The Nature of Green

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
[born in the Planeswalkers guide to NPH thread]


There is a little discussion growing about the philosophy of the color Green. While most colors seem rather well outlined and coherent, Green seems to have some issues and bigger internal conflicts than the other ingredients in the Color Pie.

It seems to me, that the topic is of such vastness and complexity that it deserves the space only an own thread can offer.

Feel free to discuss.

For starters, some of the points outlined by the various participants of the on-going discussion:

Green is the color most appropriately associated with the natural world, despite w/e else you may think; at the very least read Rosewater's article.  If you don't like the color wheel, or his take, then you simply don't like green as magic has outlined it.  That's fine, let's just move on.  Green wants things to take a holistic and harmonic view of the world, minimizing trying to rationalize, dissect, and otherwise abuse the naturally occurring forces in the world, as well as the things that happen to you that you have no control over.  It is certainly the most stoic of the 5 colors - the least reactionary.



The problem for me is that Green's philosophy, as described in Rosewater's articles, is either inadequately defined or blatantly inconsistent. That leads to problems like the Green Phyrexians: with an obviously hypocritical ideology. I think we need to improve our depictions of Green. Green has a very strong mechanical background, but we need to sit down and work a way to give Green a good philosophical background too.


(Red has this problem on-and-off as well, to be fair. White, Blue, and Black are all pretty straightforward.)


(...)

So we can offer alternate definitions like that. DavFlamerock has another attempt in his signature, by willpell. That said defining Green in terms of holism, as I think you're leaning towards and willpell explicitly does, pretty obviously doesn't work either. Holism is far too vague a concept and can fit into any colour capable of seeing the metaphorical big picture.


(...)

You can make some arguments that there are internal tensions in other colours. Red has a constant issue with freedom: what if I use my freedom to take away yours? That's why Red contains bullies and oppressors, and freedom fighters and liberators. There's an internal clash.

There are some others. White can end up in cases where its moral code demands contradictory things: the whole lesser evil problem. Black can encounter situations where self-interest requires Black to abandon its own ideal of self-interest. Blue wants to be rational, but is unable to rationally defend its own desire there.

For the most part these internal conflicts are good. There are little fractures in every colour. It is in responding to the problems posed by these fractures that we see individuals' true mettle. But at the very least, in the cases of White, Black, and Blue, you can produce coherent, internally consistent interpretations of the colour. Red has a little more trouble, but I don't think it's impossible. The essence of the colour is fine: WotC just needs to depict it a little better. Red's problem is implementation, not the basic ideas.

Green's issue is that its internal conflict isn't just a little fracture at the edges, but an immense ravine running through the very heart of the colour. Red has issues with what freedom allows and if you can use freedom to restrict freedom: but the idea is sound. White gets into problems when it starts to worry about what morality actually dictates and under what circumstances you can break your morality: but morality itself, as an ideal, is unproblematic. Similarly for rationality and self-interest. They lead to some issues, but they are not the issues themselves.

It's just... nature doesn't lead to some minor fringe issues. Nature is the issue.



Have fun! And stay nice children ;)

Yep, the color pie is breached almost every set because it's not meant to handle specific cases.

The color pie works on a grand scale. But when you zoom in on one person, or even one plane, not everything about the color pie will hold up.

This isn't a problem with the pie, it's designed to fit the needs of the game, not the needs of the storyline.

Are the green Phyrexians violating the color pie? Sure. But no culture could exist if they followed a mono-colored slice of the color pie. They'd be raving lunatics.

… and then, the squirrels came.
Mhm. A truly mono-colored individual would be seen by society as very unpleasant at the least and dangerously insane at the worst.

Green has always been a tough nut to crack. It definitely appears to be the least defined.

"White, what do you believe in?" "The betterment of the people."
"Blue?" "Progress."
"Black?" "Myself."
"Green?" "NATURE."
"Nature?" "Yes. Nature. The natural world around us."
"That's not an ethos. That's just existence. I believe in nature too. Because it exists."
"Yeah, but, you know... trees and stuff."

It just seems to fall flat on its face, a little. The other colors have established depth in their beliefs, whereas green is still stuck with trees and stuff.
Before I will dive deeper into the matter by rereading some of the color philosophy articles I last read years ago, here is a little meditation on Green. It's not fundated or thought-out at all, just what my gut says.


When I think about green, I think about beauty. Beauty in its most original sense. Every color has its aesthetic, but take enough of it away and you won't recognize it anymore. Not so with green. There is always something left that carries the seed of new beauty in it. No matter what you do, you can't destroy Green. Green is growth, Green is birth. If you kill it, you will just nurture its children. Green is life and Green is death. Green means that life and death are nothing but the two sides of the same coin. Green is what makes you breathe, what gives your heart the power to beat. Green is this one thing you can't quite put your finger on, it's this movement in the corner of the eye. It's this thought you just had and when you want to mouth it it is gone. Green is all the things you never think about because you just do them. Green is the peace of a summer morning, the calmness of your mind when you are content. Green is rythm. Green is change, but unchanging. It is the coming and going of the seasons, the leaves that fall and the life that comes from dust. Green is that that stands above all else. Green is everything that cannot be controlled. Green is the sunset you see and realize that nothing, no poem, no building, no weapon, no melody, no theory, no formula, nothing created by man can ever be as beautiful as this universal force that lies in everything. Green is.

Saying that green believes in nature is like saying that red believes in fire and that blue believes in knowledge. Which is silly. These are tools that they use, not beliefs.

Green believes that there is a beauty in nature. It believes that in nature can be found all the tools a mage needs. It believes that the greatest power that can be wielded is, well, a creature with the greatest power. It likes stuff that helps it find creatures, and stuff that keeps its creatures alive. It likes stuff that messes with opposing counters and kill spells. It loves Great Sable Stag, and wonders why Wizards keeps printing stuff like Autumn's Veil when it could just reprint the Stag. It loves Thrun, the Last Troll. It plays Thrun and laughs at you.

Green believes that the beauty in nature should be preserved. It will declare nature reserves, conservancies and protected areas. It will look after endangered species. It will argue with gas companies because they want to dig up the Karoo. Yes, we know it's practically a desert, and the farms there have very low production rates. We know it has vast expanses of nothing. But it's the Karoo. You don't dig up the Karoo.

Green believes in the sanctity of life. It doesn't kill creatures. But it will drop a basilisk and dare you to attack. It will blow up your artifacts because they are evil and unnatural. And then it will use its own artifacts, and say that its ok, because its using them to protect nature.

Green does not believe in evolution. If it did, it would not care that the Giant Panda was going extinct. It wouldn't set up sanctuaries and captive-breeding programmes. Because, obviously, a creature that relies so much on a single habitat, and that cannot breed fast enough to maintain it's population, is impractical and deserves to go extinct.
Evil doesn't always triumph. - Ajani Goldmane
is also pure spirituality. has monopoly over organised religion, but it is who genuinely feels that there is a higher purpose, a derivative of its hollistic world view. is the colour of druids, it is the colour of pagan imagery, and in Dominaria Gaea is real and is
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
Yep, the color pie is breached almost every set because it's not meant to handle specific cases.



As I understand this topic, we are not talking about specific cases. We are talking about Green in the abstract.

"White, what do you believe in?" "The betterment of the people."
"Blue?" "Progress."
"Black?" "Myself."
"Green?" "NATURE."
"Nature?" "Yes. Nature. The natural world around us."
"That's not an ethos. That's just existence. I believe in nature too. Because it exists."
"Yeah, but, you know... trees and stuff."



[nitpick] I'd quibble 'progress' for Blue. Progress has to be defined in terms of a goal. White wants social progress. Black wants to progressively increase its own power. Blue might answer that question 'the acquisition of knowledge' or somesuch.

[/nitpick]

Saying that green believes in nature is like saying that red believes in fire and that blue believes in knowledge. Which is silly. These are tools that they use, not beliefs.



I would say that Blue believes in knowledge, at least this far. Every other colour views knowledge as a tool. For Blue, knowledge is an end in itself. In terms of colour relationships, Blue likes Black and White because both of them understand how immensely powerful and important knowledge is and prioritise the methodical acquisition and application of knowledge: but both Black and White think that knowledge is instrumental. Black is always saying 'and how does this knowledge benefit me?' and White is always saying 'and how does this knowledge benefit everyone?'.

Blue, it seems to me, doesn't ask that question. Blue will say, 'But it's... it's knowledge. You don't need a reason to want it. You just do. Knowledge is an end in itself.'

(When I toyed with colour interviews of my own, I had the Blue character asked about this, and the response was just that curiosity is an innate drive. Sapient creatures are curious; that is, they seek knowledge. The drive is universal. Sure, some sapient creatures, e.g. goblins, are really bad at it, and that's why they're not going to learn much over the long term, but it is the inherent nature of intelligent beings to be curious.)

Green believes that there is a beauty in nature. It believes that in nature can be found all the tools a mage needs.
[...]
Green believes that the beauty in nature should be preserved.



Questions!

What is nature?

What is the difference between natural beauty and unnatural beauty?

To pick an example, consider the beauty of mathematics. (Wiki link because I'm lazy.) Is that natural beauty or not? Does Green appreciate it?

Intuitively it seems weird to say that Green likes mathematical beauty. Green is usually portrayed as very grounded, and the least abstract colour. Appreciating the symmetry of mathematics intuitively feels more Blue. But mathematical patterns illustrate the entire natural world. Green appreciates the beauty of natural things: does Green appreciate the beauty of the Fibonacci sequence?



is also pure spirituality. has monopoly over organised religion, but it is who genuinely feels that there is a higher purpose, a derivative of its hollistic world view. is the colour of druids, it is the colour of pagan imagery, and in Dominaria Gaea is real and is


(Fixing those colour-smilies is getting annoying...)

What is spirituality?

Haven't we agreed before that you can find religious/spiritual beliefs in every colour?
Like knowledge is a tool for everyone but , spirituality is a tool for everyone but . is spirtual for the sake of offering justification for the moral core and to make its community act like it feels it should, uses spirituality in the hopes a deity offers to help gaining power, pure is usually not very spiritual (as discussed before; when it is spiritual it is usually out of curiousity for the divine or to gain power like ), and is spiritual for several reasons, ranging from emotional ones to ones that parallel or , to justify its freedom or to gain power.

is spiritual for the sake of being spiritual, and to it it is far too much a core of its being to not be present in pure , while other colours can easily not be spiritual.
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
But what does it even mean to be spiritual? What is it that Green values?
I'm guessing the concept of there being a purpose. Green believes everyone has a role to be filled, hence that there is a higher force dictating this.
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)

This is a holdover from the Phyrexia Guide post, but it's a lot more relevant here.

My only problem with going against WotC's definition of anything is that they are the ones that created it.  I understand the power of argument, and that if Irandrura's argument is better you would agree with him; as a general point of debate, there is no argument I can offer why you wouldn't do so.  Furthermore, I agree that "nature" fails to pass an ambiguity test, at least it fails moreso than the other colors do.

For spirituality, I see it as what i have read spirituality to be in its purest form (according to the particular books I've read, which is, to say,

All humans already know they they're life's purpose; you have to look inward for you true calling.  I love harmonize, not least of all for flavor reason's, whose flavor text is the effect of "life's greatest lessons don't come from focus or concentration; they come from breathing and simply noticing".

It is in this way, I think, that green likes nature and is holistic: animals don't question their role, they simply know it and play it.  We all have a place to be and something to do, and inevitably that thing isn't out there, it's right here. 

"Walk the world and you'll find your soul; search your soul and you'll discover the world."
—Diary of Azusa

I actually made a whole list of flavor text and extrapolated philosophy from those for each color.  I liked it a lot.

I also mentioned it before, before I also associate stoicism with green, which, strictly speaking, believing in a guiding spirit, but is often viewed as a personified form of logic, that the world has order to it, and we are just part of this movement.

Doesn't that strike you as White as well?

I'm thinking of some of this article, and in particular the description of Orim (who is incidentally the best damn character in the Weatherlight crew by a considerable margin): Orim's character at heart was one born out of spirituality. She was someone who did what she did because it was what she felt she was destined to do. Think of her as the anti-Gerrard. While Gerrard runs, she embraces.

Today you might argue that Orim had some Green in her, as well as White? She was staunchly White back then. Even in later sets, White seems to like the idea. I think we would tend to say that destiny, or at least a duty to play your role and fulfil your destiny is White.

I think you are right that Green thinks that beings have natural purposes, but it thinks about it slightly diferently. The idea that everyone has a purpose, has a proper role, that there is some higher force dictating this, etc., seems to me to be G/W. The difference is that where White thinks it is a genuine higher force (morality, fate, God, whatever), Green seems to think it's reducible to a being's own nature. There's also another significant difference in that White embraces the idea that you might need to struggle to achieve your destiny. It might be hard. You might need to try to overcome your base feelings. Green feels that a person should not fight their base feelings. Everyone already knows their destiny: the only conflict that can possibly come into it is a conflict that you create yourself, through false beliefs about your nature.

Does that sound right to you?

EDIT: Oops. That's at Shamsiel. Hedgell posted while I was writing.
I largely agree, although I'm tempted to say that spirituality is more often :symgw: than pure . If peace means a lack of focus on the spiritual to focus more on the law and structure, pure will do so, while would find that abhorrent.
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)


When I think about green, I think about beauty. Beauty in its most original sense. Every color has its aesthetic, but take enough of it away and you won't recognize it anymore. Not so with green. There is always something left that carries the seed of new beauty in it. No matter what you do, you can't destroy Green. Green is growth, Green is birth. If you kill it, you will just nurture its children. Green is life and Green is death. Green means that life and death are nothing but the two sides of the same coin. Green is what makes you breathe, what gives your heart the power to beat. Green is this one thing you can't quite put your finger on, it's this movement in the corner of the eye. It's this thought you just had and when you want to mouth it it is gone. Green is all the things you never think about because you just do them. Green is the peace of a summer morning, the calmness of your mind when you are content. Green is rythm. Green is change, but unchanging. It is the coming and going of the seasons, the leaves that fall and the life that comes from dust. Green is that that stands above all else. Green is everything that cannot be controlled. Green is the sunset you see and realize that nothing, no poem, no building, no weapon, no melody, no theory, no formula, nothing created by man can ever be as beautiful as this universal force that lies in everything. Green is.




I honestly doubt I could sum it up better than this. This is probably the single most accurate statement about green that I've ever read.

Green has always been difficult for me to understand because of my own prejudices. As a person, I'm mostly . So, green is one of my enemy colors. If I were asked to describe all the negative connotations that green has, I could do that a bit better than extolling its virtues. I don't agree with most of the things that green agrees with, so criticism comes to mind faster than praise, and I very much doubt that me sitting here whining about everything I dislike about the color is going to get the discussion moving in a meaningful direction. So, I'm just going to scram and let the guys with clearer perspectives than mine explore the issue.
Green has always been difficult for me to understand because of my own prejudices



Same here. I'm :symrw: and even then is the colour I least understand or identify with. 
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
And I don't think I've ever actually met someone who considered themselves to be even partly , on the forums or off. I mostly associate with other -ish people. I suppose that you would have to be in order to accurately describe it? Considering the poetry with which Luzifus wrote that passage, I would guess that he (I'm assuming he, correct me otherwise) has at least a streak of green in him.
The way I see it green is Zen.

It just is.
It is more likely to accept its lot in life than other colors.

I remember reading a blurb from the Naya style guide talking about the human populations.

Their red slice of life was their decadence and their pleasure driven lifestyle, the white humans would try to settle some parts of the world and cultivate farmland or the like.

But foremost was the greeness; acceptance.

"Humans sometimes fall victim to the huge beasts of this realm, as the beasts give as much thought to humanity as humanity gives to insects. But when a gargantuan or thoctar pummels one of their vine-covered ziggurats into sand, or smushes a hapless party of drumhunters on their way back from an expedition, the good-natured exuberants of Naya simply shrug, give solemn respect to the jungle, and move on with their lives. They rebuild in the footsteps of behemoths, content to tolerate the overwhelming natural forces that they have no hope of changing."
I largely agree, although I'm tempted to say that spirituality is more often :symgw: than pure . If peace means a lack of focus on the spiritual to focus more on the law and structure, pure will do so, while would find that abhorrent.



Would it? I think it comes down to some of those internal conflicts in each colour. White is pulled in different ways. It values spirituality and it values order: when those conflict, White's in trouble. White characters can go either way. I hesitate to make a definitive statement about pure White.

Green has always been difficult for me to understand because of my own prejudices. As a person, I'm mostly .



Same here. I'm R/W and even then is the colour I least understand or identify with.



...I'm skeptical of anyone's attempts to self-identify with colours.

If we're getting into this, I think I have the strongest emotional connection to White, though depending on mood I can see Blue, Red, and Green parts of my personality as well. Probably even Black. Humans are WUBRG!

But I don't think the categories particularly help. Colours are simply not very good for describing or categorising people's personalities.

The way I see it green is Zen.



...you might not want to say that to someone who's done any study of Zen.

It's not just a bunch of vaguely wise aphorisms.
@Irandrura

The color pie is wildly flawed when it comes to trying to describe actual human beings with it. You can't realistically say "I'm ." Because you're right, everyone is . But, the proportions of the five colors vary within everyone, if that's the system you want to use.

More accurately, in order from most to least, I'm :symwr:. That's the closest I can get using the color pie as a framework to represent myself. Efficient? Probably not. Something silly to think about for two seconds? Sure.
I honestly doubt I could sum it up better than this. This is probably the single most accurate statement about green that I've ever read.

Green has always been difficult for me to understand because of my own prejudices. As a person, I'm mostly . So, green is one of my enemy colors. If I were asked to describe all the negative connotations that green has, I could do that a bit better than extolling its virtues. I don't agree with most of the things that green agrees with, so criticism comes to mind faster than praise, and I very much doubt that me sitting here whining about everything I dislike about the color is going to get the discussion moving in a meaningful direction. So, I'm just going to scram and let the guys with clearer perspectives than mine explore the issue.

(...)

Considering the poetry with which Luzifus wrote that passage, I would guess that he (I'm assuming he, correct me otherwise) has at least a streak of green in him.



why thank you my friend.

And yes, Green is indeed my favourite color, since I am a timmy as well as a person who has an almost devotional love towards everything that is commonly considered nature. I spent two weeks alone in the woods for my final thesis in school. There is nothing that can move me as much as a the cosmos that is within a tree, or the stillness of a mountain lake, or a giant storm cloud, or above all a sunset. These are the things that make me literally cry.

But anyways, I do think that approaching Green from the perspective of what it not is might also help to narrow down what Green stands for. So, don't hestitate to state what exactly you dislike about Green.
...I'm skeptical of anyone's attempts to self-identify with colours.

If we're getting into this, I think I have the strongest emotional connection to White, though depending on mood I can see Blue, Red, and Green parts of my personality as well. Probably even Black. Humans are WUBRG!



No one, even amongst races in MTG, is purely monocoloured. However, everyone tends to gravitate more towards one colour or two; the way I see it has in general to do with the motivations and goals, although some people might like to throw in the methods as to make the classification relevant.

In my case, my speculation is partly confirmed by all official tests, and my personal analysis generally tends to gravitate towards the results I depict in my banner. And I would strive to use hieromancy if I was in an MTG setting anyway. 
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
See, this is where I get hung up. I don't think anyone's preferred magical tastes or specializations have anything to do with their personality or what colors are strong in them. Like I said before, is perhaps the strongest in me. But I don't like blue cards. I'm not really a fan of how they play, and I don't find them aesthetically appealing as far as artwork and what they visually and conceptually represent as far as non-philosophical things, like merfolk, storms, aether manipulation, and mind magic. I don't really like white all that much either. But I love black, black/green, and a bit of red. I like the way they play, and that sort of magical discipline is what I would use were I a member of this fantasy world. Necro/biomancy, geomancy, and a bit of pyromancy. Earth with a splash of fire, if you will. Basically, I would use :symbg:/ tools with a :symwu: mindset. Does this make any sense at all? I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. It's a nebulous concept.
My favorite things to play are almost always flavor-related, and when you cross that with being a Johnny - playing to express myself- I definitely like the headset of the cards I am playing with as well as teh cards themselves.  In-world, I woudl definitely use the colors I like playing most.  I identify most personally with green then white, and I go back and forth on some black.  Ultimately, despite that I feel intensely blue at times, I don't feel that way in general and I don't like when I do.
I do think it is quite possible to prefer certain colors philosophy-wise over the others, based on personal beliefs or convictions.

It is of course a question of what magics appeal to the personal taste as well, but I don't think this is what we are questioning/trying to define about Green, since it is already well established by thousands of cards. Gameplay is an entirely different matter.
I feel pretty satisfied about having fleshed out green.

Anyone feel differently/ prefer to take a systemic MaRo approach to answering green's questions?

The way I see it green is Zen.



...you might not want to say that to someone who's done any study of Zen.

It's not just a bunch of vaguely wise aphorisms.




I miiiiight have painted with too broad a brush there.

And admittedly, I might not be using the proper terms or have the greatest understanding of them.

To rephrase, I would say that a core component of greenness is the capacity for acceptance of the world around them.
Going with the flow as it were.


I feel pretty satisfied about having fleshed out green.

I think Irandrura will still havea couple of things to say. I suspect we are but at the beginning t¿of the discussion.

I may have gotten off-topic a bit. I'd make a separate thread about what I was talking about if I had any idea how to lead it in.
See, this is where I get hung up. I don't think anyone's preferred magical tastes or specializations have anything to do with their personality or what colors are strong in them. Like I said before, is perhaps the strongest in me. But I don't like blue cards. I'm not really a fan of how they play, and I don't find them aesthetically appealing as far as artwork and what they visually and conceptually represent as far as non-philosophical things, like merfolk, storms, aether manipulation, and mind magic. I don't really like white all that much either. But I love black, black/green, and a bit of red. I like the way they play, and that sort of magical discipline is what I would use were I a member of this fantasy world. Necro/biomancy, geomancy, and a bit of pyromancy. Earth with a splash of fire, if you will. Basically, I would use :symbg:/ tools with a :symwu: mindset. Does this make any sense at all? I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. It's a nebulous concept.



My tastes merely happen to be aligned with my personality by coincidence. You can equally argue that I am :symur: rather than :symrw:, or :symbr: or :symwb:; I merely think that my personality works to make successfull use of the magic I feel more drawn too if I were on a setting where such would be possible.

Again, because people are naturally very complex it's hard to make a personality fit consistently into one colour, hence why there are so many different interpreations of fictional characters in MTG colour schemes.
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
See, this is where I get hung up. I don't think anyone's preferred magical tastes or specializations have anything to do with their personality or what colors are strong in them. Like I said before, is perhaps the strongest in me. But I don't like blue cards. I'm not really a fan of how they play, and I don't find them aesthetically appealing as far as artwork and what they visually and conceptually represent as far as non-philosophical things, like merfolk, storms, aether manipulation, and mind magic. I don't really like white all that much either. But I love black, black/green, and a bit of red. I like the way they play, and that sort of magical discipline is what I would use were I a member of this fantasy world. Necro/biomancy, geomancy, and a bit of pyromancy. Earth with a splash of fire, if you will. Basically, I would use :symbg:/ tools with a :symwu: mindset. Does this make any sense at all? I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. It's a nebulous concept.



I can understand where you're coming from, but in the MTG Multiverse, magic naturally comes from your personality. One of the best ways to figure out what magic you would actually use, in my opinion, is to look at how you deal with a problem in the real world. As an example, say you are having an argument with someone. The Red way of dealing this would be to either punch them or yell at them, while the Blue would be to convince them of their error by picking holes in their arguments. White would use morality to support its side of the argument, and Green would probably just shrug and walk away or, if they actually care about the argument, they would simply state what they believe and would not take the other side's argument into consideration. I'm not sure on the Black way, perhaps retreading old arguments and using underhanded tactics (tearing open old emotional wounds) to gain any advantage? Each of these roughly lines up to the tactics that each color uses.

A big part of this is the difference in how you play the game and how you act in life. In Magic I tend to be very direct, plowing my way through the opposition with big creatures and burn spells (obviously I love playing Green and Red decks) This is almost the opposite of how I act in life - I usually try to work around problems, finding the easiest way to get things done, which is a very Blue way of getting things done.
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.
When I think about green, I think about beauty. Beauty in its most original sense. Every color has its aesthetic, but take enough of it away and you won't recognize it anymore. Not so with green. There is always something left that carries the seed of new beauty in it. No matter what you do, you can't destroy Green. Green is growth, Green is birth. If you kill it, you will just nurture its children. Green is life and Green is death. Green means that life and death are nothing but the two sides of the same coin. Green is what makes you breathe, what gives your heart the power to beat. Green is this one thing you can't quite put your finger on, it's this movement in the corner of the eye. It's this thought you just had and when you want to mouth it it is gone. Green is all the things you never think about because you just do them. Green is the peace of a summer morning, the calmness of your mind when you are content. Green is rythm. Green is change, but unchanging. It is the coming and going of the seasons, the leaves that fall and the life that comes from dust. Green is that that stands above all else. Green is everything that cannot be controlled. Green is the sunset you see and realize that nothing, no poem, no building, no weapon, no melody, no theory, no formula, nothing created by man can ever be as beautiful as this universal force that lies in everything. Green is.



What strikes me about this is that it doesn't bear much relation to the main mechanical themes of green, which involve making lots of huge creatures stomp your opponents to bits. Indeed, the basic concept of "letting things be" is usually mechanically found in white and blue, and it's only really represented in Green insofar as it doesn't destroy things very often, except when it does. I don't really think "Green is zen" is tenable for that reason- it's not something that's reflected in the majority of the game.

I increasingly think that the pie would make more sense philosophically if counterspells were green, but that would be a pretty controversial proposal. Without them there you have this awkward tension where the colour that hates interference and disruption of the current state of things is not the one that can stop interference and disruption from happening.
@Micorku

Right, right. You and I aren't that different. Strategy-wise, in-game, I favor directness as well. I'm not big on countermagic and things of that sort.

An individual's personality is obviously going to have some kind of effect on their aesthetic or strategic preferences, but I think it's less predictable than people would usually think.

As an example, let's look at the element of fire (taking a break from the more nebulous color pie). "Fire magic", aesthetically and strategically (as I define it), is concerned with blasting things with various forms of energy. Fire, electricity, light, heat, take your pick. Most people want to tangle this up with the stereotypical fire-type personality (gregarious, lively, energetic, passionate, forceful, sociable). But I don't think there's any need for that to be the case. You could have a cautious, pensive, deep, calm, spiritual individual (watery) that just happens to really dig fire magic. It would be unusual, but I don't see why someone's attitude and bearing needs to define their aesthetic gestalt.
When I think about green, I think about beauty. Beauty in its most original sense. Every color has its aesthetic, but take enough of it away and you won't recognize it anymore. Not so with green. There is always something left that carries the seed of new beauty in it. No matter what you do, you can't destroy Green. Green is growth, Green is birth. If you kill it, you will just nurture its children. Green is life and Green is death. Green means that life and death are nothing but the two sides of the same coin. Green is what makes you breathe, what gives your heart the power to beat. Green is this one thing you can't quite put your finger on, it's this movement in the corner of the eye. It's this thought you just had and when you want to mouth it it is gone. Green is all the things you never think about because you just do them. Green is the peace of a summer morning, the calmness of your mind when you are content. Green is rythm. Green is change, but unchanging. It is the coming and going of the seasons, the leaves that fall and the life that comes from dust. Green is that that stands above all else. Green is everything that cannot be controlled. Green is the sunset you see and realize that nothing, no poem, no building, no weapon, no melody, no theory, no formula, nothing created by man can ever be as beautiful as this universal force that lies in everything. Green is.



What strikes me about this is that it doesn't bear much relation to the main mechanical themes of green, which involve making lots of huge creatures stomp your opponents to bits. Indeed, the basic concept of "letting things be" is usually mechanically found in white and blue, and it's only really represented in Green insofar as it doesn't destroy things very often, except when it does. I don't really think "Green is zen" is tenable for that reason- it's not something that's reflected in the majority of the game.

I increasingly think that the pie would make more sense philosophically if counterspells were green, but that would be a pretty controversial proposal. Without them there you have this awkward tension where the colour that hates interference and disruption of the current state of things is not the one that can stop interference and disruption from happening.

Having counters in green would be interesting for the reasons you say.  However, countermagic is usually associated with direct control over the essence of magical causation - the mind, which is why it falls so heavily into blue.  Blue loves to twist and manipulate things to its own end, and it uses its deep understanding of "how" to make it fizzle at the start.  I imagine green is more isolationist; it protects its own, like autumn's veil and withstand death, but it doesn't seek to stop things at the source unless it's really necessary.
I can understand the green counterspell argument, but I personally think it fits blue better. Blue has a tendency to "meddle" in things that it has no business messing with. It's one of the nastier elements of the color, and it shows up in blue's bounce effects, counters, and deck manipulation. Blue likes to screw with your things. Green just wants to be left alone. And this is, I think, why green has all or most of the "can't be countered" spells and creatures. Green insists on doing its own thing.
Oaky, first let me say: wow. Every time I step away from these forums for more than a day or two, something explodes and I come back to find the blasted, flaming wreckage, children still crying inside and sorcerers dueling overhead in the greasy black sky. Second, let me say that instead of actually reading through this thread start to finish, I have (probably stupidly) decided that the arguments quoted in the opening post of this thread told me everything I need to know about the discussion as it stands right now. so if what I'm about to say contradicts or just flat-out repeats something you just said a few posts ago, that's because I iddn't read the post. You can go ahead and knock me upside the head for that behavior, since I know better. I officially give you that permission. I would've taken the (long) time to read it if my internet connection weren't so iffy today.

Let me start by saying Green = nature is wrong.

I don't mean Green doesn't care about nature. It does. It cares about the ecosystem more than any other color, head and shoulders. And nature is what Green spends most of its time talking about and concerning itself with. but Green = nature is a lot like Blue = knowledge. Yes, this is what the color cares most about, and yes, if all you need to grasp about Green is what color motifs and card mechanics to use in the Theme Park Version, then all I need to give you is the word "nature." (Much like Blue's theme park only needs to word "knowledge," just as an example) But, for lack of better terms, it's more a sympotm of the root cause and philosophy than it is the philosophy itself. What Green REALLY cares about is Everything.

Green cares about Everthing. Meaning: every single person, every single animal, every single plant, every single rock and river, every single idea, every single word, everything that ever was, is, or will be. That's because Green is the big picture color. Green sees everything (Everything) as one single organism, absurdly complex and jarringly simple at the same time. This one all-encompassing organism is beautiful to Green, and precious. Because Green recognizes that when the organism that is Everything is unhealthy, it hurts every single part that makes the organism up, and that, in turn, hurts the organism further. The organism called Everything is remarkably fragile.

So what does Green do about it? It tends to Everything. It keeps it healthy and doing what it does: changing, evolving, living, dying, and growing as it so chooses. (And not as one scientist who thinks he can make create intelligent cheese chooses.) Once you get that: that the only thing Green cares about is Everything and that Green will do absolutely anything to protect and nurture Everything, then you can understand everything Green does. (Defending nature, fighting artifice and other abuses of the natural order, encouraging people to follow their instincts and know their place in natture, talking to trees, etc.)

Let me go on to say that it's okay if you don't get why Everything is important or even needs tending to. If you did, you would be Green. We can't understand how colors we don't fall into ourselves think beyond the academic level because that's not how thinking works. I, for example, can say that Red cares about personal freedon above all else. I understand that... in that I can comprehend that that's what Red is doing and why it's doing it. But I can't understand WHY Red would sacrifice its own well-being for its "freedom," even in situation where that word loses most of its meaning. Or why it would act on its whims every single day, no matter how many times it gets hurt because of it. And that's okay. I know I'll never understad because I'm not red. If I understood, I would be red. But I'm not, so I don't. And (this is the important part) I recognize and accept that just because I can't get in Red's head and truly understand why it would care about all this, it doesn't mean Red is wrong, or that I must not "really" understand Red. It just means Red is different from me. And that's not going to change. And that is also the case with every other color.

I understand and root for Green because I'M Green. and I do the same with Blue. (Yes, I argue with myself a lot because of this.) To a lesser extent, I empathize with White. Because to a lesser extent, I'M white. Black and Red I can read about and understand "That's what they do. And this reason, this reason, and this reason are why they do it." But I can never actually see the world through the eyes of Black and Red and appreciate why they do what they do. Because I'm not exceptionally black or red. And I can accept that.

And one last thing: Let's not bring the five Phyrexian factions into this any more than they may or may not already be. I know what WotC says goes bacause they own the color wheel, but forcing Phyrexia into all five colors in five neat little boxes, for all the original, interesting narrative it's been creating, has been doing a disservice to the color wheel. And using twisted, forced comments and sentiments from them to explain what the colors are really about is just going to muddy the waters.

P.S.: Sorry for the massive dump. But this is kinda what I like to talk about. It was hard to stop typing.
"The truth resists simplicity."
Some memorable quotes
57461258 wrote:
I know, as a good liberal scholar, that I'm supposed to respect every other belief and culture and what have you that comes along but... at the end of the day, when all is said and done, some things are just plain wrong.
92481331 wrote:
Venser "Ah, Hello Myr. This is the King. Long Time no see. We thought today would be a good day for rolling. The Myr Battlesphere. The Myr. Where the first rolls and the second follows. Roll, roll, roll. For that purpose we went to the bother, the bother of fixing up Mirrodin. The King of the Multiverse going to the bother just for rolling a Myr Battlephere, just for that, we went to the bother."
92126575 wrote:
Heard a joke once: Mare goes to doctor. Says she's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says she feels all alone in a threatening world where even ponies you thought were your friends can't be trusted. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Go to one of Pinkie Pie's great parties tonight. Party hard. That should pick you up." Mare bursts into tears. Says "But, doctor...I am Pinkie Pie." Good joke. Everypony laughs. Roll on snare drum. Curtains. Fade to black.
69511863 wrote:
Sure, "the average person" might go see Transformers 3 if s/he wants a good story, but that doesn't stop people from making decent movies. Hell, they even managed to make Batman into a respectable movie. "The average" person might like American Idol or Jersey Shore, but people still made The Wire.
57722938 wrote:
I think the people who would sit down and listen to a minstrel reciting Homer, or thought that novels were art, or read poetry were always a minority. It's a common viewpoint that art was better in the past because everyone's forgotten the bad stuff, while we haven't had time to forget the awful stuff that is current.
56738148 wrote:
For almost all Magic fans, the "story" of Ravnica, for example, is that it's a city world with ten guilds -- yes, for most, that's a "story." All but a tiny fraction of the fan base are entirely unaware of an elaborate plot perpetrated by Augustin IV to trick Agrus Kos and Szadek into breaking the Guildpact, thereby enabling the Azorius to take control. Likewise, the vast majority of Magic players don't know who Harbin is, or Nivea, or Al-Hayat, or Feather, or Jared Carthalion, or Rebbec, or Zagorka ... the list goes on and on.
57916198 wrote:
I'm pulling this out of nowhere and it has nothing like fact attached to it, but it cannot be disproven without breaking the fourth wall, and this is going to be my headcanon because it makes perfect sense. I posit [Tamiyo, the Moon Sage] writes the Planeswalker's Guides to planes.
And one more thing...
CANON is the collected events and details of a fictional work that come directly from its author or someone with equal authority to the author. CANNON is a weapon that fires metal balls at a target, usually a structure or a crowd of enemy combatants. Every time you confuse the two, I'm forced to break one of my own fingers.
When I think about green, I think about beauty. Beauty in its most original sense. Every color has its aesthetic, but take enough of it away and you won't recognize it anymore. Not so with green. There is always something left that carries the seed of new beauty in it. No matter what you do, you can't destroy Green. Green is growth, Green is birth. If you kill it, you will just nurture its children. Green is life and Green is death. Green means that life and death are nothing but the two sides of the same coin. Green is what makes you breathe, what gives your heart the power to beat. Green is this one thing you can't quite put your finger on, it's this movement in the corner of the eye. It's this thought you just had and when you want to mouth it it is gone. Green is all the things you never think about because you just do them. Green is the peace of a summer morning, the calmness of your mind when you are content. Green is rythm. Green is change, but unchanging. It is the coming and going of the seasons, the leaves that fall and the life that comes from dust. Green is that that stands above all else. Green is everything that cannot be controlled. Green is the sunset you see and realize that nothing, no poem, no building, no weapon, no melody, no theory, no formula, nothing created by man can ever be as beautiful as this universal force that lies in everything. Green is.



What strikes me about this is that it doesn't bear much relation to the main mechanical themes of green, which involve making lots of huge creatures stomp your opponents to bits. Indeed, the basic concept of "letting things be" is usually mechanically found in white and blue, and it's only really represented in Green insofar as it doesn't destroy things very often, except when it does. I don't really think "Green is zen" is tenable for that reason- it's not something that's reflected in the majority of the game.

I increasingly think that the pie would make more sense philosophically if counterspells were green, but that would be a pretty controversial proposal. Without them there you have this awkward tension where the colour that hates interference and disruption of the current state of things is not the one that can stop interference and disruption from happening.

I think I have to disagree here, on both counts.
First of all, "stomping your opponent to bits" is imo part of the mechanical theme of every color, because it's what you do in magic. The game represents a duel between two mages and at the end one survives and one is defeated, stomped to bits if you will. The only difference between the colors, game-wise, is how they want to kill your opponent. Green does that, according to you, by making lots of huge creatures. Which is pretty much a mechanical or rather militarized consequence of Greens desire to grow and nurture things. Or rather "letting them be" so they can grow and in case of a battle help you stomp your opponent to bits. I do therefore think that Green quite accurately represents letting things be. Additionally, White and Blue strike me as the colors that least of all let things be but instead either forbid them or try to influence and control them.

I also don't agree with your notion about counterspells. Counterpells are the very definition of interference and disruption, and Green hates that and therefore won't use it. Green is such a strong believer in letting things be that it won't even interrupt interruption; it would much rather just make interruption impossible. As someone else said, mechanically a better representation of this is shroud and uncounterability, which are clearly in Greens slice of the pie.

@Yanmato: This comes very close to how I see Green and is wonderfully formulated. It can be seen that you guys already discussed all this stuff years ago.

I don't have the time to contribute effectively to this discussion (and I don't consider myself very good at arguments or persuasion in any capacity; one of the effects of being Green, I suppose ;) ).

So I'm just going to say that Yanmato has detailed Green with as much success and specificity as Willpell in my signature. Holism, guys. Green cares about the interconnectedness of it all and it cares about Everything. 
"There are probably seven persons, in all, who really like my work; and they are enough. I should write even if I were the only patient reader, for my aim is merely self-expression." ~H.P. Lovecraft

My Colors Are Green and Blue I value respect, honesty, acceptance, and trust. I love to tell stories and to experience new things. At my best, I am compassionate and creative. At my worst, I am detached and submissive. My enemies are Black and White.

I think it could be said that Green values life and the natural process. It wants to protect and preserve life and the natural process, and to leave it up to the world to work out its own problems. It's the most passive color because it believes that things should be left alone, to let nature take its course.

So, you could say that while White favors the good of the people, Black care for itself, etc., what Green cares about is nature- the natural process of things. The universe and everything.
@Yanmoto
You repeated some of the things I said, but I'm not going to knock you upside the head. Because you're awesome.

@Being Green
The online test always tell me I'm white or blue or white blue. But they're wrong. I'm green. I'll splash blck or white, but I'm green.

@Green Counterspells
I don't think green counterspells would work. It makes some sense in theory, but practically I don't see it working. Counterspells require you to keep up mana to counter stuff, but green wants to tap out to play its threats. The closest things to counterspells that green is going to use are one-mana instants like Vines of Vastwood and Withstand Death, and it doesn't even use those very often.
Evil doesn't always triumph. - Ajani Goldmane
In my case, my speculation is partly confirmed by all official tests, and my personal analysis generally tends to gravitate towards the results I depict in my banner. And I would strive to use hieromancy if I was in an MTG setting anyway.



...don't you see a strong clash here? You claim to be White: and yet in the topic about Black, you seem to have some very un-White ideas about morality.

To rephrase, I would say that a core component of greenness is the capacity for acceptance of the world around them.
Going with the flow as it were.



Ah. Then you'd find your problem there. That's not what Zen is about. Like most forms of Buddhism, Zen is motivated by dissatisfaction with wordly existence.

I think Irandrura will still havea couple of things to say.



I've been a little busy recently. (I keep meaning to respond to the topic about Black, but I just don't have time!)

I can understand where you're coming from, but in the MTG Multiverse, magic naturally comes from your personality.



It's not entirely clear how that works, but speaking in vague generalities, I would agree that your disposition, emotions, and values have something to do with your aptitude for different types of magic: and I'd tend to think that continual use of mana of one colour will tend to slide one's values towards those of the colour. The more Red mana you channel through yourself, the Redder you will become.

Admittedly there are some various serious issues here, since the colours are firstly associated with values and emotions and secondly with more elemental things. There is nothing intrinsically passionate about fire or reflective about water. The idea that conjuring lightning bolts or summoning earth elementals will somehow make you more passionate - or that being a passionate person gives you greater aptitude for conjuring lightning bolts or summoning earth elementals - is frankly bizarre.

But that's not so much an issue with the examples as an issue with the colour wheel full stop, and I don't think it can be fixed without radically redefining the entire colour wheel. You have to take the entire five colour system apart and rebuild it from the ground up to fix this issues.

As an example, say you are having an argument with someone. The Red way of dealing this would be to either punch them or yell at them



[nitpick] I don't think, I think Red might use its immense capacity for empathy to understand the other person, see their perspective, and reach a conclusion.

I realise that the card game is very bad at this, and pretty consistently portrays Red as a thuggish idiot, but it's not the way we should automatically conceive of Red. (Rosewater does not help here. Remember the Red colour interview. Red: "I hate it when people call me a violent thug!" Interviewer: "...but you are a violent thug." Red: "Well, yes, but it hurts my feelings when people say that! See? Feelings! Because I'm all about emotion!" It should be possible for emotionally mature people, with some self-control, to be Red. Childish tantrums may be Red - probably Black too, since selfishness etc. - but that doesn't mean the colours need to be childish.)

A big part of this is the difference in how you play the game and how you act in life. In Magic I tend to be very direct, plowing my way through the opposition with big creatures and burn spells (obviously I love playing Green and Red decks) This is almost the opposite of how I act in life - I usually try to work around problems, finding the easiest way to get things done, which is a very Blue way of getting things done.



There are some weird flavour disconnects in places. For example, I love my mono-Red burn deck, but I don't play it in a Red way. I'm very distant and calculating while playing that deck, because that's the way you have to be in order to win with pure burn. You sit there marshalling resources, constantly calculating your own damage output, the opponent's toughness, etc.... it's actually the deck I have that took the least thought to create, but it takes the most thought to play.

It doesn't feel Red. It doesn't feel adventurous, creative, or passionate. It's about juggling a few precise number totals - how much damage can I deal, how quickly, how much do I need to deal, how much time do I have, etc. - and that, while interesting as an intellectual challenge, doesn't feel Red.

(It helps that I usually play multiplayer games of three or more, so it's fun to play a deck that has no purpose but killing one person at instant speed. Very political play.)

Let me start by saying Green = nature is wrong.



That was the point of my comments in the opening post.

The problems are twofold.

Firstly, WotC seems to constantly define Green in terms of nature. Both Rosewater's colour articles on Green. (And all the dual-colour articles including Green.) The article on the Green Phyrexians. There are others. We are presumably agreed here that WotC is doing the wrong thing.

Secondly, you then need to provide a better definition of Green.

I don't think that's very easy. Anecdote time: this morning we talked about colour while playing M:tG. The following happened.
"I suppose, but it's not like the colours make sense in the first place."
"What? Yes, they do."
"Define Green."
"...yeah, okay. Green's never made sense."

Board consensus is different to consensus among friends of course, simply because they're different communities, but among people I've talked to there seems to be a general agreement that Green does not make sense.

Finding a sensible way to define Green will not be easy.

Green cares about Everthing. Meaning: every single person, every single animal, every single plant, every single rock and river, every single idea, every single word, everything that ever was, is, or will be. That's because Green is the big picture color. Green sees everything (Everything) as one single organism, absurdly complex and jarringly simple at the same time. This one all-encompassing organism is beautiful to Green, and precious. Because Green recognizes that when the organism that is Everything is unhealthy, it hurts every single part that makes the organism up, and that, in turn, hurts the organism further. The organism called Everything is remarkably fragile.



Okay. I'm going to cut down the rest and tackle what I think your main point is.

I understand you as saying that the essence of Green is holism. Green's outlook is holistic. Would you say that's correct?

So it's a lot like what willpell says in DavFlamerock's signature. The problem is that, like what willpell said (and most of what he says, in my opinion, to be quite honest with you), it doesn't appear to work. Holism itself is an immensely vague concept, and one that depending on how you construe it, seems to either fall into many colours or none at all. Replacing 'nature' with 'holism' doesn't help because holism is no clearer a term than nature. It may even be worse, since we at least have strong intuitive understandings of nature, whereas it's not even remotely clear what courses of action holism leads one to.

What is holism? It is, in short, the viewpoint that individual things (whatever those things may be) need to always be judged in the context of the whole. Whole: hence holism. I think you've related it in Green to the idea of an ecosystem; so e.g. any animal can only be understood by looking at the entire interconnected system that animal inhabits. But that's just one form. When I think about holism my first thought is epistemology, actually: the truth of any statement can only be judged or ascertained in the context of the truth of an entire web of statements. In a legal perspective, laws need to be understood in the context of the whole legal system: no law is an island. For a hedonistic egoist, any one desire a person has must be understood in the context of the whole set of desires. (e.g. my desire to eat steak medium rare can only be understood in terms of all my desires, e.g. my desire to go on living, my desire to nourish my body, my desire to only eat cooked food, and so on.) Or when I reflect, I must consider any of my individual emotions only in terms of my overall emotional disposition. (e.g. if a man bullies my sister and I become angry, my anger can only be made sense of in terms of other emotions, such as my love for my sister, my hatred of injustice, and so on.)

Well, with those examples I should hope it was obvious where other colours come in. Blue cares about truth, White about law, Black about desire, Red about emotion: and of course they care about all sorts of other things too.

Holism is simply viewing one thing in terms of the whole. Holism is the view that you can only understand a single thing by understanding everything.

Is that Green?

It might be. It doesn't seem to be only Green. Even if it is, here's my major problem with it:

It tells us nothing about what Green values.

Let's suppose we're holists. All well and good. Let's suppose now that we're looking at Naya, and it's the start of the conflux. These Bantians come in, and they want to level parts of the forest and make farms and orchards. And on the other side: there are dragons, goblins, and worse, burning the forest and making their own inroads. How should we react?

Does holism tell us how we should look at those things? Green, whatever it is, is presumably going to tell us that what Bant and Jund are doing are bad and we should oppose them. But how does holism tell us that those things are bad? Are the people of Bant and Jund not looking at the whole? It seems to me that they are. They have different ideas about what sort of whole is desirable - the Bantians, for instance, seem to prefer a neatly ordered whole, where everything is where it should be - but that doesn't seem any less holist. There may be certain things in Naya that the Bantians don't think should exist in their whole; but doesn't Green want to tell us here that what the Bantians are introducing should not exist in Green's whole?

This is my issue. Holism does nothing to explain why Green believes what it does, and why Green acts the way it does. Green groups and their enemies can be equally holistic.

If there's a generalisation here that we could make, perhaps it's that Green cares about ecosystems? Surely then what Green is opposed to is the idea of meddling in an ecosystem. But that doesn't seem to work either: an ecosystem is meddling. An ecosystem only exists by virtue of the constant meddling of every creature in that ecosystem. The ecosystem is the sum total of the interactions of all life forms within it. Green will have immense difficulty raising any sort of ideological opposition to any particular meddling, and that's the heart of the issue.

Let me go on to say that it's okay if you don't get why Everything is important or even needs tending to. If you did, you would be Green. We can't understand how colors we don't fall into ourselves think beyond the academic level because that's not how thinking works.



I would hope that the colours are able to articulate their philosophy in ways that other colours can understand.

There will be values disconnects. That's inevitable. But we don't have to throw up our hands and say that a colour is never comprehensible to other colours.

I think it could be said that Green values life and the natural process. It wants to protect and preserve life and the natural process, and to leave it up to the world to work out its own problems. It's the most passive color because it believes that things should be left alone, to let nature take its course.



That tells us very little, though.

The issue is: what is the natural process? What is the difference between a natural and non-natural process? Why is it natural for the beaver to build a dam, but not natural for a human to build a machine?

As for life, that seems very unclear as well. By way of comparison, when an animal is going to kill another one and White stops them, takes them away, puts them in zoos, and gives them all ample food: well, in that case it seems hard to say that Green, which would rather let one eat the other, is valuing life more.

@Being Green
The online test always tell me I'm white or blue or white blue. But they're wrong. I'm green. I'll splash blck or white, but I'm green.



Leaving aside my immense cynicism at the idea of identifying as particular colours...

Perhaps, for the sake of this discussion about defining Green, it would be helpful if you could tell us why you think you're Green? What is it about you as a person that makes you Green? What are your Green traits?
...don't you see a strong clash here? You claim to be White: and yet in the topic about Black, you seem to have some very un-White ideas about morality.



First of, I consider myself having a very side (which is express in "smilies" above the signature), so its obvious I'm "tainted", and I'm still looking for a more apropriate signature to express this. My end goals are still ultimately though, and combined with my sense of justice (which lately has been turning into a relevant issue) makes it for the moment the colour that takes priority.

Second, my "un-ness" in that topic is seemingly manifested by my lack of willingness to submit to clichés as well as my rejection of christian mentality. The first can be seen as my "un-" traits, the latter is defenitely :symrw: because my morality and love for freedom find themselves at odds with that philosophy.
IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_daily_mc52_picMain_en.jpg)IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/73821e61e013eadf56a8e4e2226d89a3.jpg?v=90000)
Sign In to post comments