a broken-toothed cripple with periodic bouts of incontinence. For Glokta, his rather cruel job is an outlet for his anger at the injustice dealt to him. He's a hero because he takes the front line in this trilogy against the main antagonist, and helps blunt the cruelty of the...lesser antagonist that's playing on the side of the protagonists against the main antagonist.
Mark Lawrence, known for his Broken Empire trilogy: Jorg Ancrath - Jorg was dealt an injustice by his father, and so tried to spite the man by releasing a band of known murderers, thieves, and rapists from his father's prison. Jorg falls in with this band and, as we see in the opening chapter, does what he needs to do in order to survive with his band. Maintain his street cred, essentially. Jorg's twisted path puts him in a position to save the Broken Empires from the threat of the Dead King and an impending apocalypse at the hands of the Makers. Deception, murder, and bribery are what give him the tools to save the Broken Empires and find catharsis for his past. So here's another Black hero for you.
Black is only misunderstood in the sense that players' might have preconceived notions of the color. Black, like any of the colors, is ultimately a tool. Neither good nor bad - it is what the wielder makes of it.
Take pre-walker Liliana and her willingness to do literally anything to reach her goal of curing her brother. And that is also the great failing of heroic black - if white fails, at least it's made friends along the way. If black fails, it has left a trail of bodies and fire with nothing but good intentions to show for it.
I don't think black would go for democracy - black would probably favor a benevolent dictatorship, which can deal with problems much faster than democracy ever could. Of course, benevolent dictatorships rarely remain benevolent for long.
I could see an argument for Elric being WB (possibly even Bx, considering from of the elementals he has pacts with), but I'd say he falls more solidly in the black categorization, especially later in his timeline when he's using Stormbringer more and more over his medicine to keep himself healthy, and he has directly or indirectly caused the death of just about everyone he holds close.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
In the G vs. B conflict, Life is a primary tool of G. G benefits from having access to the full cycle of life. G accepts Death, and honestly probably has a better understanding of its place in the cycle than B, which sees no inherent value in understanding the cycle except inasmuch as it benefits B. In contrast, B focuses on Death as a tool, which it views as the most exploitable part of the cycle.
(On a side note, Red's another color that gets it's positive sides never shown on cards. How have we not gotten an Act of Treason effect flavored as falling in love yet? Though at least there are "good" red characters depicted so it's not as bad as black...)
Objectivism does not lack morality. Indeed, the very point of any given philosophy (see also: Objectivism) is to apply a structured morality. And while I realize that your quote from Fate/Zero was meant to satirize the term "greed" more than define it, it still misses the mark in truly identifying what greed is--especially with respect to Objectivism. Making all the money you can, and absorbing all assets possible is not conducive to the general understanding of "greed" beyond what the popular narrative disseminates to public schools and OWS wastoids. Greed is, above all else, identified according to the harm it does to oneself and society around you, but despite what the "greed" narrative would have you believe, there have been plenty of capitalists out there making money without harming either themselves or anyone else in the process. In fact, the creation of capital--which allows people who otherwise aren't wealthy the opportunity to start a business and get rich--would be impossible were it not for the consumption and investment of so-called "greedy" businessmen. It is possible to OVER-consume and, therefore, harm yourself and the people around you through bad business practices. In which case, that is unarguably greed-driven ruin, but that is not to be confused with the mere enterprise of making large sums of money.
Logically, Objectvist character should be red. That paradigm strikes me as the most industrial and rationally self-interested. If you really think about it, white comes off as being too altruistic. Blue is concerned with mysticism more than anything else. Green is definitely filled with hippies. And black has an air of pure evil that's more concerned with conquering and coercing than with dealing and free trade.
As for the topic, I don't really see black as "black". I see it as darkness. And black is just the color of darkness. John 3:19-21 sums it up for me:
19 And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For everyone that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth cometh to the light. That his works may be made manifest because they are done in God.
Black isn't evil. But evil dwells in darkness, which is black. So there.
It wasn't meant to satirize or define anything.
Rider is explaining how greed and tyranny can be positive forces, at least in his world view. The debate between Rider and Saber is a classic Black vs White conflict. Rider feels that Saber denied herself an actual life during her kingship. To borrow from Neitzche this is the point of view that perceives self sacrifice as a "life denying" behavior (IIRC something Rand believed as well). Rider may have been a tyrant but his was a life well lived and ultimately one that benefited far more people than hers.
The major difference between Rider and most monoBlack heroes is that he's also nice person.
I'm very curious how you see Red as the color of rational self interest.
If you want to see the most positive aspects of Black, check out of Atlas Shrugged. Read the book or watch the movie on Netflix. Hank Rearden is a perfect example of a black protagonist; arguably even a hero.
Mardu Burn
Monogreen Stompy
Legacy
Burn
Pauper
Dimir Flicker
Monowhite Tokens
I don't mean you personally were satirizing. I mean the quote itself: if you deconstruct a negatively connotative term with the intent of revealing positive implications, then you are, in effect, satirizing the popular culture that holds it in negative esteem.
Tyranny refers to coercion and oppression. There is no positive from that, and it cannot be satirized in the same manner as could the popular misconception of what constitutes "greed". It seems as though you're treating Objectivism as some kind of Willy Wonka brand machine where you could place within it a seemingly negative connotation and watch it get broken down into something positive. Rand's main point was simply that selfishness and capitalism are not the horrible, awful, "greedy", or "tyrannical" concepts that everyone believes them to be; she didn't reshape them into something more functional, but rather they were always functional.
I have to correct myself it seems. After reading the Salvation Wiki on the official philosophy of Red, it makes the color out to be totally irrational, non-inquisitive, and non-introspective. Apparently, Blue is the color of rationality that puts enterprise before social virtues and behaviors. This confuses the hell out of me seeing as how blue is the larger source of magic spells and alchemy, two disciplines completely bereft of objective antecedents to be considered anything other than mystical in nature....But I suppose the realms of MTG have somehow ground the mystical nature of magic down into what the lore of the game itself would consider a fine science. That being said, the existence of Mirrodin and Phyrexia would suggest a distinction between magic and scientifically-developed technology.
To answer your question, however, Red produces the most ideal environment for a free market where everyone's in the game for his individual self. The chaotic venue offers no concept of predestination or ordered placement, and therefore is not constrained by totalitarian regulatory burdens or Authoritarian matrices.
The issue has become more ambiguous for me seeing as how Objectivist characters need a well-defined moral structure to meet Rand's requirements. But the only color that seems at all concerned with applied morality is White, which comes across as being far too collectivist to house--let alone produce--a Howard Roark or a Henry Rearden. At this point, I'm convinced that a hero of rational self-interest would be a color combination character consisting of either white and blue or white and red. In the case of the former, the character would strike a balance between morality and enterprise whereas the latter would combine religiously applied philosophy with free-radical, anti-social behavior. Henry Rearden would, perhaps, be a White/Blue character whereas Howard Roark would be White/Red. For that matter, Gail Wynand could probably qualify as White/Black since he implements an idealistic tyranny derived from his sense of morality--which views everyone as disgusting and perverse, and, as such, totally deserving of the suffrage he doles out.
All of that being said, it might be possible to have a monochrome Objectivist character. For instance, I could see Rorschach or The Question as an exclusively white card seeing as how those are purely ethos-derived characters. Yes, I defied all temptation and refrained from knee-jerk labeling those characters as Black/White.
Enthralling Victor is the closest I can think of at the moment...
The core of the issue lies here.
We have an Everest explorer, he wants to climb Everest, he NEEDS to climb Everest, there's no foundation or charity, no mcguffin to get, he just wants to, for himself, his ego demands it.
Unless he eats his guide to get there WotC will make this a red or white character. All talk of selfishness, ego, self-assurance, self-love, they don't mean *****. You're not black until you do evil, meanwhile they slot you into another color.
Kain, from the Legacy of Kain series, is arguably a Mardu hero. All his plans, machinations and actions are driven by an overwhelming emotional component (fear), and by the end of the series he genuinely evolves a sense of guilt and responsability that compels him to find a way to avert the impending apocalypse. But is he black because from beggining to end the strings that move him are his own massive sense of self-importance and the fear of his particular death, or because he's a merciless murderer and a vampire?
So far according to WotC, if he hadn't killed no-one that need not be killed, and hadn't been so cruel to those who did need to be killed, he'd be completely within Boros or even Jeskai territory and lauded as a goody two-shoes.