White ideals, when taken to an extreme, can be just as non-good as any other color's traits taken to the same extreme. Justice may lead to brutal inquisition. Harmony may lead to brainwashing. Desire for the greater good may lead to the forced sacrifice of the unwilling individual. Brutal, iron-fisted totalitarian law is just as much a part of white as free and open democracy. Each color has a broad range of morality within its boundaries. White doesn't only represent the beneficial side of the traits it embodies, it represents all sides of them. Not all at the same time, but they all fall within that same umbrella.
Exactly, which was the point I was attempting to make. Angels represent white virtues in their most idealistic form(for the most part), as opposed to the much more human "taking them to their extreme. Angels are points of inspiration, embodiments OF the ideals. Not the malformed versions that are actually acted upon.
Note that angels are not necessarily embodiments of good virtues. They are embodiments of white virtues.
Which are generally good. Yes, we have examples such as the Order where humanity takes a certain virtue too far, but we don't see that embodied with angels. Even in Akroma, who is probably the paragon of white virtues does not take such a judgmental stance as The Order.
The embodiment of justice is not an unfeeling machine which exacts painful retribution upon the wicked. "Just" punishment is the fabled "punishment that fits the crime", so while a human group like The Order may smite a kid for Jaywalking, an angel would not.
The things that white values are not universally good. Singling out one color's iconic "big" creatures as being the closest to humanity is being too biased in my opinion. The other colors represent traits that are just as much a part of humanity as any of white's.
I disagree on both counts. The ideals that white holds to ARE universally good, true love, piety, humility, caring, justice in the ideal sense. Only to groups that are opposed to them, like Phyrexia, or groups that are beyond them, like the Eldrazi, are where the ideals of white are not necessarily "good".
The other colors have traits that are part of humanity, however, these traits are represented differently. In white, one aspires to be the most ideal HUMAN possible. To love most truly, to treat others most kindly, to not be just with an iron fist but to be just insomuch that you do not become cruel.
Blue aspires to logic, and by all it's representations, a logic that is distinctly inhuman. A machine logic that does not feel, it does not care, it only seeks to find the ultimate answers. It is uncorrupted by morality or bias, it is very inhuman. While white may idealize thinking rationally about a situation, it does so without dehumanizing the question.
Green aspires to naturalism, to primalism. A life unburdened by order, by laws and customs, only a natural sense of doing what one must to survive without unduly causing another to suffer. White aspires to order, but to social order, where much like the idealism of Bant, every person has a place, but everyone understands their purpose and how that benefits the whole. Angels have their ranks, their orders, but it is not the "survival of the fittest" naturalism order, nor is it the cast and fixed ranks of a more blue-themed hierarchy. The strength emphasized in green is physical, while the strength emphasized in white is inner will.
Red is similar to green, but disregards order entirely. It is all about doing what you want, when you want, it is passion and life without the need for rules, order, or anything that might restrict you. We can compare the difference in white and red well in the flavor differences between Akroma, Angel of Wrath and --of Fury. Where the former is the tempered sword of justice, the latter is the unimpeded passion of vengeance.
Black is, with some irony, the most human besides white. Where white aspires to greatness, black debases into corruption. Black is everything gone wrong.
In summation, Green, Blue and Red take singular aspects of humanity and run with them. For them, ONE aspect of humanity is all that matters, naturalism to the extreme, logic as the only form of thinking, power as the determining factor of existence. Black is the corruption of all ideals. White is the idealism of them.
Covered eyes/faces are certainly not the only thing I think would improve Angels, nor even necessarily the best. But it works well for Archons and for Zendikar angels so I'd like to see that trend show up more often.
I don't think it would improve angels, because we share different ideas of what angels should be. Beyond that, everything should be in moderation, and if EVERY angel had some kind of facial covering, I think it would end up being overdone. I would much rather see some variety in their depiction than a cross-planar standard design.
I think that a living embodiment of mana should be something otherworldly regardless of what ideals it represents.
I don't believe that certain ideas can be represented with inhuman symbols. Demons are distinctly inhuman, but they connect to very human feelings, pain, suffering, hate, greed, gluttony, ect.. That is why angels in white are the perfect foils to them, where Demons are perversions of humanity, angels are perfections.
Covered eyes represents not only indifference, but also non-discrimination, judging not with their sight but by the measure of one's soul. Just as they punish indiscriminately, they love indiscriminately as well.
And that works for some kinds of lore, I don't really think that's entirely fitting for the whole of the magic universe. In some worlds where angels are rare, then yes, it works, in others, no it doesn't.
While knowing in an academic sense that an angel in Magic is above and beyond mortal races, that's different than having that fact apparent to anyone who sees one. A winged human alone doesn't doesn't convey that sort of message all by itself.
I think it does, but I think it does so in a fashion that is better than covered eyes. Wings are symbolic, angels have the ability to lift themselves up above the petty problems of humanity. Angels are not universally arbiters of justice, though they often are for the simple fact that white mana swings in that direction for everyone.
Angels are not, and should not be the concept of arbiters of justice, but a more spiritual representation of self-betterment. They exist, and are humanized, for the very reason that in order to get others to aspire to those lofty goals, they must have a role-model they can connect with. Angels are not there to simply be the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner, but to aspire people to reach for new heights of quality of character.
I think them appearing as humans is part of what makes them distinctly white. Barring real-world mythology surrounding the conceptualization of angels, they work well in the Magic universe.
Serra's angels were either created or "ascended" humans, in that variation, they were symbols of grace, love, enlightenment, a higher state of being that people could look up to, all very traditional "white" symbolism. And that sort of setup as continued throughout most of the magic-verse.
Archons are to me, simply a flavorful variant of angels, and I really see very little thematic difference between the two. In regards to the covering of the eyes, while it certainly does give off a feeling of distanced inhumanity, I think that isn't what angels should be shooting for.
Angels aren't supposed to be unfeeling law-decreeing justice-dooers. They are wrath upon the wicked and saviors to the meet, allies of the just. We know that angels are above and beyond mortals, just as every prime representative of each color is. But inhumanity is not the goal, and for white it shouldn't be. The three non-polar colors(Green, Blue, red) already have great inhuman creatures that represent them.
White, like black, plays to the "higher ideals", not absolute, unflinching justice alone.
Beyond that, most people couldn't really tell you what an archon is, and many will just consider it an angel-variant.
Yeah, I wonder, once you've been compleated is any of your humanity left? Of your previous personality? Maybe towards the end she'll manage to fight the phyrexian influence and die a hero's death.
Depending on the form of compleation, yes and no.
Many are made into mindless monsters, in their cases, no there's nothing left.
Others, like Crovax, Volrath, and more "upper echelon" of Phyrexians, yes, who they were is still left, their minds are just warped(along with their bodies). I don't think it's quite as outright a mind-control as say, the Borg.
I agree that her fear is a good character element, but it was poorly written. This may be an issue with how many pages they could write, it may be the fault of the writer.
It doesn't help that the art is so bad you can't even TELL she's covered in ichor, much less anything at all!
Just having Elspeth go "zomg phyrexia, must kill!" in the beginning to "zomg phyrexia, run away!!" is really bad. Just plain stinks of bad writing.
I'm totally against this decision but why can't you TO's just run the tournaments anyways? Surely it's better than having no tournament at all, you just lose the WPN prize support. I understand pre-releases, but you can still run sanctioned tournaments, that just happen to occur on Friday night right?
While playing tournaments are fun, a large majority of people do it because it's gaining them cool stuff. Not to mention a lot of people play in the little tournaments to work up to the big ones, which if those no longer exist, there's no point in playing in any tournaments. In addition, Friday nights don't work for everyone, in fact friday is generally the busiest day for anyone to do anything. Cramming FNM in there too is just plain difficult.
lets face if, if you were paying WOTC to play "special" games, why on earth would you not want compensation as per their own rules?
RThe only thing Venser did was stuff anyone would have done... so we don't know anything about him. You learn about people by seeing what choices they make, Venser made no real choices in the story, he just went along with everyone else. So we really got nothing from him.
I dunno, but maybe that's the point. In a world filled with heroes beyond measure, maybe Venser is just our "normal guy, trying not to get killed". I highly doubt that Venser is going to be the same person he was in the Time Spiral books, and I wouldn't be surprised if the entire reason for placing him as a protagonist in Time Spiral is to expand his character.
Besides, living forever isn't hard. Just drink the slow-time water.
It's actually something I could believe in. Garruck the Punisher, overexacting vengeance upon all civilisation.
BTW: Is Nissa really a fighter pro nature? I thought she simply was a run of the mill racist.
She's an elf. MTG has yet to have elves who aren't racist forest protectors. Well, maybe not racist, but still forest protectors. She's essentially a de-powered version of Freyalise.
Garruk doesn't like civilization, but I really don't see him as the out to destroy it type. He's not an anarchist.
Actually False God, I think you have that backwards. Elspeth is the crusaderly good, while Gideon is the flexible good. (Especially now, I mean he was never part of the Order of Heliud in actuality, but now he's cut all ties to them given how they "protected" people.) Elspeth meanwhile is pretty heavily indoctrinated and thinks she knows what is best for other people.
I will disagree vehemently. Elspeth is not a crusader. She has, in fact, never done anything to impose the ideal of "white" upon others. Gideon, on the other hand, is very much a crusader, seeking to impose order upon others for their own good. Even if he has stopped working for them, that is one of the defining aspects of his character written all over the cards and books.
Elspeth wants to find the "perfect world" to live in for herself, while she might die to defend it(though I doubt it), she would not, as Gideon would, attempt to impose that world upon others. She might argue that they should try it out and see what it's like and suggest it's the best, but she wouldn't attempt to enforce it.
For Elspeth, good is a personal choice, everyone should live in the world most suited to them, and not bother anyone else. Gideon, good is not a choice, it's an imperative, and everyone must be good in order to live in a good world, even at the end of a sword.
Bolas isn't Chaotic. He doesn't do it just to do it. He's a classic example of Neutral Evil, "The Dominator" archetype. He does what he does because he wants to be in the position of power, not to spread some idealogy of evil or destruction.
neutral evil is probably one of the weidest settings out there so that really wouldn't surprise me to fit either.
Both Elspeth and Gideon are strong representatives of white, who have been known for everything from love and heaving to death and crusades. I would wager that Elspeth is doing her best to be "good", that is, morally upstanding, personally righteous, and is a stronger candidate for "goodness" than Gideon. Gideon is more of the "crusader" of white, he's powerful, he's rigid, he believes in doctrine over flexibility and life, he prefers the ends justifying the means if it ends in order and purity.
Ajani has been all over the place, he's more of a "good intentions" white, the idea that with a strong heart and a good conscience you can get further than though death and destruction.
In short:
Elspeth is the kind and wholesome variety of good, probably the most "true good" character out there.
Gideon is more of the crusader good, and that so long as "order" triumphs in the end, then everything he did was worth it.
Ajani is more of a introspective good(as least his white version is).
NEUTRAL:
Chandra
Jace (?)
Garruk
Nissa
Sorin
Chandra is another example of "the best intentions". She is easily good if "good" is defined as absolute freedom, where Gideon is Lawful Good, Chandra is Chaotic Good. She doesn't set out to harm people, rarely has malicious intent, and she's overall a good person.
Jace is probably a good example of "balance" of neutral. He will still do what he must to win, but he'd rather be kind while doing it. He's also very naive.
Garruk is your typical "woodland protector", and would probably fall into the category of good, but a more natural sort of good.
Nissa is Garruk's foil, where Garruk is "nature is good, I will defend it", Nissa is "nature is good, I will destroy those who oppose it." While auspiciously those seem very similar, the point is that Garruk is defensive while Nissa is offensive. In this respect, Nissa and Garruk provide good foils for Chandra and Gideon, Garruk is the well meaning "i want to live in the woods, leave me and the woods alone plz", nissa is the "crusader of the forest"
Sorin, is above all else, a hedonist, and a vampire at that, which above all else, puts him as true chaotic neutral, he does what he wants, when he wants to, and pays no concern to others expectations of his actions.
EVIL:
Liliana
Nico Bolas
Sarkhan (the Mad?)
Tezzeret (?)
Liliana is probably not evil, though she's certainly not neutral and certainly not good either. She seems to be along the same lines as Sorin, her interests are her own, and she has the power to act upon them.
Nicol Bolas, be him a bad character or simply poorly written, his power is uncontested, he has power beyond anything the current status-quo of planeswalkers could ever hope to achieve. And he knows that, which puts him squarely in the realm of chaotic evil. He does what he wants because he knows that nobody can tell him "no".
Sarkhan is probably best defined as chaotic, I doubt he's really evil, just insane. People who can't understand the concepts of good and evil, can't really be bound to them.
Tezzeret is our best example of "lawful evil", in that he takes advantage of the system to his fullest benefit. He's controlling, obsessive, and manipulative.
I think as far as your outline goes, you're mostly right except for the neutrals, but I would rather have a multitude of heroes, a few "neutrals" and a few "evil" characters. Simply for the matter that I'd rather see a few hero-team-ups and villains who are actually more than one-two-punch takedowns.
Exactly, which was the point I was attempting to make. Angels represent white virtues in their most idealistic form(for the most part), as opposed to the much more human "taking them to their extreme. Angels are points of inspiration, embodiments OF the ideals. Not the malformed versions that are actually acted upon.
Which are generally good. Yes, we have examples such as the Order where humanity takes a certain virtue too far, but we don't see that embodied with angels. Even in Akroma, who is probably the paragon of white virtues does not take such a judgmental stance as The Order.
The embodiment of justice is not an unfeeling machine which exacts painful retribution upon the wicked. "Just" punishment is the fabled "punishment that fits the crime", so while a human group like The Order may smite a kid for Jaywalking, an angel would not.
I disagree on both counts. The ideals that white holds to ARE universally good, true love, piety, humility, caring, justice in the ideal sense. Only to groups that are opposed to them, like Phyrexia, or groups that are beyond them, like the Eldrazi, are where the ideals of white are not necessarily "good".
The other colors have traits that are part of humanity, however, these traits are represented differently. In white, one aspires to be the most ideal HUMAN possible. To love most truly, to treat others most kindly, to not be just with an iron fist but to be just insomuch that you do not become cruel.
Blue aspires to logic, and by all it's representations, a logic that is distinctly inhuman. A machine logic that does not feel, it does not care, it only seeks to find the ultimate answers. It is uncorrupted by morality or bias, it is very inhuman. While white may idealize thinking rationally about a situation, it does so without dehumanizing the question.
Green aspires to naturalism, to primalism. A life unburdened by order, by laws and customs, only a natural sense of doing what one must to survive without unduly causing another to suffer. White aspires to order, but to social order, where much like the idealism of Bant, every person has a place, but everyone understands their purpose and how that benefits the whole. Angels have their ranks, their orders, but it is not the "survival of the fittest" naturalism order, nor is it the cast and fixed ranks of a more blue-themed hierarchy. The strength emphasized in green is physical, while the strength emphasized in white is inner will.
Red is similar to green, but disregards order entirely. It is all about doing what you want, when you want, it is passion and life without the need for rules, order, or anything that might restrict you. We can compare the difference in white and red well in the flavor differences between Akroma, Angel of Wrath and --of Fury. Where the former is the tempered sword of justice, the latter is the unimpeded passion of vengeance.
Black is, with some irony, the most human besides white. Where white aspires to greatness, black debases into corruption. Black is everything gone wrong.
In summation, Green, Blue and Red take singular aspects of humanity and run with them. For them, ONE aspect of humanity is all that matters, naturalism to the extreme, logic as the only form of thinking, power as the determining factor of existence. Black is the corruption of all ideals. White is the idealism of them.
I don't think it would improve angels, because we share different ideas of what angels should be. Beyond that, everything should be in moderation, and if EVERY angel had some kind of facial covering, I think it would end up being overdone. I would much rather see some variety in their depiction than a cross-planar standard design.
I don't believe that certain ideas can be represented with inhuman symbols. Demons are distinctly inhuman, but they connect to very human feelings, pain, suffering, hate, greed, gluttony, ect.. That is why angels in white are the perfect foils to them, where Demons are perversions of humanity, angels are perfections.
And that works for some kinds of lore, I don't really think that's entirely fitting for the whole of the magic universe. In some worlds where angels are rare, then yes, it works, in others, no it doesn't.
I think it does, but I think it does so in a fashion that is better than covered eyes. Wings are symbolic, angels have the ability to lift themselves up above the petty problems of humanity. Angels are not universally arbiters of justice, though they often are for the simple fact that white mana swings in that direction for everyone.
Angels are not, and should not be the concept of arbiters of justice, but a more spiritual representation of self-betterment. They exist, and are humanized, for the very reason that in order to get others to aspire to those lofty goals, they must have a role-model they can connect with. Angels are not there to simply be the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner, but to aspire people to reach for new heights of quality of character.
Serra's angels were either created or "ascended" humans, in that variation, they were symbols of grace, love, enlightenment, a higher state of being that people could look up to, all very traditional "white" symbolism. And that sort of setup as continued throughout most of the magic-verse.
Archons are to me, simply a flavorful variant of angels, and I really see very little thematic difference between the two. In regards to the covering of the eyes, while it certainly does give off a feeling of distanced inhumanity, I think that isn't what angels should be shooting for.
Angels aren't supposed to be unfeeling law-decreeing justice-dooers. They are wrath upon the wicked and saviors to the meet, allies of the just. We know that angels are above and beyond mortals, just as every prime representative of each color is. But inhumanity is not the goal, and for white it shouldn't be. The three non-polar colors(Green, Blue, red) already have great inhuman creatures that represent them.
White, like black, plays to the "higher ideals", not absolute, unflinching justice alone.
Beyond that, most people couldn't really tell you what an archon is, and many will just consider it an angel-variant.
Because quite simply, the Mirrodin Pure box design looks a WHOLE lot more awesome.
Depending on the form of compleation, yes and no.
Many are made into mindless monsters, in their cases, no there's nothing left.
Others, like Crovax, Volrath, and more "upper echelon" of Phyrexians, yes, who they were is still left, their minds are just warped(along with their bodies). I don't think it's quite as outright a mind-control as say, the Borg.
They were on Rath and Otaria and were weapons of Phyrexia under Volrath.
Although it is incredibly sliver-looking, I do agree it is a corrupted harvester most likely.
It doesn't help that the art is so bad you can't even TELL she's covered in ichor, much less anything at all!
Just having Elspeth go "zomg phyrexia, must kill!" in the beginning to "zomg phyrexia, run away!!" is really bad. Just plain stinks of bad writing.
While playing tournaments are fun, a large majority of people do it because it's gaining them cool stuff. Not to mention a lot of people play in the little tournaments to work up to the big ones, which if those no longer exist, there's no point in playing in any tournaments. In addition, Friday nights don't work for everyone, in fact friday is generally the busiest day for anyone to do anything. Cramming FNM in there too is just plain difficult.
lets face if, if you were paying WOTC to play "special" games, why on earth would you not want compensation as per their own rules?
I would too.
Anyone have that citation? Anyone? Anyone?
Oh, right, nobody does.
Thank you.
I dunno, but maybe that's the point. In a world filled with heroes beyond measure, maybe Venser is just our "normal guy, trying not to get killed". I highly doubt that Venser is going to be the same person he was in the Time Spiral books, and I wouldn't be surprised if the entire reason for placing him as a protagonist in Time Spiral is to expand his character.
Besides, living forever isn't hard. Just drink the slow-time water.
She's an elf. MTG has yet to have elves who aren't racist forest protectors. Well, maybe not racist, but still forest protectors. She's essentially a de-powered version of Freyalise.
Garruk doesn't like civilization, but I really don't see him as the out to destroy it type. He's not an anarchist.
I will disagree vehemently. Elspeth is not a crusader. She has, in fact, never done anything to impose the ideal of "white" upon others. Gideon, on the other hand, is very much a crusader, seeking to impose order upon others for their own good. Even if he has stopped working for them, that is one of the defining aspects of his character written all over the cards and books.
Elspeth wants to find the "perfect world" to live in for herself, while she might die to defend it(though I doubt it), she would not, as Gideon would, attempt to impose that world upon others. She might argue that they should try it out and see what it's like and suggest it's the best, but she wouldn't attempt to enforce it.
For Elspeth, good is a personal choice, everyone should live in the world most suited to them, and not bother anyone else. Gideon, good is not a choice, it's an imperative, and everyone must be good in order to live in a good world, even at the end of a sword.
neutral evil is probably one of the weidest settings out there so that really wouldn't surprise me to fit either.
Both Elspeth and Gideon are strong representatives of white, who have been known for everything from love and heaving to death and crusades. I would wager that Elspeth is doing her best to be "good", that is, morally upstanding, personally righteous, and is a stronger candidate for "goodness" than Gideon. Gideon is more of the "crusader" of white, he's powerful, he's rigid, he believes in doctrine over flexibility and life, he prefers the ends justifying the means if it ends in order and purity.
Ajani has been all over the place, he's more of a "good intentions" white, the idea that with a strong heart and a good conscience you can get further than though death and destruction.
In short:
Elspeth is the kind and wholesome variety of good, probably the most "true good" character out there.
Gideon is more of the crusader good, and that so long as "order" triumphs in the end, then everything he did was worth it.
Ajani is more of a introspective good(as least his white version is).
Chandra is another example of "the best intentions". She is easily good if "good" is defined as absolute freedom, where Gideon is Lawful Good, Chandra is Chaotic Good. She doesn't set out to harm people, rarely has malicious intent, and she's overall a good person.
Jace is probably a good example of "balance" of neutral. He will still do what he must to win, but he'd rather be kind while doing it. He's also very naive.
Garruk is your typical "woodland protector", and would probably fall into the category of good, but a more natural sort of good.
Nissa is Garruk's foil, where Garruk is "nature is good, I will defend it", Nissa is "nature is good, I will destroy those who oppose it." While auspiciously those seem very similar, the point is that Garruk is defensive while Nissa is offensive. In this respect, Nissa and Garruk provide good foils for Chandra and Gideon, Garruk is the well meaning "i want to live in the woods, leave me and the woods alone plz", nissa is the "crusader of the forest"
Sorin, is above all else, a hedonist, and a vampire at that, which above all else, puts him as true chaotic neutral, he does what he wants, when he wants to, and pays no concern to others expectations of his actions.
Liliana is probably not evil, though she's certainly not neutral and certainly not good either. She seems to be along the same lines as Sorin, her interests are her own, and she has the power to act upon them.
Nicol Bolas, be him a bad character or simply poorly written, his power is uncontested, he has power beyond anything the current status-quo of planeswalkers could ever hope to achieve. And he knows that, which puts him squarely in the realm of chaotic evil. He does what he wants because he knows that nobody can tell him "no".
Sarkhan is probably best defined as chaotic, I doubt he's really evil, just insane. People who can't understand the concepts of good and evil, can't really be bound to them.
Tezzeret is our best example of "lawful evil", in that he takes advantage of the system to his fullest benefit. He's controlling, obsessive, and manipulative.
I think as far as your outline goes, you're mostly right except for the neutrals, but I would rather have a multitude of heroes, a few "neutrals" and a few "evil" characters. Simply for the matter that I'd rather see a few hero-team-ups and villains who are actually more than one-two-punch takedowns.