The Nobility of Black

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
If white is not necessarily the good color, and black is not necessarily the evil color, then the implication is that white can be evil and black can be good. But if black is purely out for itself, then how can it have any nobility or good intentions? Discuss!
If white is not necessarily the good color, and black is not necessarily the evil color, then the implication is that white can be evil and black can be good. But if black is purely out for itself, then how can it have any nobility or good intentions? Discuss!



The nearest we get is Toshiro Umezawa.

He did a bunch of things that saved the world (Okay, deus-ex-machina-sisters killed O-Kagachi, but without Umezawa, Michiko would have been dead probably ten times over). He didn't do it because he wanted to save the world. He did it to save himself (initially from the Soratami, and then throw in a bunch of our favorite Kamigawa characters and he had to save himself from O-Kagachi anyway).

So sadly, Black's nobility comes from pure coincedences, where the good act's result is still to benefit the individual. Black cannot think nobly, though. White can be narrow-minded, but black cannot be wide-minded. Its just when the circumstances match, Black looks like it was noble.

Let's put it this way, if instead of invading Phyrexians, the Eldrazi came for a tasteless meal of Mirrodin, I'd say Geth would do some heroic acts, not to save the world, but to save his head.
Hm, I disagree. A black mage that's smart enough will certainly be able to see the broad picture. It's practically necessary to their survival to have an enlightened self interest where they stay on top, certainly, but the system keeps moving in a fairly stable and unified White way. Of course, not all black mages are smart enough to do that, which is why I have serious reservations about enlightened self interest as a social or economic system, but I do think it's an example of black broadmindedness.

Also, keep in mind that you can have true neutral Black as well. Black doesn't necessarily have to actively achieve power over the backs of others. I can easily see a black player that doesn't like using violence against other sentients but has no problem dismantling a power system that he/she doesn't respect. Call it, perhaps, Noble Anarchist black. Dadaism and Banksy's graffiti art are probably both examples of this, although Dada has a touch of green and red, and I think Banksy ultimately has a touch of white.
Coming Soon to the Magic: Expanded Multiverse: FRAGMENTS: A Shards of Alara Anthology
(Click through to view the cover and announcement page)Want to get your work in the Expanded Multiverse? Come join the project! Oh, and check out my blog, Storming the Ivory Tower: making sense of academia, media, and culture twice weekly.
If you want another black hero, look at Sorin. Did he risk his life and/or spark to stop the Eldrazi for purely selfless reasons? I doubt it. But he could have run away every time the Eldrazi came to a plane he was on. It's quite possible that he helped defeat them to stop them from eating a plane he was particularly fond of for the hedonistic opportunities it presented to him, but the point is that he actually did set out to save the world (or a bunch of worlds). He returned twice to repair the prison, and only actually gave up when Nissa the Utter Moron deliberately made his job impossible.

Does that make him a typical good guy? I don't know much about him, but he's a vampire. From what little I've read he persues pleasure more than power, but I wouldn't be surprised if he eats people.

He's probably against the Eldrazi because they threaten his ability to enjoy life on his favorite planes, but what he's done is very heroic.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.
If you want another black hero, look at Sorin. Did he risk his life and/or spark to stop the Eldrazi for purely selfless reasons? I doubt it. But he could have run away every time the Eldrazi came to a plane he was on. It's quite possible that he helped defeat them to stop them from eating a plane he was particularly fond of for the hedonistic opportunities it presented to him, but the point is that he actually did set out to save the world (or a bunch of worlds). He returned twice to repair the prison, and only actually gave up when Nissa the Utter Moron deliberately made his job impossible. Does that make him a typical good guy? I don't know much about him, but he's a vampire. From what little I've read he persues pleasure more than power, but I wouldn't be surprised if he eats people. He's probably against the Eldrazi because they threaten his ability to enjoy life on his favorite planes, but what he's done is very heroic.



He eats people.
If you want another black hero, look at Sorin. Did he risk his life and/or spark to stop the Eldrazi for purely selfless reasons? I doubt it. But he could have run away every time the Eldrazi came to a plane he was on. It's quite possible that he helped defeat them to stop them from eating a plane he was particularly fond of for the hedonistic opportunities it presented to him, but the point is that he actually did set out to save the world (or a bunch of worlds). He returned twice to repair the prison, and only actually gave up when Nissa the Utter Moron deliberately made his job impossible. Does that make him a typical good guy? I don't know much about him, but he's a vampire. From what little I've read he persues pleasure more than power, but I wouldn't be surprised if he eats people. He's probably against the Eldrazi because they threaten his ability to enjoy life on his favorite planes, but what he's done is very heroic.



He eats people.



Boo-hoo. I'm sure most Planeswalkers have fed on sentient beings without even knowing it.

*Garruk arrives on new plane*

"ME HUNGRY. ME THIRSTY."

*A huge monster approaches him. It then proceeds to roar and snarl, while actually saying this:*

"Greetings Planeswalker. You are most welcome on Ngthufashnikov. My name is Nfuagld. We have been waiting for one of your kind for decades. You see, we have recently invented a time-travelling machine, but we have some problems with the..."

"NEW PREY! GARRUK HUNT! GARRUK EAT! RAWR!"

*Proceeds to wipe out civilisation and feast on the remains*

At least Markov doesn't call it heroism. 
The Pony Co. Because none of us are as loving as all of us.
Contact info
In case contacting me over the forums is not possible for some reason or another, my email is morten.c.k.olsen@gmail.com. Please state who you are, because I will most likely end up ignoring people that I don't know at least somewhat.
Alwaaaaays, I wanna be with you!
56287226 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
You clearly overestimate my cognitive skills by assuming that I could have accumulated that knowledge independently.
Okay, I'll be sure not to make that kind of assumption in the future. Now, if you'd like to go back to the main Magic General 'forum' page (that's the one that lists all the different 'discussion threads' that people have 'posted') from this page, just press the up-arrow key on your keyboard until you reach the top of the page, then click the link that says "Magic General"--it should be in fairly small font, just above the buttons labeled "Post Reply" and "Subscribe" and the box labeled "Jump Menu", but below the blue link labeled "Preferences". It'll be in a line with a number of other small-font links with different names. From the 'forum' page you will be able to select another 'thread' to view; 'threads' that people have 'posted' to since you last looked at them will have their names listed in bold font and have the number of unread replies listed just to the right of the name. If you click that unread replies number, it will take you right to the last reply you viewed in the 'thread' so that you can continue reading all the new replies from there. To get back to the main Magic General 'forum' page, just repeat the process from the previous paragraph--don't worry if you're on a different page, all 'thread' pages will have the same basic layout, so it should work exactly the same on any page in the Magic General 'forum'.\ And remember, if you accidentally click on the wrong link and find yourself on a page you're not familiar with, there's no need to panic; you can always press the 'back' button in your browser to go back to whatever you were looking at before. It should be on the left-hand side near the top of the screen, just below the menu bar, and will probably have a picture of some kind of arrow pointing to the left on it. Hope that helps!
56957928 wrote:
56914748 wrote:
The explanation given was that since land cards represent mystical bonds to far-off places rather than actual tangible things like creatures and other permanents, a person might have more than one memory of an area, or different mages could forge a bond to different parts of a place, etc. and that simply being a unique location doesn't necessarily mean that a land card has to be legendary.
"I remember my days as a schoolboy at the Tolarian Academy..." "Really? I went there too-" "Wait don't- Well ****, there goes my childhood."
56816728 wrote:
I was clearly wrong about Dragon_Whelp, he clearly is a jerk.
57471038 wrote:
Allow me to extrapolate—regular game play, as defined by WotC, is tournament play. As such, Casual, EDH, Planechase, and all that other stuff is irregular Magic; if Magic at all. So the next time someone says Competitive Constructed decks are not the only decks that count in Constructed (Casual Constructed), then I can gleefully point to the definition set forth by WotC and say that Competitive Constructed is in deed the only ones that count, and that they are playing some irregular form of Magic.
56792158 wrote:
Dragon, just don't argue with Hovercraft. He's his own Legacy metagame.
57471038 wrote:
One with Nothing is the third iteration in an attempt to make Black Lotus fair: Black Lotus: That's too good, we need to tone it down. Lion's Eye Diamond: Dammit, players are still using it in a very broken manner! One with Nothing: Alright! We got it now.
Twin2;15476002 wrote:
What happened to the really fun cards? Well you see a long long time ago the earth was ruled by dinosaurs. They were big so not a lot of people went around hassling them. Then a giant meteorite struck the earth, good bye dinosaurs. But what if the dinosaurs weren't all destroyed? What if the impact of that meteorite created a parallel dimension where the dinosaurs continue to thrive and evolve into intelligent vicious aggressive beings? What if they found a way back? ....wait that's not what happened to the fun cards that's the intro to the mario brothers movie. Get those two confused all the time, my bad.
56981618 wrote:
It's a folllow-up on the Priceless Treasures, Deadly Perils idea. See, what happened was, you got the packs that the Eldrazi had already gotten to--the had annihilated everything but the land itself. In fall, expect to open some packs and find cards covered in goopy, black oil. It's all about the marketing angle, people.
Neither does Garruk.

Now if ELSPETH ate someone, that'd be different.
Neither does Garruk.

Now if ELSPETH ate someone, that'd be different.



Do you think she's a vegetarian? Because I'm pretty sure cows are sentient somewhere in the Multiverse.

And Ajani's a friggin' lion. He probably ate more people than you can imagine.

EDIT: Neither Urborg, nor Bant had minotaurs. What do you think Elspeth would do to one if she saw it? OMNOMNOM! 
The Pony Co. Because none of us are as loving as all of us.
Contact info
In case contacting me over the forums is not possible for some reason or another, my email is morten.c.k.olsen@gmail.com. Please state who you are, because I will most likely end up ignoring people that I don't know at least somewhat.
Alwaaaaays, I wanna be with you!
56287226 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
You clearly overestimate my cognitive skills by assuming that I could have accumulated that knowledge independently.
Okay, I'll be sure not to make that kind of assumption in the future. Now, if you'd like to go back to the main Magic General 'forum' page (that's the one that lists all the different 'discussion threads' that people have 'posted') from this page, just press the up-arrow key on your keyboard until you reach the top of the page, then click the link that says "Magic General"--it should be in fairly small font, just above the buttons labeled "Post Reply" and "Subscribe" and the box labeled "Jump Menu", but below the blue link labeled "Preferences". It'll be in a line with a number of other small-font links with different names. From the 'forum' page you will be able to select another 'thread' to view; 'threads' that people have 'posted' to since you last looked at them will have their names listed in bold font and have the number of unread replies listed just to the right of the name. If you click that unread replies number, it will take you right to the last reply you viewed in the 'thread' so that you can continue reading all the new replies from there. To get back to the main Magic General 'forum' page, just repeat the process from the previous paragraph--don't worry if you're on a different page, all 'thread' pages will have the same basic layout, so it should work exactly the same on any page in the Magic General 'forum'.\ And remember, if you accidentally click on the wrong link and find yourself on a page you're not familiar with, there's no need to panic; you can always press the 'back' button in your browser to go back to whatever you were looking at before. It should be on the left-hand side near the top of the screen, just below the menu bar, and will probably have a picture of some kind of arrow pointing to the left on it. Hope that helps!
56957928 wrote:
56914748 wrote:
The explanation given was that since land cards represent mystical bonds to far-off places rather than actual tangible things like creatures and other permanents, a person might have more than one memory of an area, or different mages could forge a bond to different parts of a place, etc. and that simply being a unique location doesn't necessarily mean that a land card has to be legendary.
"I remember my days as a schoolboy at the Tolarian Academy..." "Really? I went there too-" "Wait don't- Well ****, there goes my childhood."
56816728 wrote:
I was clearly wrong about Dragon_Whelp, he clearly is a jerk.
57471038 wrote:
Allow me to extrapolate—regular game play, as defined by WotC, is tournament play. As such, Casual, EDH, Planechase, and all that other stuff is irregular Magic; if Magic at all. So the next time someone says Competitive Constructed decks are not the only decks that count in Constructed (Casual Constructed), then I can gleefully point to the definition set forth by WotC and say that Competitive Constructed is in deed the only ones that count, and that they are playing some irregular form of Magic.
56792158 wrote:
Dragon, just don't argue with Hovercraft. He's his own Legacy metagame.
57471038 wrote:
One with Nothing is the third iteration in an attempt to make Black Lotus fair: Black Lotus: That's too good, we need to tone it down. Lion's Eye Diamond: Dammit, players are still using it in a very broken manner! One with Nothing: Alright! We got it now.
Twin2;15476002 wrote:
What happened to the really fun cards? Well you see a long long time ago the earth was ruled by dinosaurs. They were big so not a lot of people went around hassling them. Then a giant meteorite struck the earth, good bye dinosaurs. But what if the dinosaurs weren't all destroyed? What if the impact of that meteorite created a parallel dimension where the dinosaurs continue to thrive and evolve into intelligent vicious aggressive beings? What if they found a way back? ....wait that's not what happened to the fun cards that's the intro to the mario brothers movie. Get those two confused all the time, my bad.
56981618 wrote:
It's a folllow-up on the Priceless Treasures, Deadly Perils idea. See, what happened was, you got the packs that the Eldrazi had already gotten to--the had annihilated everything but the land itself. In fall, expect to open some packs and find cards covered in goopy, black oil. It's all about the marketing angle, people.
So sadly, Black's nobility comes from pure coincedences[...]

I wouldn't really call it coincidence; that implies that it's a happy accident, something nobody even realized would happen, when really, it's not. I'd call it an alignment of interests. Black's in danger, so it acts to stop the thing endangering it. It knows perfectly well that by doing so it will also save others. Doing so isn't one of the factors motivating black to stop the Bad Things, but it does know it will happen, so it's not a coincidence.

Sure, black is never going to be 'noble' or 'heroic' in his intentions in the Truth & Justice, boyscout Superman way, but it does make a serviceable antihero.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

"good" and "evil" are about as descriptive as "blashish" and "braumdnaladialal"... they are meaningless unless you define them.

Black is amoral... it doesn't belive in morals so it wouldn't be moral by it's own nature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now if you are asking if other people would see black as moral... it all depends on what moral standard you are using:

In a Kantian standard, Black can't do anything moral because it always has a selfish motivation. (Even if you saved a burning bus of Orphans, if you did it to get on TV you've done something amoral).

From a utilitarian standpoint, black often does good (in fact it might be the most moral color). (Even if you set a bus full of Orphans on fire, if the result of your actions created more good in the world than bad... you've done a moral thing).

There are other moral codes, but these are the two most people use (The united states was built on a Kantian moral ideal for those who are wondering).

~~~~~~~~~~~

So can black be moral? Sure, as long as the moral code you pick allows for black to be moral.

… and then, the squirrels came.
I would argue that America is driven by the conflict between a Utilitarian morality and a religious morality, rather than Kantian... I mean, that's what you really see over the last hundred or so years of our history, and perhaps even the entirity of our history...
Coming Soon to the Magic: Expanded Multiverse: FRAGMENTS: A Shards of Alara Anthology
(Click through to view the cover and announcement page)Want to get your work in the Expanded Multiverse? Come join the project! Oh, and check out my blog, Storming the Ivory Tower: making sense of academia, media, and culture twice weekly.
is like this in attitude of heroics. He saves somebody, because he knows that he will get a reward.
He does something heroic to get attention and to get a reward/what he wants. Why am I using a male personna for ? Women fit this as well. add /she to any He in here.
[/sblock] [sblock=signature] I am Red/Black
I am Red/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's
Black's an interesting case.

We've seen examples of every color acting in antagonistic fashions, and we've seen plenty of examples of every other color acting in protagonistic fashions; but black seems to have the narrowest range of qualities that mesh with being a protagonist.

I think there are qualities there that would allow for more black heroes; ambition isn't inherently evil, for example.
If I may bring up TV tropes; archetypes like 'Pay Evil Unto Evil' or a Noble Demon seem far more black than anything else (to me at least).
Characters like Dexter or the Punisher skew black in that they're doing very villainous things, for their own reasons, but are ultimately convinced that what they're doing is, in some way, good.

A villain that does a good deed for the greater good is no less a villain; Nicol Bolas sealed one of the time rifts, not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was in his own self-interest. He never stopped being a jerk.


P.S.; I'm assuming that bringing up gold heroes like Rhys or Teysa doesn't count because they're drawing inspiration from multiple color philsophies.
Characters like Dexter or the Punisher skew black in that they're doing very villainous things, for their own reasons, but are ultimately convinced that what they're doing is, in some way, good.



The Punisher is actually a really good example. While he believes that he is doing everything for the greater good, he is mostly doing it for very selfish reasons. He is certainly a primarily Black character, though I would argue he has at least some white or red in him, depending on if his motivation is to uphold the law or if it truly is just for revenge.

P.S.; I'm assuming that bringing up gold heroes like Rhys or Teysa doesn't count because they're drawing inspiration from multiple color philsophies.



Rhys was a protagonist, but he was far from a hero... and he was monogreen until Shadowmoor, when he became Green/White. Marelen actually is more of a hero, despite being pure black. However, the most strictly heroic character of Lorwyn Block (Besides Brigid, who is cheating because Hero is in her name) is the Sapling of Colfenor, who is Green/Black.

Don't ask me about Teysa, though - I hardly remember what she was like.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
I would argue that America is driven by the conflict between a Utilitarian morality and a religious morality, rather than Kantian... I mean, that's what you really see over the last hundred or so years of our history, and perhaps even the entirity of our history...



Kant was one of prominent figures during the elightenment, and his works were heavily read by the founding fathers.

Alot of his ideas have made thier way into our laws. For example, the severity of a punishment is often determined by the intent of the criminal. As opposed to a utilitarian viewpoint of using the actual damage as a marker.

The closest we really get to utilitiran goverment is in our tax system that taxes the wealthy more than the poor. But that's nowhere close to the level they do in socialist countries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for religion... that really hasn't been a big driving force in the developement of the constitution or the laws afterwards. The constitutions does a very good job of keeping church and state seperate.

I don't look at the constitution and see anything i would consider religious, nor do i really see religion in the structure of the laws.

Yes, some laws are created based on jeuda-christian morals, blue laws and marriage laws being the two to come to mind... but these laws are in the minority, and tend to be harmless (which is probaly why they've survived this long).

Compare that to some of the countries which are based on church, who are pretty oppressive with thier legal system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see America as a product of the enlightenment and the first country founded outside the church. Using the philosophies from the enlightenment as it's cornerstones.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Ah, ok. That does make sense. I still see the ultimate development and evolution, especially in the 19th century, as being the one I describe, despite the nation's enlightenment roots. Still, I would agree that the actual foundation is how you would describe it.
Coming Soon to the Magic: Expanded Multiverse: FRAGMENTS: A Shards of Alara Anthology
(Click through to view the cover and announcement page)Want to get your work in the Expanded Multiverse? Come join the project! Oh, and check out my blog, Storming the Ivory Tower: making sense of academia, media, and culture twice weekly.
I assume that "good black" is basically Objectivist, which is pretty interesting when you consider what an Objectivist would think about Phyrexia.
Well, that depends what your views of objectivists are. ;)
Coming Soon to the Magic: Expanded Multiverse: FRAGMENTS: A Shards of Alara Anthology
(Click through to view the cover and announcement page)Want to get your work in the Expanded Multiverse? Come join the project! Oh, and check out my blog, Storming the Ivory Tower: making sense of academia, media, and culture twice weekly.
I assume that "good black" is basically Objectivist, which is pretty interesting when you consider what an Objectivist would think about Phyrexia.



Black isn't really an objectivst or a realivist... black is amoral. It doesn't subscribe to any moral standard.

The only moral systems in which black can act morally are those that don't require black to have morals. (Kantian doesn't work, but utilitiran does)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a bit hard talking about morals for black (and red) because these two colors really don't show up all that much in the population.

Most people are white... some are blue/green... and almost no one is red or black. And for good reason... civilzation demands a mostly white population to be stable.

It's rather rare to find someone who lacks morals, or who is an anarchist.

(That being said, alot of people do have streaks of red and black in thier personality... everyone does. It's just that most people are firmly white/blue/green).

Here's a cute little webcomic to illustrate why monored people are very rare.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Oh my god! That was hilarious! How many of us fit either of them?
[/sblock] [sblock=signature] I am Red/Black
I am Red/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's
I disagree, I think the vast majority of humans are white, black, and/or red; small minority are blue; and almost none are green.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.
I always thought green's philosophical range was depressingly short. It's just... nature. A purely green person is a nature freak and that's basically it. "What should we do?" "Ask nature." It's somehow the answer to every problem, which makes absolutely no sense. At all. I don't think a person can be monogreen. Is there anything else that green represents? Even red has more than just emotions. Red has freedom and impulse as well.
I disagree, I think most people are a relatively even mix of all five colors, with perhaps one or more colors being dominant.

As an example, I self identify as Red/Blue, but I love animals and the peace of the wilderness, I respect the law and try to act for the good of all when possible, but I certainly have a deep selfish streak - I'm not going to sacrifice my livelihood for someone I don't know.

On the other hand, groups of people are much more defined by individual colors. Most governments are by definition White. As an example, I see the Democratic and Republican parties as being primarily white/black. On the other hand, a dictatorship is completely black, and the theoritical socialist government that hasn't existed yet is Green/White or possibly Red, as evidenced by the Vulshok (who are sort of socialist... kinda?)
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
Nature is actually a pretty gigantic thing to represent, since it covers the whole universe. But green represents more than just nature. See this article: www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...

It just doesn't represent much that's human.


As for socialism... it's white, pure white. Fascism is also pure white, which covers some dictatorships.



Everybody certainly has some of each color in them (the current color pie was based on human psychology, after all) but it doesn't by any means follow that everybody is an equal mix of all five.

Most humans appear to promote the narrow interest of their group (religion, nation, family, ethnic group, class, caste, etc.) at the expense of all others, for which they spare no real concern. As such, most humans would be primarily white-black.
Folks who focus their lives on intellectual/academic/scientific persuits, or on art for art's sake, are probably a rather small part of the human population. The actual anarchists add a little more to red, but I really don't see how any significant percentage of humans can be primarily blue.

Let alone green. Just look at human behavior.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.

It's a bit hard talking about morals for black (and red) because these two colors really don't show up all that much in the population.

Most people are white... some are blue/green... and almost no one is red or black. And for good reason... civilzation demands a mostly white population to be stable.

It's rather rare to find someone who lacks morals, or who is an anarchist.

(That being said, alot of people do have streaks of red and black in thier personality... everyone does. It's just that most people are firmly white/blue/green).

Here's a cute little webcomic to illustrate why monored people are very rare.



I seriously resent the implication that red is purely an anarchist color! Red isn't so dependent on anarchy as much as self-determination and freedom of will. Red doesn't have to be actively against any sort of community or social structure so long as those social laws don't overly impinge upon red's right to seek personal freedom. It's short sighted and bigotist to attribute purely chaotic motivations to red.

Look at Keral Keep. 'Nuff said.
Damn white quislings...
Socialism isn't pure white. Most white societies we've seen tend to be feudal in structure, while perhaps the most notably socialist society is Selesnya, which is Green/White.

Just because white is the color of law and order doesn't mean that every government is white, though governments do trend towards white.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
I didn't say white is the color of all government. And I didn't say all monowhite is socialist. If I didn't say it explicitly, then I didn't imply it, so don't assume there was something implied in that post. There wasn't.

I said socialism is white. And I'm just paraphrasing Mark Rosewater, who if I'm not mistaken personally invented writes a lot of articles about the current version of the color pie we're all discussing. See this: www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...


EDIT: I believe Rosewater was talking about socialism as it is actually practiced, i.e. a command economy with nationalization of most industries, not an exact reproduction of what Marx advocated.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.
Also note that Marx's ideas about estrangement from labor sound more than a little red, in their heavy emphasis upon personal expression of will and creativity. So perhaps communism and socialism are a bizarre mix of white, red, and splashes of a few other colors depending on the implementation?
Coming Soon to the Magic: Expanded Multiverse: FRAGMENTS: A Shards of Alara Anthology
(Click through to view the cover and announcement page)Want to get your work in the Expanded Multiverse? Come join the project! Oh, and check out my blog, Storming the Ivory Tower: making sense of academia, media, and culture twice weekly.
Ahem.

Green: Nature, natural things, instinct, love, healing, personal growth.

Red: Emotions, True Creativity, Anger, Lust/appetite, party monkeying.

Black: Self-service, Ambition, Amoral, Cruel Cunning/ruthlessness.

Blue: Logic, Kowledge, Deceit, Control, Rationality.

White: Law, Order, Group-Ethics, Hypocrisy, Religion.

This is My Opinion. Correct any mistakes I have made.
[/sblock] [sblock=signature] I am Red/Black
I am Red/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's
Hypocrisy?
I didn't say white is the color of all government. And I didn't say all monowhite is socialist. If I didn't say it explicitly, then I didn't imply it, so don't assume there was something implied in that post. There wasn't.



You said that Socialism is pure-white, which means that no other colors are involved.

I said socialism is white. And I'm just paraphrasing Mark Rosewater, who if I'm not mistaken personally invented the current version of the color pie we're all discussing. See this: www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...



He didn't "personally invent" the current version of the color pie, he was a member of the team that explored what the color pie meant in terms of game mechanics. They didn't actually change the philosophies of the colors.

EDIT: I believe Rosewater was talking about socialism as it is actually practiced, i.e. a command economy with nationalization of most industries, not an exact reproduction of what Marx advocated.



The passing reference to socialism, which is confined completely to its opposition of capitalism. And by what he said, it seems to me that he is not referred to socialism as it is actually practiced, but more as the ideal form where every person is actually equal and equally important.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
Lol @ "hypocrisy" and "True Creativity". Someone doesn't like white. I'd consider blue to be the most creative of all, as well.
Lol @ "hypocrisy" and "True Creativity". Someone doesn't like white. I'd consider blue to be the most creative of all, as well.



I would say that blue and red are equally creative in different ways. Blue is more creative in science, red is more creative in art.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
I seriously resent the implication that red is purely an anarchist color!



Anarchy

^ This is the very definition of what Red wants. Especially:


~ You can't copy text from Dictionary.com without it freaking out~





Red doesn't have to be actively against any sort of community or social structure so long as those social laws don't overly impinge upon red's right to seek personal freedom.



Right... if a goverment isn't oppressive, they can live with it... especially since most "red people" are actually just partially red.

It's short sighted and bigotist to attribute purely chaotic motivations to red.

Look at Keral Keep. 'Nuff said.
Damn white quislings...



I never said red's motivations were chaotic. Red's motivations are that of freedom and self-focus. Both of these are dangerous for a socieity because they destablize it. Thus red personality traits are undesirable in a society.

Now in America, we actually embrace freedom and thus red and black are more accepted in America than elsewhere... but in more oppresive goverments (like communist ones) red people are often the most dangerous. They stand up to unjust laws, march in the streets, and defy the police.

Red's biggest strength is also it's biggest weakness, in that a color based around not living by other people's rules... can't live by other people's rules. If you are building a community, you want team players, not rebels. And red is unfortunately a wild card.

* I also never said red had chaotic motivation. I honestly don't really understand the chaotic part of red... i guess that's the easiest translation of "spur of the moment" and "not planning ahead". Really chaotic actions are a sign of mental illness, and doesn't fit into the color pie.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I disagree, I think the vast majority of humans are white, black, and/or red; small minority are blue; and almost none are green.



THat is incorrect. Most people are white, blue, and green.

Most people belive in community, law, morality, and safety. Most people plan ahead, and follow tradition.

You have to seperate the colors from the ethos. Green isn't forests and elves, it's community, tradition, and family.

White isn't healing and leonin, it's laws, morality, and justice.

Most people are very focused on religion and family. They belive in justice and laws. And in morality. Most people are about 80% white, and 20% other colors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact that every group of people form goverments (no matter the time or location) confirms that we are centered in white/green. We naturally develope systems of laws and justice, we naturally impose these laws on everyone. We naturally focus on family and community.

These things are so basic, it's easy to forget. But these things aren't common to all colors, they are found in white and green. Black inheriently doesn't care about family or community, or laws, or morals.

In the end, most people are moral, meaning most people aren't black. (as black's amoral) and most people agree that some amount of laws are a good thing, meaning they aren't centered in red because red rejects the idea of having other people's laws over them.

I guess you could argue that most people are immoral and lawless... but that's a pretty hard sell to me since i happen to live in a orderly society where the majority of people do follow the actual and social laws.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I guess you could argue that most people are immoral and lawless... but that's a pretty hard sell to me since i happen to live in a orderly society where the majority of people do follow the actual and social laws.

Perhaps we don't live in the same country...

You said that Socialism is pure-white, which means that no other colors are involved.

Yes. The inverse of what you said.

Squares are always rectangles. But many rectangles are not squares.

Many white things are not socialism.


He didn't "personally invent" the current version of the color pie, he was a member of the team that explored what the color pie meant in terms of game mechanics. They didn't actually change the philosophies of the colors.

I am mistaken. He writes most of the articles about the philosophical aspect, I guess I just got that impression.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.
I think it's worth pointing out that the definitions of each color are definitions of the extremes. Someone can be extremely red without believing that law is bad, and someone can be quite black without being a sociopath (which is what someone who is ONLY black would be)


As a minor sidenote, anarchy and chaos are not synonyms. Technically anarchy means "without ruler." In practice it means anything from there simply being no government to a direct democracy. So yes, anarchy is very red.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
I think it's worth pointing out that the definitions of each color are definitions of the extremes. Someone can be extremely red without believing that law is bad, and someone can be quite black without being a sociopath (which is what someone who is ONLY black would be)

Good point.


Green isn't forests and elves, it's community, tradition, and family.

It's also about letting the world be what it is, without trying to change and/or control it. How many humans want to live like that? Most humans want to control what is around them, and who can completely blame them? Being surrounded by something uncontrollable, dangerous, and unpredictable is scary.

I also disagree that governments are green. Community isn't the same as government.

Anyway, my argument was centered on what white and black become when combined, which only sort of resembles the mono-colors. Selfless devotion to an in-group and selfish callousness towards everyone outside of the group is white-black, and more than the sum of its parts.
Please note: unless I'm trying to be sarcastic or humorous, most of my posts are very literal. Don't try to "read between the lines" because there is usually nothing there. I try not to imply anything when I write.
Yes. The inverse of what you said.

Squares are always rectangles. But many rectangles are not squares.

Many white things are not socialism.



All I was trying to say was that Socialism is not purely white. An ideal socialist society would have a significant amount of red and green.

Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
In my experience, the common man is shortsighted, self-serving, and unintelligent, with a weird fanaticism concerning family and traditional values. I encounter little white amongst the public and even less blue. The rest seem to correlate. I think assuming that most people are mostly white is over-optimistic. I'd say that most people are actually black/red/green with the barest streaks of white. Blue is rare.
In my experience, the common man is shortsighted, self-serving, and unintelligent, with a weird fanaticism concerning family and traditional values. I encounter little white amongst the public and even less blue. The rest seem to correlate. I think assuming that most people are mostly white is over-optimistic. I'd say that most people are actually black/red/green with the barest streaks of white. Blue is rare.



By any chance do you live in the bible belt? Because growing up in CT, I didn't experience this. It is often said that a single bad apple ruins the bunch, which is what I think leads to the general pessimism about human nature. Anyway, the average person I met was generally kind, reasonably intelligent, though clearly more intelligent in the things they are interested in and less so in what they aren't interested in. The "weird fanaticism" you cite about their families isn't weird or really fanatical - it's a natural and thoroughly understandable instinct to protect your family. I will admit that people tend to cling to traditional values, but this is because of a resistance to change, which is at least partially white (more green, but the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" could apply to white just as easily)
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.