You're missing the point again. The point of the "scholar versus bodyguard" comparison was to illustrate the difference between theoretical knowledge (say, someone who reads books about martial arts all the time) and applied knowledge (someone who actually practices martial arts). [...] Wizards who study and actually practice magic would fall into the "bodyguard" category; the "scholar" category would consist just of wizards who study magic for the sake of studying magic.
I didn't miss the point. I thought the point was flawed. A scholar is someone who studies, who favors mind over body; a bodyguard is someone who favors body over mind, who exercises physical prowess. You can't define a scholar as someone who studies for the sake of studying; under that definition, the vast majority of people that are commonly accepted to be scholars (scientists, college professors, etc.) are not scholars, as they put their knowledge to use. The original point was that you didn't believe scholars belonged in combat, which is wrong when the scholars can cast spells, as they can in Magic. In a world of magic, a scholar would be the one who learns magic, as it is a mental exercise. A bodyguard would not. And no, not everyone in Magic is inherently magical, so you can't say it's not fair that the bodyguard can't be magical too. He made his choice, and it didn't involve learning magic.
Hold up a second. I wasn't trying to redefine your intelligence/wisdom schism. You said that wizardry is "applied intelligence" and shamanism is "applied wisdom;" therefore, they'd both fall into the "applied knowledge" category. What I'm referring to as "theoretical knowledge" are things blue gets to do as "the color of knowledge" but no other color gets to do, such as casting Ponder or Brainstorm . These spells represent theoretical knowledge because they can't win the game on their own--as you said, one doesn't study something in order to never use it. As long as blue is "the color of knowledge," the other colors don't get access to theoretical knowledge (even their "applied knowledge" is downplayed). I don't think it's fair that every color gets to have brawns (applied knowledge), but blue gets to have brawns and brains (theoretical knowledge). As long as this situation continues, of course blue's going to be overpowered compared to the other colors.
You may not have been trying to redefine my intelligence/wisdom schism, but you were certainly redefining the original purpose which brought it up. I was saying Blue is the color of Intelligence, Red and Green of Wisdom. You, by trying to redefine this as "theoretical knowledge" is Blue and "applied knowledge" is everyone else, shuttled the discussion away from the original purpose. The point is that Blue is the color that studies, plans ahead, uses its mind, which makes it the most magical color. This is why it has the fewest, smallest creatures. There's no point in bringing up balance; we both agree that Blue is completely overpowered. Yes, it's in large part because they chose to make Blue the color of knowledge in a system where knowledge means magic and magic is the entire game; however, the way to fix this isn't by trying to make every color the "knowledge" color. That destroys the differences that make the color pie work, causes everything to blend together into one big shade of grey. The solution is to do as they did in Planar Chaos, where they re-imagine the reasoning behind the color pie abilities in a way that pushes them into new colors, thus taking Blue's monopoly and breaking it apart. Blue is the knowledge color, the color that collects data, that fully evaluates a situation before taking action. To take that away from Blue would destroy its identity. Yes, every color needs card draw, or at least card selection; we agree on that. However, it should be done in a way that preserves the integrity of the colors' identities, which means not theming card draw as solely "studying to learn new magics". Especially when colors like Green and Red don't use magics they gain by studying, but instead use magics they fuel with emotion and instinct.
As far as I can tell, white-aligned organizations tend to want to limit information. Bant never stopped and asked if its caste system was really just. Esper never stopped to consider whether its "Noble Work" was really all that noble. The Azorius were flavored as a bureaucracy which attempted to protect everyone by making the law so complicated that no one could do anything. A perfect society isn't something you just luck into (also, divine favor isn't the same as luck), but white tends to believe that it's perfect to begin with.
White is the color of law. Not angellic law specifically, all law. You want examples of law that changes and adapts to the times? Look at every real world legal system that doesn't collapse. Laws are not static, they are dynamic; a static, unchanging system will never last, because the world is always changing around it. Populations grow, neighboring nations rise and fall, or change their form of government. You simply cannot keep a legal system running without being willing to learn, study, research and improve. White doesn't believe it's perfect to begin with. If it did, it wouldn't feel the need to create laws and impose them on everyone. White fully understands the need to constantly work towards improving its community, its civilization. Even when angels pass down the laws for White to follow, those same angels take up the task of keeping the laws up-to-date with the needs of the world they govern. Now, on to your examples. Bant: White's law isn't about justice, it's about salvation, it's about safeguarding the population. It doesn't matter if the caste system of Bant was just or not; it worked, it kept the population safe, so it was good. White is the color that relies most heavily on restricting personal freedom; just look at its enemies: Red and Black, the two most selfish colors. White sees freedom as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, the greater safety. Esper: First of all, Esper is Blue, not White. When looking at the shards, you have to look at the central color, as that is what most defines that shard's philosophy. However, the White aspect of Esper was present, and must be accounted for. The question isn't whether their work was noble, it was whether it kept everyone safe. In Esper, the population's safety was granted, as colored by Blue's influence, in the form of technological advancement; as long as etherium exists, it may as well be used to improve living conditions, whether by creating homunculi to do manual labor in place of humans, or by enhancing humans to make their lives easier. Azorius: The way they kept the law complicated was by constantly changing it. If something didn't work, or if someone outside the Azorius senate got too comfortable with it, then it changed. Using the Azorius to try to prove your point about White being against change is silly.
Card drawing is already quite abstract, but that doesn't mean the game hasn't already established a precedent for what it means. In general, a player's hand represents a planeswalker's short term memory, and a player's deck represents a planeswalker's long term memory. This is why card draw spells tend to be called things like Ponder and Brainstorm ; discard spells get called things like Memoricide and Mind Rot . Card draw flavored as "taking a census" would not fit into this metaphor, unless somehow it's a particularly inspiring census.
Yes, I know what a hand and library represent. But that doesn't mean there's a set definition for what drawing a card means, or what returning a card from the graveyard to your hand means, or what putting cards from the library into the graveyard means. Most spells do tend to follow a common theme, but the beauty of Magic is that it allows room to grow beyond the rules, even the abstract, flavor-only ones. Yes, exiling cards from the library tends to be themed as some form of lobotomy, but look at Jester's Cap . If you want to bleed card advantage into non-Blue colors (a noble goal) you need to be willing to look beyond the flavor of BLUE card drawing and find a new flavor that fits each color you're moving it into. Look at Harmonize : that is not a Blue form of card drawing. The mage isn't studying, isn't learning new spells, he's getting in touch with his spiritual side, he's meditating, learning to embrace his instincts, to use them constructively. You, by saying that all card drawing must be represented in such a way that the flavor is "learning a new spell", are shutting out concepts like Harmonize, which are the only concepts that can work in non-Blue colors. If you're serious about fitting card drawing into other colors, you need to be willing to stretch how you define card drawing. Allow me: White takes a census, gathers together information about all the subjects it desires to protect, and then applies that information to hone its laws, which means it now has better tools to magically protect them, in the form of more cards in your hand. White scans the battlefield, sending scouts to the front line to study enemy troop movements. Now, knowing the enemies' tactics, White is better able to predict their next move and counter it. This preparedness is represented by having more cards in your hand.
But green-aligned mages shouldn't be making "sacrifices" so that requiring creatures will strengthen their spells...that's what black does! I think the approach Wizards took with clash would work better here. If you play a spell with clash, something good happens; if you win the clash, something even better happens. (Hm, this sounds just like the slogan for Planeswalker Points.) Likewise, if you play a green spell, something good should happen, but if you have appropriate creatures in play, something even better should happen.
Black is not the only color that is willing to make sacrifices to achieve its goals. Black is just the color willing to make the hardest sacrifices, such as its eternal soul. White is willing to sacrifice the freedom of its subjects and itself in order to protect them, keep them safe. Blue is willing to sacrifice time and its own emotions in order to advance its knowledge; the fact that it sees emotion as a weakness doesn't make the sacrifice any less of one. Red is willing to sacrifice long-term gain for short-term enjoyment. Green will make any sacrifice in order to uphold the natural balance. Yes, some spells could and should be made that have effects whether or not you control a creature. I'm not suggesting that Green become solely focused on creatures; colors that are too narrow do not belong in this game. However, the strongest effects in Green, such as the unbounded card drawing potential of Hunter's Insight , should require creatures to work. This will give Green a mechanical identity to set it apart from the other colors, especially White to which it currently is almost identical. It also allows Green to branch out into new effects, like direct damage . It allows Green to do some things better than any other color, because Green has the additional requirement of needing a creature in play. It solves so many problems Green currently has, but you're not willing to accept it because you don't feel that Green should care about creatures any more than other colors? Look, each color sees the game differently. Yes, they all have some things in common (use mana, summon creatures, strive to reduce the opponent to 0 life). However, their priorities are not the same. Yes, all colors use creatures, but Green prioritizes them the highest. How do we represent this mechanically? My suggestion is exactly that. White is already the color that most prioritizes enchantments, so it gets the most effects that deal with them. Retether , Auramancer , Mesa Enchantress . Yes, every color uses enchantments. No, not every color needs to be equally skilled with their usage. Blue is the color that most prioritizes artifacts: Tinker , Grand Architect . Every color uses artifacts, but not to the same great effect as Blue. Why should Green be any different? It specializes in creatures moreso than any color, so it should be able to put them to the best use. This in no way hinders the other colors' ability to use them. If you still aren't convinced, fine. I like my idea, and from where I'm sitting it seems to solve Green's power level problems AND its lack of an identity. But I'm not in charge of Magic design, so take solace in the fact that my idea likely won't ever happen.
I didn't miss the point. I thought the point was flawed. A scholar is someone who studies, who favors mind over body; a bodyguard is someone who favors body over mind, who exercises physical prowess. You can't define a scholar as someone who studies for the sake of studying; under that definition, the vast majority of people that are commonly accepted to be scholars (scientists, college professors, etc.) are not scholars, as they put their knowledge to use.
You're being unfair again. If a scholar "favors mind over body" but is still "puts knowledge to use," then a bodyguard can be someone who "favors body over mind" but still studies. (You won't have much success at the gym if you don't know about nutrition and biology, for instance.) That's the point I've been trying to make all along: theory is useless unless it's applied, and application is useless without theory. Blue gets to have the theory and the application, while the other colors just get the application.
Another problem with your objection is that while scholars may have some practical application for their studies, the application is moot if it isn't relevant to the context in question. Yes, a crime scene analyst "puts knowledge to use," but if someone is shooting at you right now, it's better to have an expert sharpshooter on your side. In that case, the analyst is the scholar and the sharpshooter is the bodyguard.
The original point was that you didn't believe scholars belonged in combat, which is wrong when the scholars can cast spells, as they can in Magic. In a world of magic, a scholar would be the one who learns magic, as it is a mental exercise. A bodyguard would not. And no, not everyone in Magic is inherently magical, so you can't say it's not fair that the bodyguard can't be magical too. He made his choice, and it didn't involve learning magic.
Scholars don't belong in combat unless they've been trained for combat. Which planeswalker would you rather have helping you in a fight--someone who specializes in casting Ponder but doesn't have any combat spells in his or her library, or someone who specializes in casting Lightning Bolt ?
Learning magic is a mental exercise, but practicing magic isn't.
And yes, it is unfair to say that bodyguards would be at a disadvantage for being mundane because in a world where magic exists, magic itself is mundane. This is the reason "mundane" characters like Burrenton Forge-Tender can have magical proprties such as protection from red (and the Wizard creature type!) even though blacksmiths would of course not be magical in our world.
You may not have been trying to redefine my intelligence/wisdom schism, but you were certainly redefining the original purpose which brought it up. I was saying Blue is the color of Intelligence, Red and Green of Wisdom. You, by trying to redefine this as "theoretical knowledge" is Blue and "applied knowledge" is everyone else, shuttled the discussion away from the original purpose.
Again, I was not trying to redefine intelligence as theoretical knowledge or wisdom as applied knowledge. I was pointing out that all colors use applied knowledge, but blue is the only color that gets theoretical knowledge--this has nothing to do with the intelligence/wisdom split, but with blue getting the most efficient card draw. Green's card draw, for example, could be considered "theoretical wisdom."
The point is that Blue is the color that studies, plans ahead, uses its mind, which makes it the most magical color. This is why it has the fewest, smallest creatures. There's no point in bringing up balance; we both agree that Blue is completely overpowered. Yes, it's in large part because they chose to make Blue the color of knowledge in a system where knowledge means magic and magic is the entire game...
But there's no reason why studying and planning ahead should necessarily make blue the most magical color. There is a point in bringing up balance because we are talking about a game. Just because blue is overpowered now doesn't mean that it should be or has to be. Yes, it's in large part because blue is concepted as the color of knowledge, which is why I'm arguing that blue should not be concepted that way.
...however, the way to fix this isn't by trying to make every color the "knowledge" color. That destroys the differences that make the color pie work, causes everything to blend together into one big shade of grey. The solution is to do as they did in Planar Chaos, where they re-imagine the reasoning behind the color pie abilities in a way that pushes them into new colors, thus taking Blue's monopoly and breaking it apart.
I'm not trying to make every color the "knowledge" color; I don't think any color should be the knowledge color. Each color has a different kind of knowledge, which is why there are different colors in the first place. There are just too many different kinds of knowledge for knowledge as a whole to be represented as one color.
Blue is the knowledge color, the color that collects data, that fully evaluates a situation before taking action. To take that away from Blue would destroy its identity. Yes, every color needs card draw, or at least card selection; we agree on that. However, it should be done in a way that preserves the integrity of the colors' identities, which means not theming card draw as solely "studying to learn new magics". Especially when colors like Green and Red don't use magics they gain by studying, but instead use magics they fuel with emotion and instinct.
I'm not trying to take away blue's ability to collect data or fully evaluate a situation before taking action. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that collecting data or fully evaluating a situation are not the only kinds of knowledge that exist. Card draw can remain themed as knowledge; it's just that "knowledge" needs to be redefined as something besides studying.
White is the color of law. Not angellic law specifically, all law. You want examples of law that changes and adapts to the times? Look at every real world legal system that doesn't collapse. Laws are not static, they are dynamic; a static, unchanging system will never last, because the world is always changing around it. Populations grow, neighboring nations rise and fall, or change their form of government. You simply cannot keep a legal system running without being willing to learn, study, research and improve.
White may make much use of law, but it doesn't follow that all laws are white-aligned. For example, the "politics" mentioned on Heal the Scars would have to be green or green-black aligned. If you're going to use real world legal systems as examples of white's willingness to discover new information, you'd first have to demonstrate that those systems are mono-white aligned, which is going to be much harder with real life examples than fictional ones.
White doesn't believe it's perfect to begin with. If it did, it wouldn't feel the need to create laws and impose them on everyone. White fully understands the need to constantly work towards improving its community, its civilization. Even when angels pass down the laws for White to follow, those same angels take up the task of keeping the laws up-to-date with the needs of the world they govern.
But white imposes laws on everyone else, not itself. You don't play Arrest or Pacifism on your own creatures.
Bant: White's law isn't about justice, it's about salvation, it's about safeguarding the population. It doesn't matter if the caste system of Bant was just or not; it worked, it kept the population safe, so it was good. White is the color that relies most heavily on restricting personal freedom; just look at its enemies: Red and Black, the two most selfish colors. White sees freedom as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, the greater safety.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. If things are adequate, white won't risk upsetting the status quo to try for anything better. That's one of the weaknesses of white, and that's why it doesn't favor discovering new information. Think Long Feng from Avatar (although he's probably not white-aligned). Another example might be the ants from A Bug's Life, who wouldn't give Flik's invention a chance because they were satisfied with the status quo of giving all their food to the grasshoppers.
Esper: First of all, Esper is Blue, not White. When looking at the shards, you have to look at the central color, as that is what most defines that shard's philosophy. However, the White aspect of Esper was present, and must be accounted for. The question isn't whether their work was noble, it was whether it kept everyone safe. In Esper, the population's safety was granted, as colored by Blue's influence, in the form of technological advancement; as long as etherium exists, it may as well be used to improve living conditions, whether by creating homunculi to do manual labor in place of humans, or by enhancing humans to make their lives easier.
Okay, so Esper is blue-centered, but Ethersworn Canonist is mono-white. The fact that she cares about artifacts is irrelevant; she could just as easily have been "Aurasworn Canonist" on a different plane. The reason I use her as an example of white's distaste for discovering knowledge is her dogmatic approach to her noble work: her ability prevents anyone from casting multiple nonartifact spells, and her flavor text even talks about "suppressing" new life. The point of having a "canon" is that it's knowledge that can't ever be challenged--that's white's modus operandi.
Azorius: The way they kept the law complicated was by constantly changing it. If something didn't work, or if someone outside the Azorius senate got too comfortable with it, then it changed. Using the Azorius to try to prove your point about White being against change is silly.
I'm not trying to prove a point about white being against change; I'm trying to prove a point about white being against discovering new information. Yes, Azorius's laws might have changed superficially, but the purpose of the laws never did--it was always to keep everyone restricted.
Yes, I know what a hand and library represent. But that doesn't mean there's a set definition for what drawing a card means, or what returning a card from the graveyard to your hand means, or what putting cards from the library into the graveyard means. Most spells do tend to follow a common theme, but the beauty of Magic is that it allows room to grow beyond the rules, even the abstract, flavor-only ones. Yes, exiling cards from the library tends to be themed as some form of lobotomy, but look at Jester's Cap .
Jester's Cap is like Merfolk Looter in that the relationship between the flavor and the ability is left ambiguous (for example, there's no reason the cap can't be enchanted to erase your opponents' memory). In the case of Jester's Cap , the fact that the relationship is ambiguous doesn't mean that it's somehow subverted the established metaphor for what exiling a card from the library represents; it just means the card is poorly flavored.
If you want to bleed card advantage into non-Blue colors (a noble goal) you need to be willing to look beyond the flavor of BLUE card drawing and find a new flavor that fits each color you're moving it into. Look at Harmonize : that is not a Blue form of card drawing. The mage isn't studying, isn't learning new spells, he's getting in touch with his spiritual side, he's meditating, learning to embrace his instincts, to use them constructively. You, by saying that all card drawing must be represented in such a way that the flavor is "learning a new spell", are shutting out concepts like Harmonize, which are the only concepts that can work in non-Blue colors. If you're serious about fitting card drawing into other colors, you need to be willing to stretch how you define card drawing.
First, who's to say that the mage who harmonizes with nature isn't learning new spells? Perhaps while he was meditating, Gaea revealed to him how to cast Giant Growth or how to summon Great Sable Stag .
Second, I never said that all card draw represents "learning new spells." I used "learning new spells" as an example of the general metaphor for what card draw means (moving information from one's long term memory to one's short term memory, or from the future to the present), which has already been established by the game. Card draw flavored as taking a census does not fit into that metaphor, but getting in touch with one's spiritual side, meditating, or even learning to embrace one's instincts could.
This is starting to get really frustrating because even though we ostensibly agree, we're somehow talking past each other. To me it feels like you're arguing for other colors getting access to knowledge here even though you were arguing against it in the previous paragraphs.
White takes a census, gathers together information about all the subjects it desires to protect, and then applies that information to hone its laws, which means it now has better tools to magically protect them, in the form of more cards in your hand.
This doesn't fit the metaphor established by the game. If taking a census can be represented mechanically by drawing cards, then who's to say that anger can't be? "Red gathers together all the anger it has, and then applies that emotion to the fight at hand, which means it now has more adrenaline, in the form of more cards in your hand." You can't just tack on "in the form of more cards in your hand" and expect the flavor to make sense. It's bleeding the color wheel without any justification which "destroys the differences that make the color pie work, causes everything to blend together into one big shade of grey."
White scans the battlefield, sending scouts to the front line to study enemy troop movements. Now, knowing the enemies' tactics, White is better able to predict their next move and counter it. This preparedness is represented by having more cards in your hand.
This sounds more like a tutoring effect than a card draw effect. Wouldn't "preparedness" imply drawing a specific card, not just whatever happens to be on top of the library at the time?
Green will make any sacrifice in order to uphold the natural balance.
Even if the sacrifice means being powerless to defend nature when nature isn't already around? That reminds me of the Planeteers from Captain Planet: their mission was to stop pollution, but their powers didn't work whenever there was too much pollution around. That goes far beyond being a sacrifice or a handicap and straight into wallbanger territory.
It solves so many problems Green currently has, but you're not willing to accept it because you don't feel that Green should care about creatures any more than other colors? Look, each color sees the game differently. Yes, they all have some things in common (use mana, summon creatures, strive to reduce the opponent to 0 life). However, their priorities are not the same. Yes, all colors use creatures, but Green prioritizes them the highest. How do we represent this mechanically? My suggestion is exactly that.
Again, "caring about creatures" is not the same as "using creatures to care." I think it's fine if green specializes in the former, but I think every color should do the latter equally. The other problem I have is that I don't trust Wizards to design green "cares about creature" cards that won't be horribly handicapped or, in the case of Hunter's Insight , horribly unflavorful.
If you still aren't convinced, fine. I like my idea, and from where I'm sitting it seems to solve Green's power level problems AND its lack of an identity. But I'm not in charge of Magic design, so take solace in the fact that my idea likely won't ever happen.
It's not that I dislike your idea; I've just been trying to get you to elaborate on it.
You're being unfair again. If a scholar "favors mind over body" but is still "puts knowledge to use," then a bodyguard can be someone who "favors body over mind" but still studies.
You can't just study magic in your off-time, and you can't just study combat in your free time either. They're both life's work for the vast majority of people (those who aren't prodigies). This is why a bodyguard doesn't get magic. He chose instead to study the art of the sword (or axe or whatever). A person who studies magic to use it does not miraculously become skilled in physical combat, so why should a person who studies physical combat just randomly pick up magic along the way?
Let's take a look at what you mean by "theoretical knowledge versus applied knowledge". If I'm not mistaken, it's akin to potential energy versus kinetic energy. Theoretical knowledge is potential knowledge, something you know but haven't yet put to use. Applied knowledge is kinetic, it's knowledge that has now been used: a spell that has been cast, a card that has been played. You're saying Blue is the only color with potential knowledge, the only color able to acquire knowledge passively. But card drawing is not merely acquiring data, it can take many forms. A burst of powerful emotion for the mage who fuels magic with passion (Red). A realization of a means to obtain tacitcal advantage (White). A burst of insight inspired by natural predatory instincts (Green). Each of these can be mechanically represented. Emotions are fleeting, so Red card draw is temporary: "Draw four cards. Discard your hand at the beginning of the next end step." Tactics require slowly piecing together the big picture: "Whenever a Soldier enters the battlefield, draw a card." Predatory instinct is awakened when prey is in your sights: Hunter's Insight . Limiting cards going into your hand to being "gaining knowledge" restricts the ability for colors like Red and Green who don't care about knowledge, but about instinct, impulse, insight, intuition. By expanding the definition, we give each color a flavorful way to draw cards that does not step on any other color's toes, and thus we keep the colors distinct.
Another problem with your objection is that while scholars may have some practical application for their studies, the application is moot if it isn't relevant to the context in question. Yes, a crime scene analyst "puts knowledge to use," but if someone is shooting at you right now, it's better to have an expert sharpshooter on your side. In that case, the analyst is the scholar and the sharpshooter is the bodyguard.
How is this example relevant? You don't summon a mage into combat to hand him a sword and send him into the fray. You summon the mage to do what he does best: cast spells. Bringing in a crime scene analyst to a firefight is like handing the mage a sword and telling him to use that instead of his spells.
Learning magic is a mental exercise, but practicing magic isn't.
Yes it is. Or would you argue that learning Mathematics is a mental exercise, but solving equations isn't? Or that learning to read is a mental exercise, but actually reading isn't?
And yes, it is unfair to say that bodyguards would be at a disadvantage for being mundane because in a world where magic exists, magic itself is mundane.
Not even remotely true. In our world, guns exist, but not everyone's a sharpshooter. Math exists, but not everyone's a mathematician. In the vast majority of fantasy worlds, magic is something you have to learn. Magic is the same way. All those soldiers the White mage summons aren't magical; they instead decided to focus on learning to fight with steel.
This is the reason "mundane" characters like Burrenton Forge-Tender can have magical proprties such as protection from red (and the Wizard creature type!) even though blacksmiths would of course not be magical in our world.
Way to contradict yourself. Burrenton Forge-Tender is mundane... but oh look, she's a wizard! You know what her being a wizard means? It means she's studied magic.
There is a point in bringing up balance because we are talking about a game. Just because blue is overpowered now doesn't mean that it should be or has to be. Yes, it's in large part because blue is concepted as the color of knowledge, which is why I'm arguing that blue should not be concepted that way.
What makes Blue broken is the fact that the abilities Blue gets are the hardest to develop properly. The correct cost for a Counterspell is two-and-a-half mana. So how do you cost that correctly? You either make it overpowered (Counterspell ) or underpowered (Cancel ). The problem with the second is that the game isn't exciting when it's underpowered. So Development has to push the envelope on some cards. But since it only takes a few overpowered cards to break a color, it's a very dangerous line.
I'm not trying to make every color the "knowledge" color; I don't think any color should be the knowledge color. Each color has a different kind of knowledge, which is why there are different colors in the first place. There are just too many different kinds of knowledge for knowledge as a whole to be represented as one color.
Except you are trying to make every color the knowledge color. Because your definition of what card draw's flavor can be is so narrow that you can't put it into the other colors in unique ways. You hate how Green gets its own take on card drawing , so you'd rather it just stick to Harmonize . Except guess what? Harmonize still feels very Blue. So now, since that's the only kind of card draw you're willing to give Green, Green is starting to feel Blue. I can't continue this discussion with you if you're not willing to widen your perspective at all. The beauty of Magic is that there are so many ways to do each effect. Why oh why are you cutting out 90% of those possibilities?
I'm not trying to take away blue's ability to collect data or fully evaluate a situation before taking action. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate that collecting data or fully evaluating a situation are not the only kinds of knowledge that exist. Card draw can remain themed as knowledge; it's just that "knowledge" needs to be redefined as something besides studying.
Well when you redefine "knowledge" as something other than studying, then Blue is no longer the "knowledge" color. I already told you the definition I am using for knowledge. By the definition I use, Blue is the knowledge color. By your broader definition, it isn't. Would it help if I said Blue is the data color?
But white imposes laws on everyone else, not itself. You don't play Arrest or Pacifism on your own creatures.
You are wrong. Just because some cards aren't meant to be cast targetting your own creatures (guess what? It's a game. It's the opposite of fun to have a color that only ever "plays fair") doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to everyone. Let's look at Arrest . Do you arrest people who don't break the law? No, you don't. Your own creatures are on your side, which roughly translates to "following the law", so you don't arrest them. Do you need to pacify someone who isn't dangerous? No, only the violent creatures that threaten others. Do you need to isolate law-abiding citizens? No. Now let's look at a card like Rule of Law . Does that apply to everyone? I rest my case.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. If things are adequate, white won't risk upsetting the status quo to try for anything better. That's one of the weaknesses of white, and that's why it doesn't favor discovering new information.
You completely missed the point. It's not that Bant's system is only "adequate" or "good enough". It's that it's exactly what they want. White doesn't see lack of freedom as a bad thing.
I'm going to stop you right there to point out that, hey look, Ethersworn Canonist applies to everyone equally! You know, like you said White doesn't. Anyway, continue.
I'm not trying to prove a point about white being against change; I'm trying to prove a point about white being against discovering new information.
Fine, I give up. White isn't allowed to ever, in a million years, on a single card, care about knowledge. So much for every color getting card draw in any form.
On a more serious note, I'm going to remind you of something that's very important. Are you ready? There are multiple ways to represent each color. Each color has multiple approaches, and contains multiple philosophies. Got all that? Some White doesn't care about learning new things. Some White is so set in its ways that it won't allow any change at all. Other White realizes that knowledge is a tool for peace and prosperity of the community. How can you say that White never cares about knowledge when it's an ally to Blue of all colors?
Jester's Cap is like Merfolk Looter in that the relationship between the flavor and the ability is left ambiguous (for example, there's no reason the cap can't be enchanted to erase your opponents' memory). In the case of Jester's Cap , the fact that the relationship is ambiguous doesn't mean that it's somehow subverted the established metaphor for what exiling a card from the library represents; it just means the card is poorly flavored.
So apparently cards that are canon aren't good enough examples when I use them, but when you're using them to prove your points, they're perfectly acceptable? Apparently the fact that many, many cards have flavor that disagrees with you doesn't mean your definition of flavor is too narrow, it means that all of those cards are wrong?
This is starting to get really frustrating because even though we ostensibly agree, we're somehow talking past each other. To me it feels like you're arguing for other colors getting access to knowledge here even though you were arguing against it in the previous paragraphs.
I never argued against other colors getting card draw. I argued, using MY definition of knowledge (which is, I'll repeat, studying and gathering data) that other colors should not be represented as favoring knowledge. Card draw can be represented in other ways. It has been in the past, whether or not you want to accept that.
This doesn't fit the metaphor established by the game. If taking a census can be represented mechanically by drawing cards, then who's to say that anger can't be?
"Red gathers together all the anger it has, and then applies that emotion to the fight at hand, which means it now has more adrenaline, in the form of more cards in your hand."
Perfectly flavorful, considering Red fuels its magic with emotions.
You can't just tack on "in the form of more cards in your hand" and expect the flavor to make sense. It's bleeding the color wheel without any justification which "destroys the differences that make the color pie work, causes everything to blend together into one big shade of grey."
No, you can't just tack on "in the form of cards" when it doesn't fit. But guess what? In my example of the census, it does fit. The cards in your hand, in that example, represent your potential ability to take care of your population being increased. If you're not willing to accept abstraction in any form, you should not be playing Magic.
This sounds more like a tutoring effect than a card draw effect. Wouldn't "preparedness" imply drawing a specific card, not just whatever happens to be on top of the library at the time?
Wouldn't Divination imply obtaining knowledge about a specific person or location?
A person who studies magic to use it does not miraculously become skilled in physical combat, so why should a person who studies physical combat just randomly pick up magic along the way?
Again, these are totally different things. In a world where magic exists, "physical combat" includes being able to perform magic. I'm not saying that mages should be skilled in swordfighting or that swordfighters should be skilled at magic. What I am saying is that they are both physical combatants, in contrast to someone who studies magic or swordfighting but never applies it to combat (obviously, characters like that are never depicted on Magic cards).
Let's take a look at what you mean by "theoretical knowledge versus applied knowledge". If I'm not mistaken, it's akin to potential energy versus kinetic energy. Theoretical knowledge is potential knowledge, something you know but haven't yet put to use. Applied knowledge is kinetic, it's knowledge that has now been used: a spell that has been cast, a card that has been played.
You're saying Blue is the only color with potential knowledge, the only color able to acquire knowledge passively. But card drawing is not merely acquiring data, it can take many forms. A burst of powerful emotion for the mage who fuels magic with passion (Red). A realization of a means to obtain tacitcal advantage (White). A burst of insight inspired by natural predatory instincts (Green). Each of these can be mechanically represented. Emotions are fleeting, so Red card draw is temporary: "Draw four cards. Discard your hand at the beginning of the next end step." Tactics require slowly piecing together the big picture: "Whenever a Soldier enters the battlefield, draw a card." Predatory instinct is awakened when prey is in your sights: Hunter's Insight . Limiting cards going into your hand to being "gaining knowledge" restricts the ability for colors like Red and Green who don't care about knowledge, but about instinct, impulse, insight, intuition. By expanding the definition, we give each color a flavorful way to draw cards that does not step on any other color's toes, and thus we keep the colors distinct.
Alright, so we both agree that "card drawing is not merely acquiring data, it can take on many forms." The only difference is that I call all those other forms (powerful emotion, tactical planning, predatory insight) forms of knowledge, and you don't. I'm not restricting anything by saying "cards going into your hand must be knowledge," I'm saying the exact same thing you are saying but with a broader definition of "knowledge."
Another problem with your objection is that while scholars may have some practical application for their studies, the application is moot if it isn't relevant to the context in question. Yes, a crime scene analyst "puts knowledge to use," but if someone is shooting at you right now, it's better to have an expert sharpshooter on your side. In that case, the analyst is the scholar and the sharpshooter is the bodyguard.
How is this example relevant? You don't summon a mage into combat to hand him a sword and send him into the fray. You summon the mage to do what he does best: cast spells. Bringing in a crime scene analyst to a firefight is like handing the mage a sword and telling him to use that instead of his spells.
I brought up this example because you were saying that someone wouldn't be a scholar under my definition if there were any practical application for his or her knowledge (such as a scientist or doctor). However, that's not true--just because there's some practical application doesn't mean that the application is relevant to combat. The crime scene analyst might be using practical knowledge when analyzing a crime scene, but during a firefight that knowledge is just theoretical.
Learning magic is a mental exercise, but practicing magic isn't.
Yes it is. Or would you argue that learning Mathematics is a mental exercise, but solving equations isn't? Or that learning to read is a mental exercise, but actually reading isn't?
This is probably another equivocation. I'm understanding "physical" to mean something that affects the outside world in a significant way. If that's the case, obviously practicing magic isn't just mental, since it blows things up, etc. Solving equations is a mental exercise unless the equations are being put to some physical purpose. Reading would always be a mental exercise.
And yes, it is unfair to say that bodyguards would be at a disadvantage for being mundane because in a world where magic exists, magic itself is mundane.
Not even remotely true. In our world, guns exist, but not everyone's a sharpshooter. Math exists, but not everyone's a mathematician. In the vast majority of fantasy worlds, magic is something you have to learn. Magic is the same way. All those soldiers the White mage summons aren't magical; they instead decided to focus on learning to fight with steel.
I wasn't saying that "magic exists in the Multiverse, therefore all bodyguards will know magic." I was saying that to someone who lives in a magical world, magic is mundane. It's kind of like Arthur C. Clarke's law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Any sufficiently familiar magic is indistinguishable from technology. Yes, not everyone in our world is a sharpshooter, but if we encountered guns we would recognize them as mundane--unlike, say, someone from a world where guns don't exist. To people in a world where magic exists, magic is just a kind of gun.
Way to contradict yourself. Burrenton Forge-Tender is mundane... but oh look, she's a wizard! You know what her being a wizard means? It means she's studied magic.
Has she studied magic? Her flavor text doesn't indicate anything besides that her abilities come from smithing, which suggests to me that she's a "Wizard" for the same reason Elvish Handservant is a "Warrior;" there just wasn't an appropriate class type to give her. Most of the other smiths in the game are "Artificers," and the smith which most closely resembles her (Repentant Blacksmith ) doesn't have a class type at all--neither solution would have fit with Lorwyn's tribal themes, so she got pushed into the Wizard tribe.
But let's suppose she does know magic. It's almost certainly smithing-related magic, which is the point I was trying to make using her as an example: in a world where magic exists, magic and technology are the same thing, so a wizard may find himself or herself putting magic to mundane uses. For example, Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service may be a witch, but her delivery service is still mundane.
Except you are trying to make every color the knowledge color. Because your definition of what card draw's flavor can be is so narrow that you can't put it into the other colors in unique ways...I can't continue this discussion with you if you're not willing to widen your perspective at all. The beauty of Magic is that there are so many ways to do each effect. Why oh why are you cutting out 90% of those possibilities?
I'm not trying to make every color the knowledge color. If every color is the knowledge color, then no color is the knowledge color. My definition of what card draw's flavor can be is limited to "knowledge," but my definition of knowledge is much broader than yours. What you keep referring to as non-knowledge based card draw in other colors is the exact same thing I'm referring to as non-data based knowledge. It's not that I'm unwilling to widen my perspective; my perspective is just different from yours. I've pointed out the equivocation several times now, but you keep saying that I'm trying to limit the possibilities of each color.
You hate how Green gets its own take on card drawing , so you'd rather it just stick to Harmonize . Except guess what? Harmonize still feels very Blue. So now, since that's the only kind of card draw you're willing to give Green, Green is starting to feel Blue.
I don't hate green's own take on card drawing; I just think that particular card was poorly executed flavorwise. I like the way Harmonize was executed, but that doesn't mean it's the only kind of card draw I want to see in green.
Well when you redefine "knowledge" as something other than studying, then Blue is no longer the "knowledge" color. I already told you the definition I am using for knowledge. By the definition I use, Blue is the knowledge color. By your broader definition, it isn't. Would it help if I said Blue is the data color?
Exactly--blue wouldn't be the "knowledge" color anymore under my broader definition. I don't see why that's a problem, since it would still get to be the "data" color.
You are wrong. Just because some cards aren't meant to be cast targetting your own creatures (guess what? It's a game. It's the opposite of fun to have a color that only ever "plays fair") doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to everyone. Let's look at Arrest . Do you arrest people who don't break the law? No, you don't. Your own creatures are on your side, which roughly translates to "following the law", so you don't arrest them. Do you need to pacify someone who isn't dangerous? No, only the violent creatures that threaten others. Do you need to isolate law-abiding citizens? No.
Right, that's the point I was making. White follows its own rules as a matter of course, which is what I was getting at when I said that it considers itself perfect to begin with. It only needs to enforce the laws on other people.
Now let's look at a card like Rule of Law . Does that apply to everyone? I rest my case.
It applies to everyone, but if you've got this card in your deck, your deck is almost certainly built around it. So again, it's an example of white following its own rules as a matter of course.
You completely missed the point. It's not that Bant's system is only "adequate" or "good enough". It's that it's exactly what they want. White doesn't see lack of freedom as a bad thing.
Right, that's the point I was making. If white's in a position to be making laws (which it usually is, unless it's a rebels-over-throwing-the-empire situation), things are exactly the way white wants them. Hence, white's rule will be lacking in freedom--in part, this means lacking in the freedom to exchange new ideas.
I'm going to stop you right there to point out that, hey look, Ethersworn Canonist applies to everyone equally! You know, like you said White doesn't. Anyway, continue.
Except that the point I was trying to make with Ethersworn Canonist was that white tends to favor surpressing new information, which is exactly what Ethersworn Canonist does.
Fine, I give up. White isn't allowed to ever, in a million years, on a single card, care about knowledge. So much for every color getting card draw in any form.
Like I said, white just happens to be the color whose philosophy is least compatible with discovering knowledge. It can still get card draw in the form of incidental divine blessings or in the form of angelic/tactical tutoring.
On a more serious note, I'm going to remind you of something that's very important. Are you ready? There are multiple ways to represent each color. Each color has multiple approaches, and contains multiple philosophies. Got all that? Some White doesn't care about learning new things. Some White is so set in its ways that it won't allow any change at all. Other White realizes that knowledge is a tool for peace and prosperity of the community. How can you say that White never cares about knowledge when it's an ally to Blue of all colors?
Sure, I'd be willing to accept that some white realizes that knowledge is a tool for peace and prosperity of the community, which is why I asked you for examples of this. You resorted to "real-life" examples instead of Magic examples, which suggests to me that there aren't any Magic examples.
Okay, so white is an ally to blue; that doesn't mean they're going to agree on everything. It's exactly the same as how you were arguing that hedonism and direct damage don't belong in green even though green is an ally to red.
Jester's Cap is like Merfolk Looter in that the relationship between the flavor and the ability is left ambiguous (for example, there's no reason the cap can't be enchanted to erase your opponents' memory). In the case of Jester's Cap , the fact that the relationship is ambiguous doesn't mean that it's somehow subverted the established metaphor for what exiling a card from the library represents; it just means the card is poorly flavored.
So apparently cards that are canon aren't good enough examples when I use them, but when you're using them to prove your points, they're perfectly acceptable? Apparently the fact that many, many cards have flavor that disagrees with you doesn't mean your definition of flavor is too narrow, it means that all of those cards are wrong?
I never argued against other colors getting card draw. I argued, using MY definition of knowledge (which is, I'll repeat, studying and gathering data) that other colors should not be represented as favoring knowledge. Card draw can be represented in other ways. It has been in the past, whether or not you want to accept that.
Right. I've pointed out that we're using different definitions of knowledge, but you keep saying that equating card draw to knowledge is limiting. Yes, it would be under your definition, but I'm not using your definition.
This doesn't fit the metaphor established by the game. If taking a census can be represented mechanically by drawing cards, then who's to say that anger can't be?
"Red gathers together all the anger it has, and then applies that emotion to the fight at hand, which means it now has more adrenaline, in the form of more cards in your hand."
Perfectly flavorful, considering Red fuels its magic with emotions.
The angels have blessed you with a Healing Salve which gives you more energy to fight...in the form of cards in your hand. A demon teaches you a Dark Ritual which allows you to harness the dark energies surrounding you...in the form of cards in your hand. You reach into your raw emotion and shoot forth a Lightning Bolt at your enemy...in the form of cards in your hand. You cultivate the natural strength inside your creatures causing them to grow to gigantic proportions ...in the form of cards in your hand.
Just because you can shoehorn non-knowledge spells into being represented mechanically as card draw doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's generally best to determine how to represent the effect of the spell using the existing resources in the game and the established metaphors for those resources.
No, you can't just tack on "in the form of cards" when it doesn't fit. But guess what? In my example of the census, it does fit. The cards in your hand, in that example, represent your potential ability to take care of your population being increased. If you're not willing to accept abstraction in any form, you should not be playing Magic.
Yes, card draw is abstract, and yes, abstraction is part of playing Magic. However, the abstraction still needs to fit into what has been established by the game. If you establish that vampires are weakened by sunlight earlier in your story, you can't later have vampires walking around in the daytime unprotected. If you establish that card draw represents long term memories coming to the surface, it doesn't make sense for card draw to suddenly represent something like "potential ability to take care of your population."
Wouldn't Divination imply obtaining knowledge about a specific person or location?
You're right; Divination 's flavor is weak on this point. I suppose the idea is that you're supposed to be divining a way to defeat your opponent, but in that case you should really be drawing the silver bullet that wrecks your opponent's strategy, not just what happens to be on the top of your library.
Again, these are totally different things. In a world where magic exists, "physical combat" includes being able to perform magic. I'm not saying that mages should be skilled in swordfighting or that swordfighters should be skilled at magic. What I am saying is that they are both physical combatants, in contrast to someone who studies magic or swordfighting but never applies it to combat (obviously, characters like that are never depicted on Magic cards).
Just like with knowledge, your definition for "physical combat" is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Let's say I am a doctor. I travel with the military to heal their wounded, and often have to rush to the front lines to heal those who can't be safely moved. Am I now a physical combatant? By your definition, I'm applying my trade to combat, so I am. Let's say I'm a baker. I bake bread for the army. Without my bread, some of the soldiers would die of starvation, so I have a direct impact on the combat. Am I now a physical combatant? I'm an architect. I build siege weaponry. I never go anywhere near a battlefield, but my machinery does and it wreaks havoc on the enemy. Now I'm a physical combatant. Where does it end? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I say someone who doesn't pick up a weapon and actually wade into battle is not a physical combatant. Mages may affect the battlefield, but they do it from afar, and they use their minds to do so. They are not physically fighting, many of them are not even fighting at all (like those who summon creatures, or who use magic to buff others), so they are not physical combatants. Gideon Jura is a physical combatant. His girlfriend Chandra Nalaar is not.
I'm not restricting anything by saying "cards going into your hand must be knowledge," I'm saying the exact same thing you are saying but with a broader definition of "knowledge."
I told you exactly what I meant whenever I said knowledge. You continued to disagree with me. I assumed this meant you were disagreeing with me on the point that card draw doesn't have to be data (which is exactly what I was saying, and exactly what I told you I was saying, yet you kept disagreeing). By the way, what is your definition for knowledge?
This is probably another equivocation. I'm understanding "physical" to mean something that affects the outside world in a significant way. If that's the case, obviously practicing magic isn't just mental, since it blows things up, etc. Solving equations is a mental exercise unless the equations are being put to some physical purpose.
So let's say I calculate some trajectories for siege weaponry, but then stuff those calculations away somewhere, and they don't get used. It was purely a mental exercise, then. But now, a couple of years later, someone comes along, finds my equations, and goes out to use them in battle. Suddenly, my equations become a physical exercise.
I wasn't saying that "magic exists in the Multiverse, therefore all bodyguards will know magic." I was saying that to someone who lives in a magical world, magic is mundane. [...] Yes, not everyone in our world is a sharpshooter, but if we encountered guns we would recognize them as mundane--unlike, say, someone from a world where guns don't exist. To people in a world where magic exists, magic is just a kind of gun.
The problem arises when you try to say that it being mundane means that everyone has access to it. If that's the case, then why are there so many vanilla soldiers running around in White?
Right, that's the point I was making. White follows its own rules as a matter of course, which is what I was getting at when I said that it considers itself perfect to begin with. It only needs to enforce the laws on other people.
If that's the point you were making, then you made it very poorly. Your exact words were "But white imposes laws on everyone else, not itself." If White follows its own laws, it's imposing them on itself as well. If what you really did mean is that White only enforces its laws on others, then you're right. That's exactly how laws always work. You only enforce them when they're broken.
Right, that's the point I was making. If white's in a position to be making laws (which it usually is, unless it's a rebels-over-throwing-the-empire situation), things are exactly the way white wants them. Hence, white's rule will be lacking in freedom--in part, this means lacking in the freedom to exchange new ideas.
You're missing the point again (or should I say still?). Things aren't exactly the way White wants them just because it's in charge. They're exactly the way it wants them because everyone is safe. The population, under White, is just as fine with the status quo. Just look at the flavor text of Knight-Captain of Eos . The population itself does not value freedom as much as safety. Any among the population who did would be RED-aligned, not White.
Like I said, white just happens to be the color whose philosophy is least compatible with discovering knowledge. It can still get card draw in the form of incidental divine blessings or in the form of angelic/tactical tutoring.
By your far-too-broad definition of knowledge, maybe. I still don't see it, since White is huge on the tactical data, and laws themselves are a form of knowledge (someone has to know the laws and how they work). You know what color is the least compatible with knowledge? Red. It's sort of Red's whole thing. It acts in the moment, rarely thinking things through. You know what color purposely keeps others in the dark about knowledge? Black. Black recognizes knowledge as a tool for its own use, and does not want that tool in the hands of others.
Sure, I'd be willing to accept that some white realizes that knowledge is a tool for peace and prosperity of the community, which is why I asked you for examples of this. You resorted to "real-life" examples instead of Magic examples, which suggests to me that there aren't any Magic examples.
Okay, here are some examples. Starting with Innistrad, we have Mentor of the Meek. Oh, but surely the fact that he's teaching anyone who comes to him means he's "controlling knowledge" and doesn't want anyone to know anything. Harmless Assault shows us an angel, which is not only white-aligned but a creation of the very essence of White, studying her enemy, examining it. Alabaster Mage 's flavor text tells us that TRUTH and honor are the group's greatest weapons. By the way, there's a huge theme of "truth" running through White, on most "destroy target enchantment" effects like Demystify . Care to explain how that doesn't negate your view of White? Auramancer tells us that our memories (I believe you'd consider those knowlege by your definition) hold great strength. Treasure Hunter wants reminders of the past, the treasures of the ancients, to be in museums, which are places of learning. Hillcomber Giant shows that giants favor "dreams frozen in time", which means memories of the past, which is, again, a form of knowledge. Veteran of the Depths keeps track of "tallies of countless generations". Resplendent Mentor , apart from even being a Mentor which means she teaches people, even has the word "knoweldge" right in her flavor text! Rebuff the Wicked talks of teaching someone.
Okay, so white is an ally to blue; that doesn't mean they're going to agree on everything. It's exactly the same as how you were arguing that hedonism and direct damage don't belong in green even though green is an ally to red.
It is not the same thing. You're saying White is actively opposed to knowledge, that it doesn't see the merits of obtaining new knowledge at all. If that were the case, then White and Blue would be enemies.
The angels have blessed you with a Healing Salve which gives you more energy to fight...in the form of cards in your hand. A demon teaches you a Dark Ritual which allows you to harness the dark energies surrounding you...in the form of cards in your hand. You reach into your raw emotion and shoot forth a Lightning Bolt at your enemy...in the form of cards in your hand. You cultivate the natural strength inside your creatures causing them to grow to gigantic proportions ...in the form of cards in your hand.
Way to not even read my following sentence. It has to make sense that you'd become better prepared to handle future occurences. How about this: a magical spell that cures you of your weariness allows you to gain a second wind, which comes in the form of replenishing your exhausted supply of magic. A demon teaches you a ritual to harness energy you could not before, expanding your ability to cast spells, which comes in the form of card draw. You reach into your raw emotion to draw up the strength to fire off another salvo of damaging effects, the salvo being represented as the cards you draw which you are then about to cast. You cultivate the natural strength inside of your creatures to draw on their instincts, amplifying your understanding of the greater whole, which comes in the form of more cards in your hand.
Just because you can shoehorn non-knowledge spells into being represented mechanically as card draw doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's generally best to determine how to represent the effect of the spell using the existing resources in the game and the established metaphors for those resources.
You mean the metaphors that are merely guidelines, not hard and fast rules? The metaphors that Wizards itself doesn't always follow? Just because you discount all the Thieving Magpie s and Hunter's Insight s in the game doesn't mean they're not a valid way to flavor things. When you find yourself having to discredit examples that disprove you, you should take a step back to consider if maybe you're not correct in the first place.
Yes, card draw is abstract, and yes, abstraction is part of playing Magic. However, the abstraction still needs to fit into what has been established by the game. If you establish that vampires are weakened by sunlight earlier in your story, you can't later have vampires walking around in the daytime unprotected. If you establish that card draw represents long term memories coming to the surface, it doesn't make sense for card draw to suddenly represent something like "potential ability to take care of your population."
You'd be exactly right if Wizards had ever released a list of rules that said "card draw is always represented as moving memories from long to short term". But they haven't. The rules you think are set in stone are merely guidelines that they follow more often than not, but still not always. Angelheart Vial represents card draw (and life gain) as a drive to persevere. Aven Fisher represents card draw AS A FISH! Bottled Cloister is a very abstract way to draw a card. Browbeat is card draw by threatening people. Carnage Altar is card draw by blood. They're not making a deal with a demon, not according to the flavor text. Is Chandra Ablaze sitting down to teach everyone something whenever she uses her -2 ability? Coastal Piracy is card draw by being a pirate. Arr. Dormant Sliver is card draw by slivers having sex. Drumhunter is card draw by seeing a big beastie. I only got through the D's of Modern and already I have nine examples that discredit your definition of card draw. And I'm ignoring all cantrips, which, by the way, are flavored as "the spell is so easy to cast that it doesn't cost you much effort", not as knowledge. You really do need to reconsider that definition.
You're right; Divination 's flavor is weak on this point. I suppose the idea is that you're supposed to be divining a way to defeat your opponent, but in that case you should really be drawing the silver bullet that wrecks your opponent's strategy, not just what happens to be on the top of your library.
And once again you find yourself having to say that the flavor of a card that is actually a part of the game, which by its very definition means it's valid, is incorrect.
Where does it end? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I say someone who doesn't pick up a weapon and actually wade into battle is not a physical combatant. Mages may affect the battlefield, but they do it from afar, and they use their minds to do so. They are not physically fighting, many of them are not even fighting at all (like those who summon creatures, or who use magic to buff others), so they are not physical combatants. Gideon Jura is a physical combatant. His girlfriend Chandra Nalaar is not.
Okay, so the equivocation here is that I consider magic to be a "weapon" and you don't.
Suppose that I'm an archer and I "affect the battlefield from afar" with my arrows. That would make me a physical combatant (and certainly, I have to use my mind in order to operate the bow or arbalest or whatever). But if I'm a mage and I "affect the battlefield from afar" with my spells, I'm not a physical combatant? I don't see why it matters whether the damage is being done with a mundane missile or a magic missile.
As for buffing, you're right, that's kind of murky territory. And one problem is that "mage" can include magic-missile types like Prodigal Pyromancer, but it can also include buffing types. I'd say they aren't physical combatants if they wouldn't be represented as tapping to deal damage (barring exceptions like vigilance and the like). If you've got a bunch of teammates with exalted, they might be buffing you somehow, but you're still attacking alone.
I told you exactly what I meant whenever I said knowledge. You continued to disagree with me. I assumed this meant you were disagreeing with me on the point that card draw doesn't have to be data (which is exactly what I was saying, and exactly what I told you I was saying, yet you kept disagreeing).
Well, by the same logic, I told you exactly what I meant whenever I said knowledge. You continued to disagree with me, etc. But anyway, the point is that we actually agree that card draw doesn't have to represent data; we're just using different terminology. We're also having a few other disagreements which are conflating the issue, but we at least agree on this one point.
So let's say I calculate some trajectories for siege weaponry, but then stuff those calculations away somewhere, and they don't get used. It was purely a mental exercise, then. But now, a couple of years later, someone comes along, finds my equations, and goes out to use them in battle. Suddenly, my equations become a physical exercise. So do my muscles grow at the moment I solved the equations or at the moment they get used?
Right, I would agree with everything right up until "so do my muscles grow?" I had no idea what you meant by that at first, but now I think it's because of the phrase "physical exercise." I don't mean that in the sense of "working out;" I mean that in the sense of "an exercise [an activity] that affects the physical world." If I order my minions to execute a prisoner, that would be a "physical exercise" in the latter sense but not the former. If I pick up an axe and do it myself, it's a physical exercise in both senses. So it's another equivocation.
Oh sure. And because nuclear weaponry exists in our world, if someone saw a nuke go off, they'd consider it mundane. Hey look, Gandalf, magic exists in your world, so all those fireworks that were entertaining people for all those years? No, they were faking, they considered them mundane. Hey, Belgarath, you know how you're one of like seven people on your continent who can use magic? Well, apparently the very fact that anyone at all can do magic makes your magic mundane. Sorry, no one will be impressed when you transform into a wolf.
Okay, this is definitely another equivocation, this time a connotative one rather than a denotative one, I think. When I say "mundane" I mean "part of this world, as opposed to being supernatural." Saying that something is mundane can imply that it's unimpressive, but mundane things aren't necessarily so. For example, scientists often develop a fascination with aspects of the world which are not supernatural in any way--Richard Dawkins is about to publish a children's book called The Magic of Reality.
Something like a nuke falls into weird territory in terms of Arthur C. Clarke's rule about technology and magic. A nuke is mundane in the sense that we are capable as recognizing them as not being supernatural...but nuclear attacks are rare, and most people don't really know how nukes work, so in that sense, they're magical.
Being impressed with something is more of a matter of personal experience than whether something is mundane or supernatural. A magic trick (of the "pull a rabbit out of your hat" sort) is magical to the audience, but it's mundane to the person performing the trick or to anyone who knows how it works.
Since we both like Avatar, here's another example. Remember how in the first season, all the characters kept having to explain that bending wasn't magic? "It's not magic; it's waterbending! It's not magic; it's airbending!" Even mediocre earthbenders like Haru and the Canyon Guide were really impressive, and Aang had to go out of his way to explain how the Omashu postal system worked. But by the time of the second season, the audience (and the characters, to some extent) are so familiar with bending that no one bats an eye when we see the earthbending-operated trains in Ba Sing Se. When the team fought against the swamp monster, they thought it might have been a supernatural creature, but when they noticed a person inside, they realized he was just bending the water inside the swamp vines. Bending is certainly magical to us, but it's mundane to people in the Avatar world.
If that's the point you were making, then you made it very poorly. Your exact words were "But white imposes laws on everyone else, not itself." If White follows its own laws, it's imposing them on itself as well. If what you really did mean is that White only enforces its laws on others, then you're right. That's exactly how laws always work. You only enforce them when they're broken.
You're right; it would have been clearer if I'd said "enforce" instead of "impose." However, I used the word "impose" because I was speaking in response to you saying, "White doesn't believe it's perfect to begin with. If it did, it wouldn't feel the need to create laws and impose them on everyone." Even so, if you subject yourself to a law that you already follow, it isn't really an imposition. Ethersworn Canonist isn't presenting a significant imposition on her own deck because she's most likely in a deck full of artifact spells.
You're missing the point again (or should I say still?). Things aren't exactly the way White wants them just because it's in charge. They're exactly the way it wants them because everyone is safe. The population, under White, is just as fine with the status quo. Just look at the flavor text of Knight-Captain of Eos . The population itself does not value freedom as much as safety. Any among the population who did would be RED-aligned, not White.
I'm not sure how it is that we keep missing each other's point. What I'm saying is that if the white-aligned population or government "does not value freedom as much as safety," then they do not value the exchange of information--because the exchange of information represents a freedom that could threaten the safety.
By your broad, meaningless definition of knowledge, maybe. I still don't see it, since White is huge on the tactical data, and laws themselves are a form of knowledge (someone has to know the laws and how they work). You know what color is the least compatible with knowledge? Red. It's sort of Red's whole thing. It acts in the moment, rarely thinking things through.
Okay, so it's obvious you don't care for red's philosophy, and I don't care for white's. I suppose that means this thread's alignment is true neutral? =D
Yep, tactical data would be a form of discovering new knowledge, which is why I agreed that it would make sense for things like battlefield scouts to draw cards (although I think it would make even more sense if they tutored). Laws, on the other hand, do represent knowledge, but they don't represent discovering new knowledge--they represent the status quo. This is why the Azorius had a mechanic that allowed them to "forecast" spells while keeping them in their hand. Cavotta didn't seem to think it was a good fit for them, but I thought it was brilliant.
Well forgive me for not wanting to scour the entire multiverse to dig up some examples that prove a point that should be self evident. I'll correct that heinous crime immediately.
You're forgiven, although I would point out that if your point were so self-evident, you wouldn't have needed to "scour the entire Multiverse" for examples. Now, onto the specific ones:
Mentor of the Meek and Rebuff the Wicked : Sure, these are examples of teaching knowledge, but we already agreed that white favors using tactical knowledge. You don't need to argue that point. Harmless Assault : I don't think the flavor text is supposed to be indicating that the angel is scientifically analyzing the Eldrazi specimen she just obtained; it's just meant to indicate how "harmless" the Eldrazi is now. It's like how the art of Eternity Snare depicts a bird sitting on a minotaur's horn--the bird doesn't actually have anything to do with the spell; it just indicates that the minotaur has been frozen in time. Alabaster Mage and Demystify : White tends to pontificate about "truth" a lot, but by "truth" it always just means whatever its dogma happens to be at the time. White suppresses knowledge that doesn't agree with what it already believes to be true; that's why Demystify destroys enchantments rather than drawing cards. Allow me to quote Rosewater here (from True Blue): "In black, blue sees a color that does not back down from the occasional ugliness of truth." White does not share blue's devotion to truth but instead its devotion to order. For white, this means dogmatically supporting the law and suppressing whatever threatens the law--that is white's version of "truth." Auramancer , Treasure Hunter , Hillcomber Giant , and Veteran of the Depths : These are all examples of white favoring knowledge that comes from the past, not new knowledge (notice how Auramancer and Treasure Hunter get stuff from the graveyard rather than the library?). White's all about tradition and the status quo. Veteran of the Depths is probably your best example, since the meaning of +1/+1 counters is less established than the meaning of card draw. It's possible for those counters to represent knowledge, but it's still traditional knowledge rather than discovered knowledge. Resplendent Mentor : Resplendent Mentor grants knowledge in the form of an ability, not card draw--and besides, every color got a mentor . You can't really use Resplendent Mentor as an example of white favoring knowledge unless you're willing to concede that all colors favor knowledge.
You're saying White is actively opposed to knowledge, striving to keep its people in the dark to better control them. If that were the case, then White and Blue would be enemies.
According to Rosewater, blue's devotion to truth is something it shares with black (white's enemy!), not white. What white and blue have in common is restraint and discipline, not a devotion to truth. Even allied colors have conflicts: to quote Rosewater again (from Slow and Steady), "This leads us to White/Blue's internal conflict. The white half is focused on creating community. Its elaborate rule making is done to bring the people together. The blue half is focused on furthering its information gathering. The people are just means to an end."
It has to make sense that you'd become better prepared to handle future occurences.
Right. But I'd amend that to say, "it has to make sense that you'd become better (mentally) prepared to handle future occurrences." For me, a census wouldn't fulfill that criterion. Just counting how many soldiers there are in your army isn't going to give you any particular insight into how to beat your opponent. It might allow you to do something like ration your food and supplies more effectively, but to me that would be better represented as an effect like Congregate or Ajani Goldmane's -1 ability rather than card draw.
Just because you discount all the Thieving Magpie s and Hunter's Insight s in the game doesn't mean they're not a valid way to flavor things. When you find yourself having to discredit examples that disprove you, you should take a step back to consider if maybe you're not correct in the first place. [...] And once again you find yourself having to say that the flavor of a card that is actually a part of the game, which by its very definition means it's valid, is incorrect.
Just because something is "canon" doesn't mean that I have to agree that the flavor is well-executed or that it is a good representation of the color wheel. Cavotta often wrote about Creative's success or failure at crafting good flavor and good representations of the color wheeleven though he himself was part of Creative. And you yourself have discounted "canon" examples of things you don't like in the color wheel, such as green burn and green faeries (also, green flying) . What happened to one of the greatest testaments to the depth of the color wheel being that it allows for multiple interpretations?
Yes, card draw is abstract, and yes, abstraction is part of playing Magic. However, the abstraction still needs to fit into what has been established by the game. If you establish that vampires are weakened by sunlight earlier in your story, you can't later have vampires walking around in the daytime unprotected. If you establish that card draw represents long term memories coming to the surface, it doesn't make sense for card draw to suddenly represent something like "potential ability to take care of your population."
You'd be exactly right if Wizards had ever released a list of rules that said "card draw is always represented as moving memories from long to short term".
You mean like this? Dommermuth doesn't even use a modifier like "usually" or "most of the time" in his answer, but I'd agree that the metaphor isn't absolute. The metaphor doesn't have to be absolute to establish a pattern, though. If a card doesn't fit the established pattern, then the flavor is weak. Patterns and flavor are subjective, though, which is why certain things fit the pattern for me but not for you (such as the aforementioned green burn and green faeries ), and why certain things fit the pattern for you but not for me. Again, that's one of the testaments to the depth of the color wheel.
In favor of brevity, and to spare our sanities, I'm going to condense this post back to one point, the point on which we genuinely disagree. Everything else, for the most part, is merely a matter of differing definitions. Where we truly disagree is on the metaphor of card drawing.
I agree with you that the metaphors for static elements of the game (library, hand, graveyard, battlefield, exile zones) are well-defined. The library is your long-term memory; the hand is your short-term memory; the graveyard is a little tricky, as it represents multiple things: a physical graveyard (for creatures) and "the past" (for all cards in general); the battlefield is self-explanatory; the exile zone is a place where exist those creatures and spell effects which no longer affect the battle (such as magically isolated permanents ).
Where we disagree is on the metaphors of game actions. You feel that there is a "right answer" to what the flavor of a game action (such as card drawing) is. You feel that anything that doesn't follow that metaphor is either weak or entirely invalid. The problem is, if there truly is only one valid metaphor for every action taken in the game, then the game will inevitably get stale, as every single card draw spell represents the same thing, or every reanimation spell is the same process, or every burn spell is fire. This stifles Creative's creativity, bores the audience, limits what effects can be done, and weakens the flavor of the game as a whole.
Magic is a system with many ways to accomplish a goal. A mage who wants to move an object, for example, can teleport it, levitate it, psychokinetically push it, phase it through the ground, cast a mind-control spell on someone strong enough to physically move it... the list goes on. When converting magic into a card game, we should strive to capture this open-endedness. We should strive to portray more than one way to accomplish a task. This does not weaken the metaphors, as is your concern. It instead strengthens them, showing how each color accomplishes its goals, shows how each color favors a different style of magic.
The biggest problem with your stance, however, is that your singular definition of card draw as "discovering new knowledge" doesn't even fit the metaphors of the game that you hold sacrosanct. If the library (from which you're drawing) is long-term memory, then you already know every spell you're going to draw. You're not learning something new, you're remembering something old. You're refreshing your memory on a spell you already learned. For example:
Laws, on the other hand, do represent knowledge, but they don't represent discovering new knowledge--they represent the status quo.
Why can't laws be represented as card draw? According to you, it's because you're not discovering anything new. However, since your library is all the things you already know, all your legal knowledge would be in the library and card drawing would be just as likely to bring you a remembrance of a law as it would to remind you of a spell you once learned.
Worse than that is the fact that the metaphor of cards is that they are spells you know and mana bonds you hold. If you truly believe that only effects that fit the game's metaphors can ever be valid flavor, then all card draw has to be refreshing your memory of a spell you already know. There are very few ways to represent this on a card, and it will quickly get stale and boring.
What happened to us agreeing that there were multiple interpretations of this game? Agreeing that the reason Magic is so strong is because of its depth? You throw this at me like an insult and an attempt to weaken my stance:
What happened to one of the greatest testaments to the depth of the color wheel being that it allows for multiple interpretations?
But I still believe in this. You are the one who is limiting the game to one "true way" to do things: All card draw must be "acquiring knowledge". All tutoring must be "finding the silver bullet". All tactics must be "+1/+1 counters on your creatures".
I gave you nine examples of cards that didn't fit your definition of card drawing. Nine from just the first four letters of the alphabet, and only in the most recent eight years of Magic. There are countless more. How did you answer them? You ignored them. They did not fit your one true way, so their "flavor is weak". They're not a testament to the fact that every game action has multiple ways to interpret it flavorfully; they're mistakes.
Your examples of me discounting green burn and green faeries fails to take into account that neither is actually an established part of modern Magic. They are not a valid counterpoint to your dismissing of recent cards like Chandra Ablaze and Divination . Hornet Sting is a one-off effect that has been called a mistake by many Wizards employees. Divination and the like are cards they keep making, that no one ever calls mistakes. Green faeries haven't been done in over a decade; card drawing as things even as abstract as rage are printed every year.
You are entitled to your view of the game's flavor. After this post, I won't try to convince you of the validity of other interpretations any more. If you have any other topics to discuss, feel free to bring them up, but I'm not going to continue discussing the flavor of card draw or other game mechanics any more.
I agree with you that the metaphors for static elements of the game (library, hand, graveyard, battlefield, exile zones) are well-defined. The library is your long-term memory; the hand is your short-term memory; the graveyard is a little tricky, as it represents multiple things: a physical graveyard (for creatures) and "the past" (for all cards in general); the battlefield is self-explanatory; the exile zone is a place where exist those creatures and spell effects which no longer affect the battle (such as magically isolated permanents ).
Where we disagree is on the metaphors of game actions. You feel that there is a "right answer" to what the flavor of a game action (such as card drawing) is. You feel that anything that doesn't follow that metaphor is either weak or entirely invalid. The problem is, if there truly is only one valid metaphor for every action taken in the game, then the game will inevitably get stale, as every single card draw spell represents the same thing, or every reanimation spell is the same process, or every burn spell is fire. This stifles Creative's creativity, bores the audience, limits what effects can be done, and weakens the flavor of the game as a whole.
I don't quite understand this. If the "static elements" of the game have an established definition, then wouldn't manipulating those elements would have established definitions as well? If you accept that the library is a planeswalker's long-term memory and that the hand is a planeswalker's short-term memory, then doesn't it follow that moving cards from the library to the hand is moving knowledge from long-term to short-term memory? If having "only one valid metaphor" for every action taken in the game stifles Creative, then wouldn't having only one valid metaphor for the static elements also stifle Creative?
I'm also not sure where "every single card draw spell represents the same thing" or "every reanimation spell is the same process" or "every burn spell is fire" is coming from. The metaphors of the game tell us what the effects of those spells are, not the "process." When Merfolk Looter uses its ability, the metaphors indicate that I've somehow rearranged the knowledge in my memory, but they don't explain how it happened. This is why I think Merfolk Looter works better than Thieving Magpie : the key is ambiguity. With the looter, I'm free to imagine any sort of process for how the ability works. With the magpie, the flavor text explicitly says that the process is gathering jewels, which is in direct contradiction to what the game metaphors indicate; hence, the card's flavor is weak. On the other hand, leaving too much ambiguity can be just as bad--Bottled Cloister , as you pointed out, is incredibly abstract.
The biggest problem with your stance, however, is that your singular definition of card draw as "discovering new knowledge" doesn't even fit the metaphors of the game that you hold sacrosanct. If the library (from which you're drawing) is long-term memory, then you already know every spell you're going to draw. You're not learning something new, you're remembering something old. You're refreshing your memory on a spell you already learned.
That's actually a very valid point. You should have raised that from the beginning. =P
The problem is that I've conflated what I was trying to communicate about white. I think that white does not favor discovering knowledge that contradicts what it already believes (dogma), and I think that white is bad at coping with situations it hasn't already prepared for (lack of card draw). I think these two aspects of white both stem from its lawful nature, so I've been arguing as if they were the same thing. In order to resolve this, we are going to have to examine the "memory" metaphors a little more closely, and perhaps also our definitions of knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom.
For example, consider how the lawful characters Roy and Hinjo reacted to the "shell game" tactic Redcloak used to attack Azure City in Order of the Stick. It takes Haley, a chaotic character, to realize that all of the visible Xykons were just distractions--this is true even though everyone present was familiar with the concept of a shell game. In Magic terms, you might say that everyone had the "Shell Game" card somewhere in the library, but Haley was the only one who managed to actually draw it into her hand and apply it to the current situation. So, does Haley have better card draw than the others? Would this represent superior knowledge, intelligence, or wisdom? Maybe she just has more copies of "Shell Game" since she's more familiar with the concept?
Worse than that is the fact that the metaphor of cards is that they are spells you know and mana bonds you hold. If you truly believe that only effects that fit the game's metaphors can ever be valid flavor, then all card draw has to be refreshing your memory of a spell you already know. There are very few ways to represent this on a card, and it will quickly get stale and boring.
I don't see how "there are very few ways to represent this on a card." We've gone through quite a few already: studying, emotion, harmonizing with nature, etc. This is probably because we have such radically different interpretations of what "knowledge" means. In light of what you've said about every spell in your library being one you already know, perhaps it might be fitting to rework the metaphor a bit. How about this: cards represent knowledge, so the library represents your memory in general, and the hand represents your current mental state or what you're thinking about at the moment. Card draw can then represent nearly any action that affects your mental state (what I've previously been referring to as "knowledge" for lack of a better word). Blue's method of studying and concentration is usually the most direct way to draw something from your memory into your current mental state, but red and green can also do the trick with strong emotions or insight. Black specializes in deteriorating others' mental states or engaging in Faustian bargains to increase its knowledge. However, I'm still at a loss to explain how white would accomplish this, except in the context of battle tactics. Even then, white has trouble adjusting its mental state to accommodate unfamiliar situations--remember Rafiq's reaction in the Alara novel to the opponents who "did not present a suitable target" for him to attack?
What happened to us agreeing that there were multiple interpretations of this game? Agreeing that the reason Magic is so strong is because of its depth? You throw this at me like an insult and an attempt to weaken my stance. But I still believe in this. You are the one who is limiting the game to one "true way" to do things: All card draw must be "acquiring knowledge". All tutoring must be "finding the silver bullet". All tactics must be "+1/+1 counters on your creatures".
Well, you've tossed a few insults yourself: my definitions are meaningless, I shouldn't be playing Magic. I'm not imposing any limits on the game; I'm just following the metaphors that Creative and the game itself have established (additionally, what I was referring to as knowledge is much broader than what you were referring to as knowledge). I don't recall making any statements about the nature of tutoring (but what would you do with tutoring effects besides find silver bullets?) or +1/+1 counters (except that their flavor hasn't been established as decisively as the flavor of card draw, which is the opposite of what you're claiming I said).
I gave you nine examples of cards that didn't fit your definition of card drawing. Nine from just the first four letters of the alphabet, and only in the most recent eight years of Magic. There are countless more. How did you answer them? You ignored them. They did not fit your one true way, so their "flavor is weak". They're not a testament to the fact that every game action has multiple ways to interpret it flavorfully; they're mistakes.
I didn't ignore them; I just figured that presenting Dommermuth's statement about what the card zones represent rendered your point moot. I was also concerned with the rising level of hostility in the thread and thought it might be best to avoid further confrontation. I'd be willing to attempt a response to your examples, if you're still interested.
Your examples of me discounting green burn and green faeries fails to take into account that neither is actually an established part of modern Magic. They are not a valid counterpoint to your dismissing of recent cards like Chandra Ablaze and Divination . Hornet Sting is a one-off effect that has been called a mistake by many Wizards employees. Divination and the like are cards they keep making, that no one ever calls mistakes. Green faeries haven't been done in over a decade; card drawing as things even as abstract as rage are printed every year.
The problem here is that, as Tom LaPille has said, Magic is eternal. You can't discount Hornet Sting or Faerie Noble because they are part of the game in perpetuity. I didn't discount Divination ; I just said that its flavor is weak. Given the name, it'd make more sense if the spell drew you what you actually needed to beat the opponent, but that doesn't mean I consider it a total failure or mistake. I didn't even comment on Chandra Ablaze , so I don't see how I've "discounted" her.
You are entitled to your view of the game's flavor. After this post, I won't try to convince you of the validity of other interpretations any more. If you have any other topics to discuss, feel free to bring them up, but I'm not going to continue discussing the flavor of card draw or other game mechanics any more.
Well, the flavor of card draw is what you condensed the discussion down to, so you're essentially saying that you don't want to continue the discussion anymore. If that's the case, that's fine. I hope there aren't any hard feelings between us.
Well, you've tossed a few insults yourself: my definitions are meaningless, I shouldn't be playing Magic.
And I apologize for that. I was getting frustrated trying to counter your points when your definitions were so vague (I don't believe you ever did actually explain what your definition of knowledge is, just that it's broader than mine). I figured since I was getting so annoyed, I had better cut and run before I got worse, so I did.
Well, the flavor of card draw is what you condensed the discussion down to, so you're essentially saying that you don't want to continue the discussion anymore. If that's the case, that's fine. I hope there aren't any hard feelings between us.
About all else we were discussing at that point was White being anti-knowledge, and we weren't getting anywhere on that either. You were finding no value every point I made, which is just not fun, so I dropped it. You're right, some White is as you say, but there's more to the color than one philosophy (same as every other color).
No hard feelings. I regret getting so sarcastic and hostile. Farewell until the future, fellow flavor-favoring forumite.
