As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
I knew that there was going to be a church that offered real power and protection. It would be the bulwark that kept the humans from being entirely devoured by monsters. I wanted the theology of that church to be devoid of real-world imagery.
I knew that there was going to be a church that offered real power and protection. It would be the bulwark that kept the humans from being entirely devoured by monsters. I wanted the theology of that church to be devoid of real-world imagery....Jenna Helland, that was a very silly thing to say.The imagery of Innistrad is inspired by two things, European fairy tales in the tradition of the brothers Grimm, and Victorian gothic horror. These require Christian church imagery. So Innistrad has a standard Christianity knock-off. It has one twist, but the Blessed Sleep isn't even a terribly original idea. The concept is called 'soul sleep', and let's not get into pagan religious and concepts of death. The Church of Avacyn is Innistrad's Christianity stand-in. The imagery blatantly copies the Christian imagery of gothic horror, and replacing a cross with an inverted omega does not make it different or unique.On side notes, Aliens is not a horror film. It is an action film. Alien was horror.Oh, and the silly 'White isn't good, Black isn't evil' thing again. There are 49 Black cards in Innistrad. Every single one either represents something evil, or is something mindless, amoral, or otherwise ruthless (e.g. Rotting Fensnake, Brain Weevil). *sigh* Good and evil have always been associated with White and Black. That is why there are cards like Evil Presence or Spare from Evil. (There are earlier cards that display the same thing, but I chose very recent printings to make it clear.) Good and evil are not the only things associated with those colours, and sometimes cards get to play against type, but good and evil are and have always been clearly associated with White and Black, and I really think it is time we admit this.Anyway.I'm actually of mixed opinion on the art on Endless Ranks of the Dead. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a beautiful piece of art. However, while I like it qua art, I really dislike it qua card art. That is to say, to me it does not look good on a trading card. M:tG cards have very small art boxes and the viewer's gaze is immediately directed to the centre of the image. You need card art to immediately convey an image and a mood. A card's art needs to show what the card is about and more importantly get across a powerful mental image. You should be able to glance at the card and get a sense, from the art, of what the card is about.My issue with Endless Ranks of the Dead is that the focus of the art is the beautiful stained glass window and the angel. That's the brightest part of the picture and it's in centre-frame. I glance at the card Endless Ranks of the Dead, and I go, "Wait, why does a Black card show a picture of an angel?" The art draws your attention to the angel, not the zombies. It's jarring. Then you need to bear in mind that M:tG card art always needs to fit the colour of the card. It sounds trivial, but it's important. Take any random collection of White cards, say, and you'll find that the dominant colours in their art are whites, yellows, browns, and so on. They look bright. The colour palette of Black cards is usually greys, purples, and other dull, muted hues. Similarly, art for Blue cards is usually blue-dominant, and so on. But the Endless Ranks of the Dead art draws our attention to the bright yellow section. It looks more White.As a piece of art, I like it, especially when you increase the size. The art hinges on this wonderful tension between the calm, serene image of the angel and the way it's slowly undermined by these ravenous zombies clawing up from below. That tension makes the picture quite disturbing and communicates the horror image wonderfully.But I don't think it is good card art. It's a good piece of art, but I think it is mis-used.
With all respect, I have to disagree with you on several points. The designers have already stated several times that in Innistrad black (as well as Blue, Red, and Green!) are explicitly meant to represent evil. The whole idea in Innistrad is that White is the color of the victimized humans, and all of the other colors are meant to be the monsters threatening them. So yes, black cards in the set are all naturally going to be associated with evil things, and the white cards are going to be associated with good things. In Innistrad.
The point is that, okay, there is occasional flavour bleed, just like there's occasional bleed in mechanics. But mechanical bleed does not change the colour wheel, and neither does flavour bleed. Since the very beginning of M:tG and continuing consistently to the present day White has been thematically associated with moral goodness, and Black with moral evil. We cannot deny this. It is part of what the colours are.
Then you need to bear in mind that M:tG card art always needs to fit the colour of the card. It sounds trivial, but it's important. Take any random collection of White cards, say, and you'll find that the dominant colours in their art are whites, yellows, browns, and so on. They look bright. The colour palette of Black cards is usually greys, purples, and other dull, muted hues. Similarly, art for Blue cards is usually blue-dominant, and so on. But the Endless Ranks of the Dead art draws our attention to the bright yellow section. It looks more White.
Creator of the Multiverse database for custom sets, the Magic Turing machine (proving Magic Turing-complete) and the random Magic card generator.
Today I was discussing with a friend and we tried to make lists of morally good Black characters and morally evil White characters who are represented on cards. For Black heroes, all we could manage were Toshiro Umezawa, Maralen of the Mornsong, and Crovax the Cursed, and the latter two needed qualification. (Neither of us had read the Lorwyn novels but from the M:tGS wiki description we couldn't see why Maralen was all that Black. As for Crovax, he's Black purely because he's a vampire. His personality is not even remotely Black. It's racial typecasting again, which is stupid every time it comes up.) So that leaves only Toshiro, really, and Toshiro is an anti-hero: his motives are never genuinely good. Then for White villains, we could just manage: Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, Akroma, Angel of Wrath, Konda, Lord of Eiganjo, Major Teroh, Lieutenant Kirtar, and Radiant, Archangel. And again, a bunch of qualifications are needed. (Elesh Norn exists because of NPH's kludgy 'every colour is Phyrexian' mess. Akroma is a magical construct who doesn't really have free will. We're told Teroh is the villain but it's never clear why. Teroh's goals are not evil nor are his methods frankly all that extreme, and the 'hero', Chainer, is transparently an evil murderous monster.) So what do we have? Black heroes... Toshiro. You can suggest that Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief is admirable, I guess. Some other things like that. But Black people who are genuinely morally good... I really can't think of any. There's more bleed in White because it is easier to construct someone who does evil out of their desire for order and their desire to help everyone than it is to construct someone who does good because he or she is motivated purely by self-interest.The point is that, okay, there is occasional flavour bleed, just like there's occasional bleed in mechanics. But mechanical bleed does not change the colour wheel, and neither does flavour bleed. Since the very beginning of M:tG and continuing consistently to the present day White has been thematically associated with moral goodness, and Black with moral evil. We cannot deny this. It is part of what the colours are.
the Blessed Sleep, which cannot be achieved by cremation (because as Innistrad's inhabitants know, cremated folks come back as angry ghosts).
56866188 wrote:I knew the attempt to "make the game simpler and more [accessible] to new players" would get forgotten and it sure didn't take long. Gary Adkison
As far as color good/evil goes:For a green villain: Myojin of Life's Web..
On non-legendary cards, white is more obviously good, focusing on healing and teamwork and such while black focuses on sacrifice and Torture and such. Are they specifically good/evil? No. But it is disingenuous to claim that there isn't a significant bias in that direction.
Red is the color of art and passion. Yet we don't see that on cards a lot, because it doesn't fit very well into the fantasy battle flavor.
Good and Evil transcend the color wheel. Every color has good and evil sides, and that has nothing to do with bleed. The reason we see a lot of Black Evil and White Good is because that fits better in the fantasy flavor. The government in 1984 would be Evil White. Capitalism would be Good Black. Minority Rights is a battle between black and white. They are just less suitable for the game.
They do bear in mind that the art needs to fit the card colour usually. Just not always. Force of Will 's red art makes it memorable and distinctive even from a distance.
First of all... "Oh, psh. There is no respect due in this situation." is a bit of a... dangerous thing to say on these boards. But if you want the gloves off, very well.
Sorin Markov ? Anowon, the Ruin Sage ? All the Vampires in Zendikar that fought against the Eldrazi?
I got the impression though that they were all last-standy about it. If Black were just evil except in weird cases of color bleed, why didn't they try to find a way to leave, or something?
Does that make them "good?" Well, maybe not -- if "good" is defined as "self-sacrificing for selfless motives" then no. But if "good" is "defending their world," well -- then maybe yes. It's definitely possible to define good in particular ways that exclude Black by default, because Black's motives aren't sweet (though I do think Black characters can certainly have soft spots.)
I think you should go read In the Black again, and pay attention to the distinction Maro draws between "more prone to evil" and "inherently evil."
Irandrura is saying that Evil is associated with Black and Good is associated with White, and he is very much correct. You will never see a white card with "Evil" in its name, aside from exceptions such as Spare from Evil , where the evil is something the card is against. The same goes for "Good" on black cards (excepting non-moral uses of the term). Black is Evil and White is Good.
White is the color that includes fascism, which is definitely evil;
There's a reason they always use Kamigawa as an example of a white villain: it's about the only purely-white villain out there. Also, does anyone have an example of a mono-green villain in Magic, because I can't think of any.
I agree with you to a point about the white=moral good, black=moral evil thing. It's nuanced, I know, but I would rather say that white lends itself to moral good, rather than say that moral good is the norm for white.
However, I am pretty sure the reason for this disagreement is differing definitions of good and evil. You are using "selfless" as good and "selfish" as evil, which are probably the most common definitions of the two (and the exact definitions as used in D&D), but not the only definitions.
White is about protecting its population; what if White set up a government which greatly restricted individual rights: curfews, outlawing magic in the hands of the common man, forcing people into jobs they don't want, etc. all for the greater good. This is still very much selfless, as the goal is to protect the people, but is it good?
What if a black character, while striving for personal power, arms the populace to free them from the above repressive regime? He seeks a revolution after which he will come out as a hero, the champion of the people and very likely their new leader. By continuing to treat the people well, he retains individual power, which is the prime motivator for Black. Yes, he is selfish, but is he evil? I'd argue no, he's good. He gave the people what they wanted.
Now, the one thing you said with which I disagree: Vorinclex. Yes, his card is mono-green, but I do not think he, as a character, is mono-green. He's either green-black (due to being Phyrexian) or, I'd argue more strongly, green-blue. He is a twisted form of the Simic - he seeks to improve upon nature (in his own twisted, hypocritcal way) through experimentation, augmentation, and magic. The end goal is to artificially create a perfect world of the strongest predators possible, which is very blue-green.
To me, that's actually a major issue with Red. You can't say it's the colour of art and then never print any Red cards that have anything to do with art; and you can't say Red is not stupid and then constantly print Red cards that show graphic stupidity. There should not be these strong disconnects between what a colour supposedly represents and what images are used to represent the colour in the game.
Nineteen Eighty Four.
Capitalism. Hang on. As I've pointed out before, the cards in M:tG that represent trade and mercantilism do not tend to be Black. They actually tend to be Blue, and occasionally Red. (See e.g. Aether Tradewinds, Bazaar Trader, Magus of the Bazaar, Merchant Trader, Spawnbroker, the various Rishadan cards, Trade Routes, Wanderwine Hub, Vodalian Merchant, etc.) Moreover, I think it'd be highly questionable to say that capitalism itself is good or evil. It's a term used for the trading and creation of value. One can be a capitalist and be good or evil. So we should think about how the colours themselves participate in wealth creation: how does each colour behave economically? And the thing is, Black is associated with deceptive, monopolistic, or exploitative economic practices. Slavery appears exclusively on Black and Red cards, for instance. (Okay, Slave of Bolas is Blue as well.) Meanwhile White is associated with charity, social work, and fairness. Appeals to good capitalism or moral capitalism always seem to be backed up by White.
Minority rights... no, to be frank, you're crazy here, because not only are the cards about persecuting minorities usually Black (e.g. Persecute, esp. the 7th ed. version, and its variants, Tsabo's Decree), but the very idea of rights is White. Minority rights is a White idea because only White thinks that rights exist. Rights exist to make clear the sort of systematic moral behaviour that is required in a civil society. Black does not believe in rights for the same reason that Black does not believe in morals. Rights are a set of imaginary rules that someone came along and tried to enforce on everyone; and Black has no truck with that sort of thing. As far as Black is concerned, if you're on the bottom, sucks to be you; and while Black might equip the individual with the tools needed to rise to the top, Black doesn't care about communities.
I tried to use only modern examples. Force of Will is a very old card and frankly its art is hideously ugly.
Sorin Markov? Anowon, the Ruin Sage? All the Vampires in Zendikar that fought against the Eldrazi? Admittedly I'm not a big novel reader so maybe they somehow all jumped ship in the end and I don't know it... but if so, I don't know it. :-) I got the impression though that they were all last-standy about it. If Black were just evil except in weird cases of color bleed, why didn't they try to find a way to leave, or something? (Again, if they did, my oops for not reading novels.)
I can see the idea that maybe they wouldn't care if the Eldrazi hadn't enslaved them and weren't coming for everyone. That's consistent with Black. But I don't think it would be inconsistent with Black for them -- yes, as a society -- to want to protect their home, either. They'd defend it for reasons that are selfish rather than selfless, sure, but I don't think they wouldn't defend it.
I think you should go read In the Black again, and pay attention to the distinction Maro draws between "more prone to evil" and "inherently evil."
How many cards show cooking? marriage? toilets? =p
Sure it's way more complicated than mono-W, but things like the ban on intercourse, that's as white as it gets!
As for the 'Truth' part, that's a dangerous one. What white believes they will see as absolute truth and universal right. That doesn't make it the truth, just that white believes it to be.
Pirates are blue too but that makes no sense whatsover. The sea is connected to the color blue because of the land system, but that's a bit of a silly part of the color wheel.
If white had its way, we wouldn't have any kind of capitalistic system.
If I'm crazy there, MaRo is crazy too, but then again, he wrote an entire column about that so no surprises there.
In a world without White, Black wouldn't care for rights indeed, but within a white system, 'rights' are something that give it what it wants: freedom, empowerment, opportunity, they're part of those tools they want to equip the individual with. The right of persuit of happiness.
White is all about the greater good, the group, it doesn't care much for minorities.
It seems clear that Wizards thinks that more than the slightest trace of "maybe vampires aren't Always Chaotic Evil" will offend their core constituency.
If they ever decide to write sympathetic black characters, I'll be the guy they want to call, since I'm a past master of moral relativism.
It's worth keeping in mind that this article was written in the voice of a black "mouthpiece", like a lawyer or a guy who writes press releases for a corporation. He probably wasn't being precisely objective on the subject.
But for a more serious answer, they aren't the points under discussion, because no one argues those things need to be represented. Everything that is represented in the game is chosen specifically because it communicates something important about a fictional world or about a colour.
I do not see how.
You can't just assert things without reasons. White is not committed to any particular economic system, since White's core values don't include any economic system. White will select an economic system on purely pragmatic grounds: what sort of economy will best accomplish White's aims? (That is: what economic system is most conducive to peace and social harmony, the equality of individuals, fair treatment before the law, the promotion of moral values, and so on?)If White's ideals are best served by some sort of free market, then White will support a free market. It will, however, not support a free market simply out of ideological commitment. White has no belief that the market should be free and unhindered as a matter of principle. But if it is the best system for White's goals, White will be okay with that. If White's goals are best served by a state-run economy, then similarly White will choose that. But White is not ideologically committed to a state-run economy either.
(On a side note here, I think it is also a caricature of Black to say that Black is a rational amoralist. Black is not motivated purely by rational self-interest. Black is sadistic. Black does genuinely enjoy seeing people suffer. Rosewater himself admitted this in the Rakdos article. Black is the sadist colour.
Then it is highly disingenuous to claim that Black is a defender of rights, either individual rights or minority rights.
Minorities are a part of the group: insofar as rights exist in order to codify the ways in which different groups can interact, and so promote peaceful and harmonious relations between those groups, White has to care about rights. Who else will?
Quite funny than when Irandura stopped being an imbecile, someone clicked on a reversal button and made him stupid again. Oh well:
The worst offender against rationality is the idea that =truth. There is a good reason why , which is the colour most concerned with obtaining knowledge, is at odds with ; when both colours are at conflict, is the one trying to discover the truth, while is hiding it.
is the colour of self delusion, the colour associated with denying the unpleasantness of reality in favor of comforting idealism that may be at odds with the situation.
The idea that represents the truth is the single most pathetic pseudo-argument I have EVER seen, and makes one wonder if the people offering it represent 's delusional side.
And you guys conveniently forgot many villains in order for your idea of as a Mary Sue to function. For instance, there's Lieutenant Kirtar , which was already a fanatically extremist before the Mirrari corrupted him, the Myoijin of Cleansing Fire , an kami who burned his own followers to death according to flavor text in the shrine card associated with him, Brigid, Hero of Kinsbaile , who commited MANY morally ambiguous actions, and Gaddock Teeg , who was the secondary Big Bad of the Lorwyn story (NOT of the entirity of the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block, though), ALL OF the kithkin in Shadowmoor, which were fanatically paranoid, the Nobilis of War , which was devoted to spreading war and subsequent misery, Gwafa Hazid and the Knight of the Skyward Eye from Bant and the ALL aligned characters from Esper (seriously, they're like the Azorius, only more tyrannical and deceptive), and now several characters in Innistrad (go check the card image gallery if you don't believe me).
For aligned heroes, there's Dralnu, Lich Lord , the ever popular Xantcha, Jarad from the Ravnica novels (arguably all of the Golgari with the exception of Savra and the gorgon sisters were good) and several Shadowmoor/Lorwyn characters, including ALL of the boggarts (there's a very good reason why I have that signature).
They were not unpleasant people, according to the people who read the books
What many of the imbeciles who require the idiotic notion that =good and =evil forget in order for their bizarre psychological dependencies to not be threatened
They are not "good" and "evil" aspects, but rather "elements", alongside , and , and hence are neutral. From day one they were designed with good aspects and evil aspects in mind.
While fascism is debatable (and even then it HAS to be part due to several aspects in its philosophy), ALWAYS represented holy war (which is why we have genocidal spells like Wrath of God ;
xenophobia (the kithkin, the mirran Loxodon, several innistradi cards, although the latter with good reasons), delusion (duergars from Shadowmoor), and lack of individuality (this is why it is the enemy of , which is the colour of individuality).
For 's good aspects, it is mostly via information by the staff, with no cards to illustrate it as of yet. However, characters have generally shown pragmatism, which is a very good quality.
Please, you flatter me.
Blue is the colour of deception and illusion, I remind you. This is not only explicit in Rosewater's Blue article, where we are told that Blue represents trickery and illusion, but it is supported on many Blue cards. As recent as M12 illusions were a major tribal theme for Blue.As for White, I will simply point out that when I said that White is associated with truth, I listed eleven different cards, from a large number of different sets, as evidence.I think my assertion that Blue is associated with deception and White is associated with truth is quite well-supported by evidence, both in the cards and on the site. If you would like to take issue with my claim I would recommend presenting similar evidence, preferably on multiple printed M:tG cards.
May I ask why you believe this? What is your evidence for this claim? What cards show it? I cannot help but notice that cards depicting self-deception - Illusions of Grandeur and Delusions of Mediocrity spring to mind - seem to be situated in Blue, not White. That is in fact what you would expect if Blue was the colour of deception and White was fundamentally honest, as I believe, but it seems a major issue for someone who thinks White is a self-deceiving colour.
I have clearly presented my evidence for the view that White represents truth. If you wish to take issue with my view, I would politely ask you to present your evidence and make your argument politely.
If you look back, I mentioned Kirtar explicitly.
For many of the others, I must point that I and my friend have not read many M:tG novels, as they are frequently of poor quality. I have only read the first Kamigawa novel (which was good; I could never find the subsequent ones in stores). I have not read any of the Lorwyn novels, so I will refrain from commenting on Brigid or Teeg. In such cases I frequently browse the M:tGS wiki to get the gist of the characters, and I will say that I did check Brigid's and I thought she looked quite reasonable. The Nobilis of War is a multicolour card; I was scanning only monocolour cards. In the case of multicolour cards like the Nobilis there's always room to dispute which colour represents which aspects of the character. Gwafa Hazid is multicolour, and in Alara Unbroken we saw him to be foolish but not outright malicious; indeed, he was wracked with guilt at what happened when he delivered Bolas' cargo. We never saw any knights of the Skyward Eye in novels or webcomics, and I was listing named, legendary characters anyway. I am not aware of any mono-White Esper legends. While, for example, Sharuum is a very creepy individual - my friend thinks, rightly, that Time Sieve has one of the most disturbing and frightening flavour texts in M:tG - it is not at all clear that this extends to White.
Regarding Innistrad, we did follow up our search for non-evil Black cards with a search for non-good White cards. You might be interested to see our conclusions. They were as follows. Elite Inquisitor is a bit creepy. Ghostly Possession and Midnight Haunting seem bad. Nevermore is quite disturbing, with the implications of magical thought control. Both Rebuke and Urgent Exorcism might be reasonable in the context of Innistrad but seem to betray rather questionable attitudes which could, in the wrong circumstances, lead to acts of considerable evil. Lastly, we were confused by the flavour text of Spectral Rider. Why would the avenged scream? The avenged are the people on whose behalf an act of vengeance has been carried out.
I did, however, read the Invasion block novels and I have no idea how anyone could read Dralnu as a hero. Dralnu infected the allies fighting against the Phyrexians with a plague so that he could stab them in the back at the opportune time and take over. He was the evil within, as opposed to the external threat presented by Phyrexia.
I would also raise a methodological criticism here with regard to evidence. As I said above, I think the most players learn what the colours represent from the cards. The vast majority of the M:tG player base is not familiar with the novels. (And probably reasonably so, since the majority of M:tG novels are rather poor quality.) I think that we have to go to the cards first when we debate the colours, and use them as primary evidence.
'Day one' is Alpha, presumably? Alpha gave us cards like Evil Presence, which suggests to me that Black was designed with evil in mind. Mirrored pairs like the Alpha printings of Holy Strength/Unholy Strength, or White Knight/Black Knight suggest that the common fantasy theme of good and evil was in mind. Cards like Righteousnesssuggest that from the start White was associated with morality. Even the flavour text of the Alpha printing of Wall of Swords suggests that the colours were associated with morality.From the very beginning, I would argue, White and Black were designed with moral imagery in mind. As for the other colours? I don't believe I'm talking about them right now. I don't dispute that it is possible to make every other colour good or bad.
Individualism is a difficult thing to place, actually. Black's predilection for slavery, much less zombies, makes it rather difficult to talk about Black as a bastion of individual freedom and expression. Red seems the most natural fit, but historically Red is as much associated with slavery as Black.
As for pragmatism, I would strongly take issue with any system of morality in which pragmatism is viewed as morally good. Do we really think it is morally praiseworthy for a person to be pragmatic? Sweatshop labour is without a doubtpragmatic - by which I mean amoral means-end rationality would endorse it - but we do not think a person is deserving of moral praise for making use of it.
(Gatherer does not seem to include Proposal)
Pirates are blue too but that makes no sense whatsover. The sea is connected to the color blue because of the land system, but that's a bit of a silly part of the color wheel.Oh, I agree that a large part of the colour wheel as it has been defined makes no damn sense at all.
If white had its way, we wouldn't have any kind of capitalistic system. Why?
*facepalm* TVTropes. Right.
The biggest exception to the rule I can see in M:tG is Repentant Vampire. Crovax, of course, was also a highly moral individual.
But I cannot resist pointing out here: yes, M:tG vampires are almost universally evil. Vampires are a Black tribe. So of course they're evil.
So vampires are murderous hedonists with poor impulse control. That seems fine to me, because Black is a murderous hedonist with poor impulse control. Let's not blame vampires just for doing what they were designed to do. If Anowon was a scholar who just happened to have fangs and intelligently compensated for his need for blood in socially acceptable ways, then he would be Blue.
We're only now seeing non-Black vampires and I honestly have no idea why there are Red vampires in Innistrad.
No, 'In the Black' was given from an omniscient designer perspective.
For aligned heroes, there's Dralnu, Lich Lord
the ever popular Xantcha
including ALL of the boggarts (there's a very good reason why I have that signature).
(which is why we have genocidal spells like Wrath of God
A very well-reasoned post, Irandrura, and I can't really disagree with anything you said (with one exception, which I'll get to later). However, I am pretty sure the reason for this disagreement is differing definitions of good and evil. You are using "selfless" as good and "selfish" as evil, which are probably the most common definitions of the two (and the exact definitions as used in D&D), but not the only definitions.White does have selflessness as a trait, and Black does have selfishness. This is undeniable. However, there are other forms of evil. White is about protecting its population; what if White set up a government which greatly restricted individual rights: curfews, outlawing magic in the hands of the common man, forcing people into jobs they don't want, etc. all for the greater good. This is still very much selfless, as the goal is to protect the people, but is it good? You may argue that it is, but I would say it is evil. It is not selfish evil, but another form of evil that is equally valid. The population may be safe, but at the cost of not being happy.What if a black character, while striving for personal power, arms the populace to free them from the above repressive regime? He seeks a revolution after which he will come out as a hero, the champion of the people and very likely their new leader. By continuing to treat the people well, he retains individual power, which is the prime motivator for Black. Yes, he is selfish, but is he evil? I'd argue no, he's good. He gave the people what they wanted.
Keep this mantra in mind:Flavor cannot always be represented in mechanics.That said, I figured I'd chime in on the 'ol concept of Good versus Evil, because it seems some in this discussion have gotten some pretty interesting ideas about what the colors "represent." Of course, this means I disagree.
I think for the most part Red is pigeonholed for the elemental aspects of its "land" association among all other colors: Mountains, molten rock, the blistering of snowstorms, etc., all seem to be about burning and hurting, and this belies Red's often compassionate side: Hedonism is about love, not anger, and about doing what feels "fun." It is a cruel, evil thing to associate "fun" with destruction and killing, or at least a sadistic thing, and that makes Red's mechanics very, very Black.
in Ravnica, the Orzhov were the guild that practised slavery the most