The new Sorin card looks broken to me, but many of the new cards do until you see them in play and notice where the balance is. Also, cards to balance Sorin that might be in this set may not have been revealed yet.
I wonder if Sorin's planeswalker destruction ability will allow Jace Mindsculptor to be brought back into maybe into Standard play.
The new Sorin card looks broken to me, but many of the new cards do until you see them in play and notice where the balance is. Also, cards to balance Sorin that might be in this set may not have been revealed yet.I wonder if Sorin's planeswalker de
Interestingly, one of the best cards for holding off Sorin, Lord of Innistrad, is Sorin Markov. His +2 ability can outpace the +1 ability, or it can ping off the tokens, and setting the life total to 10 can completely negate any lifegain. Nothing like dropping Sorin Markov, using his -3, and slamming your opponent with Sorin's Vengeance.
Except they both immediately get put into their owners' graveyards, because they are both Planeswalkers with the Sorin type. It still holds him off, but not in the way you were thinking.
Except they both immediately get put into their owners' graveyards, because they are both Planeswalkers with the Sorin type. It still holds him off, but not in the way you were thinking.
So to fight the famine (which was killing people), Sorin's grandpa decided to make people drink blood... Which comes from humans (yeah, there are animals as well, but who the hell would drink their blood, when you have humans around?), which means killing people.
BRILLIANT! This couldn't possibly backfire at all!
Okay, that part of the flavor sucks. Everything else, including Sorin as a card - great. Keep up the good work. Innistrad is my favorite block flavor-wise since Kamigawa.
Two things. Firstly, he got the idea from a Demon, whose primary goal wasn't to save lives, but to cause strife. The demon obviously manipulated the way he proposed the idea in such a way as to sweep the pyrrhic victory aspect under the rug. But secondly, it does make sense in a twisted, coldly logical kind of way. Since now some people don't need food to survive, you're cutting down on mouths to feed without killing people; after all, vampires don't need to drain someone completely dry to feed. I get the feeling that Edgar's intention wasn't to have his creations feed to the point of death. They were supposed to take a little here and a little there. However, the dark magic of the ritual imbued them with black mana to the point where selfishness took over, and they saw careful feeding as too much hassle. If anything, the thing most likely to backfire is the immortality bit. "We don't have enough resources to feed all of our people. I know, let's perform a ritual that makes some of those people live forever, and is infectious, thus slowly increasing the population as fewer people die but more keep being born." But since Edgar really wanted immortality, of course he's not going to see the downside there.
Two things. Firstly, he got the idea from a Demon, whose primary goal wasn't to save lives, but to cause strife. The demon obviously manipulated the way he proposed the idea in such a way as to sweep the pyrrhic victory aspect under the rug.But secon
I am not into vampires and darkness; I'm grown up. But I like the tone and backstory to this. Plus, I love that video and hope to see more promo videos like it for future expansions.
Critics who treat "adult" as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adults themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence....When I was ten, I read fairytales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
— C. S. Lewis, On Three Ways of Writing for Children
And that's really all that needs to be said to you, sir. But don't let this spoil your enjoyment of the collectable trading card game you're talking about.
@Vektor:
Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the story twist?
Incidentally, anyone else notice a parallel between Edgar Markov and Sedris the Traitor King ? The similarities, especially when put how @chronego does in his post, are rather interesting. Perhaps we can see Innistrad as similar to a pre-Grixis. I like the new model of planes not just getting smashed by super powered magic baawwww but slowly decaying over time. Gives a much more epic feel to things, in a paradoxical kind of way.
Critics who treat "adult" as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adults themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; t
I'm pretty sure what he means is that the "other" in "other planeswalkers" is sort of pointless, because who would actually have Sorin target himself with it?
Not that I completely agree though; there might be only 2 creatures/other planeswalkers on the board, and if Sorin has fewer than 9 loyalty counters when you use his -6, targeting himself will boost his loyalty a little bit (could keep him out of...Burning Vengeance range with a sorcery? :P)
I'm pretty sure what he means is that the "other" in "other planeswalkers" is sort of pointless, because who would actually have Sorin target himself with it?Not that I completely agree though; there might be only 2 creatures/other planeswalkers on t
The new Sorin card looks broken to me, but many of the new cards do until you see them in play and notice where the balance is. Also, cards to balance Sorin that might be in this set may not have been revealed yet.
I wonder if Sorin's planeswalker destruction ability will allow Jace Mindsculptor to be brought back into maybe into Standard play.
Jace 2.0 was in Worldwake, which isn't in Standard anymore, so that's a no.
Anyways, loving the Innistrad flavor. Just when you think knowing the 3rd set's name makes it unlikely to be surprised by Dark Ascension, bam. Great stuff.
Jace 2.0 was in Worldwake, which isn't in Standard anymore, so that's a no.Anyways, loving the Innistrad flavor. Just when you think knowing the 3rd set's name makes it unlikely to be surprised by Dark Ascension, bam.
I'm pretty sure what he means is that the "other" in "other planeswalkers" is sort of pointless, because who would actually have Sorin target himself with it?
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only had two valid targets.
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only
To the people complaining about how Sorin can eliminate three planeswalkers at once and Bolas "can't":
Nicol Bolas' ultimate can eliminate FIFTEEN planeswalkers at once under the right circumstances. Those circumstances are unlikely, but so is successfully delivering Sorin's ultimate with three planeswalkers to hit with it (barring combo).
To the people complaining about how Sorin can eliminate three planeswalkers at once and Bolas "can't":Nicol Bolas' ultimate can eliminate FIFTEEN planeswalkers at once under the right circumstances. Those circumstances are unlikely, but so is success
I'm pretty sure what he means is that the "other" in "other planeswalkers" is sort of pointless, because who would actually have Sorin target himself with it?
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only had two valid targets.
Yeah, that's sort of what I said in my second paragraph...it was a point-counterpoint kind of thing :D
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only
I'm pretty sure what he means is that the "other" in "other planeswalkers" is sort of pointless, because who would actually have Sorin target himself with it?
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only had two valid targets.
Yeah, that's sort of what I said in my second paragraph...it was a point-counterpoint kind of thing :D
Heh, sorry, I completely failed at reading there.
If Sorin had 7 counters, then used his ultimate and targeted himself, he would return to play with 3 counters, instead of being left with 1. If the ability was worded that way, I could see someone using Sorin's ultimate on Sorin if the opponent only
There are multiple posts here that talk about the strategic significance of Sorin's ultimate used to destroy himself. Well, it can't happen. The ability specifically states "creatures and/or other planeswalkers." Sorin is apparently incapable of suicide.
Another poster, (sorry, I actually read all 9 pages of the thread before posting, and I didn't write down your name), made a pretty funny reference to sparkley vampires. I think it would be funny if Sorins' return to Innistrad failed to restore Avacyn, and instead he, somehow, dumbed down the supernatural powers of these creatures of the night to preserve the balance in Innistrad, and the focus of the story became a conflicted young girl, who fell in love with Sorin, and wanted to have his child. Vampires can now feed on non-human blood to survive, and become more of an annoying distraction in the daylight, instead of a fireworks show. Werewolves still transform into something canine, but not necessarily as dangerous as a wolf. Werepugs, and werechiuaua abound, and humans on the plane are terrorized by thier cuteness and companionship. The corpses of the dead rise and humankind is desperately fearful for thier pudding supply, as the undead are unendingly there to claim i from them, you know, instead of thier brains, or flesh. The spirits of the dead return to the world of the living to give helpful advice gained from thier time as living beings, and only really succeed in annoying the hell out of the now thriving population of humanity. The evil scientists bent on creating skaabs from the corpses of the dead, instead abandon thier silly obsessions, and resort to selling insurance against brutal werepug attacks, and sudden supernatural pudding loss. The plane prospers as a parody of it's original incarnation, and Sorin and Bellas' child grows up on this fantastically safe world, but ultimately corrupts after tasting pudding, and raises an immense horde of zombies and skaab to secure the entire supply for himself.
There are multiple posts here that talk about the strategic significance of Sorin's ultimate used to destroy himself. Well, it can't happen. The ability specifically states "creatures and/or other planeswalkers." Sorin is apparently incapable of s
Sorin continues to be my favorite 'walker, the story here is fantastic.
The "card" is good, an offense-based Elspeth 1.0...but that is where I am ever so slightly disappointed, it's simply too straight-forward. With Sorin Markov I can often debate (or at least entertain) what to do in any given turn, with Lord (of) Innistrad it's probably going to be clear what the right choice is.
Again though, B/W is my favorite color combination and you have it here with my favorite 'walker and a fantastic bit of history for Innistrad.
Now if only it wasn't 50 bucks. (60 on SCG)
Also, I still need a decent RBW General to put him in. *fingers crossed*
Sorin continues to be my favorite 'walker, the story here is fantastic.The "card" is good, an offense-based Elspeth 1.0...but that is where I am ever so slightly disappointed, it's simply too straight-forward. With Sorin Markov I can often debate (o
There are multiple posts here that talk about the strategic significance of Sorin's ultimate used to destroy himself. Well, it can't happen. The ability specifically states "creatures and/or other planeswalkers." Sorin is apparently incapable of suicide.
Another poster, (sorry, I actually read all 9 pages of the thread before posting, and I didn't write down your name), made a pretty funny reference to sparkley vampires. I think it would be funny if Sorins' return to Innistrad failed to restore Avacyn, and instead he, somehow, dumbed down the supernatural powers of these creatures of the night to preserve the balance in Innistrad, and the focus of the story became a conflicted young girl, who fell in love with Sorin, and wanted to have his child. Vampires can now feed on non-human blood to survive, and become more of an annoying distraction in the daylight, instead of a fireworks show. Werewolves still transform into something canine, but not necessarily as dangerous as a wolf. Werepugs, and werechiuaua abound, and humans on the plane are terrorized by thier cuteness and companionship. The corpses of the dead rise and humankind is desperately fearful for thier pudding supply, as the undead are unendingly there to claim i from them, you know, instead of thier brains, or flesh. The spirits of the dead return to the world of the living to give helpful advice gained from thier time as living beings, and only really succeed in annoying the hell out of the now thriving population of humanity. The evil scientists bent on creating skaabs from the corpses of the dead, instead abandon thier silly obsessions, and resort to selling insurance against brutal werepug attacks, and sudden supernatural pudding loss. The plane prospers as a parody of it's original incarnation, and Sorin and Bellas' child grows up on this fantastically safe world, but ultimately corrupts after tasting pudding, and raises an immense horde of zombies and skaab to secure the entire supply for himself.
The other issue with him targeting himself, since all the PWs are going to the grave you could then activate him twice because its a new instance. Which I am sure will come in handy to target your own other PWs so you can activate them multiple times in a turn.
As far as the last paragraph, I guess that entire thing just ignores the 3rd set name and the picture for it?
The other issue with him targeting himself, since all the PWs are going to the grave you could then activate him twice because its a new instance. Which I am sure will come in handy to target your own other PWs so you can activate them multiple time
Why is it possible for Sorin to kill Nicol Bolas? Or, how can he, when Bolas is the supreme bad guy in this thing?
That, or 3 planeswalkers at once?
Not even Bolas can do that.
Well, it really isn't... unless your goldfish called Bolas' services. Bolas (and Karn mentioned by another poster) have abilities that can deal with other Walkers the turn they hit the battlefield. Nicol Bolas can even take other Walkers out while gaining loyalty... he's just that supremely badass Karn exiles his foes, but it costs loyalty.
So if Sorin got in a barfight with either of the other guys who've been 'walking around since before the Mending, he's toast before he can call on enough arcane power to destroy anyone.
Well, it really isn't... unless your goldfish called Bolas' services. Bolas (and Karn mentioned by another poster) have abilities that can deal with other Walkers the turn they hit the battlefield. Nicol Bolas can even take other Walkers out while
Why is it possible for Sorin to kill Nicol Bolas? Or, how can he, when Bolas is the supreme bad guy in this thing?
That, or 3 planeswalkers at once?
Not even Bolas can do that.
You have to remember that Planeswalker cards represent their loyalty, not their physical body. If Sorin uses his ultimate, he can reduce Bolas' loyalty to zero. Bolas can do the same thing to him. It makes sense because the planeswalkers have other duties to fulfill and they'll perform certain actions for you based on their loyalty though they have access to their full power at all times. It's not "killing." Otherwise, you could say that a simple Hulking Cyclops can kill the god-like Bolas with a single attack.
You have to remember that Planeswalker cards represent their loyalty, not their physical body. If Sorin uses his ultimate, he can reduce Bolas' loyalty to zero. Bolas can do the same thing to him. It makes sense because the planeswalkers have other d
the only thing i have against the card is that why they didnt use the other sorin art, i.e the one at the beginning of the web page (Sorin's Homecoming), i think that art is much cooler.
plus what a plot twist that we discover sorin was the one who created Avacyn... i never expected it
the only thing i have against the card is that why they didnt use the other sorin art, i.e the one at the beginning of the web page (Sorin's Homecoming), i think that art is much cooler.plus what a plot twist that we discover sorin was the one who cr
the only thing i have against the card is that why they didnt use the other sorin art, i.e the one at the beginning of the web page (Sorin's Homecoming), i think that art is much cooler.
Agreed, I am not too fond of this art either.
The card itself though, is really nice. I always liked Sorin, and this is a really neat planeswalker to play with. He sounds powerful, cool to play with and balanced. Perfect planeswalker imo.
Agreed, I am not too fond of this art either.The card itself though, is really nice. I always liked Sorin, and this is a really neat planeswalker to play with. He sounds powerful, cool to play with and balanced. Perfect planeswalker imo.
Duty and peace, certainly. True compassion, however, not really. All colours are representations of mental concepts. is emotions, is morality; the two easily interchange and this is why we have so many / characters or characters with atributes and vice versa, but at their purest neither are identifiable as human.
Yeah, red likes emotions but that in no way means red has a complete monopoly on all emotions. If red represented compassion it would actually have to be compassionate sometimes. Right? And guess which color has the most compassionate spells? White. White heals, protects, rezzes, and stays it's hand when it comes to violence. All tools of a compassionate being.
Pure and pure , I think, are very rare, but the kami show more or less what you get when you have no restraining factors. The Myojin of Cleansing Fire burned his own devoted followers alive in his unmoving devotion to O-Kagachi, and the Myojin of Infinite Rage ...also burned his followers alive, most likely either out of fear of O-Kagachi, because he felt like it or, worse yet, because of an infatuation with O-Kagachi.
It's debatable if he cares about people or if it is a more abstract sense of duty and guilt as mentioned previously. If the latter, then yes, he is unambiguously , but the first can also be within or , which were always noted to also have empathy, as empathy is driven by instincts and emotions. Even Maro's articles go on lengths to show that cares about it's community as much as , and that is the colour associated with love.
Empathy is driven by the ability to see beyond yourself. To see and understand suffering or unhappiness in another and aspire to fix it.
Red is selfish. I cares about how it feels. if a red character has some personal connection to those people, it cares. Otherwise no. That isn't empathy.
Green is predatory. It sees weakness and prey.
In any case, my opinion was that these are not Black ideals. Since you aren't actually arguing against that, this is more of a spinoff topic than somthing actually relating to what I said.
not to mention that, mechanical speaking, there is no difference between a random soldier and a random zombie (other than the differences in mechanics between and , which exist in all beings from those colours). For all we know, Reya Dawnbringer is bringing back soldiers who are perfect in body with with an altered mind.
Mechanically speaking there is no difference between a random soldier and a saprolling. what's your point? I specifically stated that I'm talking about flavor, not mechanics.
There's no suggestion in either of her cards that Reya utilizes any mind altering magic.
And this is why I don't like the "black and white" way of thinking does. Everyone's a shade of grey, and I would love to learn how she went from a peasant to a Disney villain wannabe.
"Yes, I betrayed my people and now kill and eat them without remorse. But I'm not evil. Just a shade of grey"
Yeah, red likes emotions but that in no way means red has a complete monopoly on all emotions. If red represented compassion it would actually have to be compassionate sometimes. Right? And guess which color has the most compassionate spells? White.
Yeah, red likes emotions but that in no way means red has a complete monopoly on all emotions. If red represented compassion it would actually have to be compassionate sometimes. Right? And guess which color has the most compassionate spells? White. White heals, protects, rezzes, and stays it's hand when it comes to violence. All tools of a compassionate being.
Red is the color of passion. Compassion is a form of passion; it's right there in the word! Therefore, Red is the color of compassion. Okay, on a more serious note: White isn't the color of compassion. White is the color of order and society. If you in any way stand against that order, White doesn't stop to ask why you're doing it, White just crushes you under the full weight of the law. You stole food; stealing is against the law. You were starving? Doesn't matter, you still stole. All of the effects you listed as examples of White being compassionate are actually flavored as "protecting me and mine". Like you say below, empathy only for those with whom you have a connection is not really empathy. Also, how does White in any way stay its hand when it comes to violence? Look at Rebuke , and other similar cards. If you break the law, White will punish you, even kill you. It doesn't stay its hand. Red is the color of empathy. It, being guided by its emotions, is best able to understand and share the emotions of others, whether friend, stranger or enemy. Red doesn't always act on that understanding, but that doesn't mean it doesn't understand. And if you want an example of Red being compassionate, look no further back than New Phyrexia.
Empathy is driven by the ability to see beyond yourself. To see and understand suffering or unhappiness in another and aspire to fix it. Red is selfish. I cares about how it feels. if a red character has some personal connection to those people, it cares. Otherwise no. That isn't empathy.
Red does not represent selfishness as a concept; that would be Black. Red is the color of passion and living in the moment, which does tend more towards self-gratification, but it doesn't put its own desires above those of everyone else like Black does. Red will burn you if you get in its way, but if you don't, it will leave you alone.
White is more likely to ignore or mistreat those with no connection to it than Red is. If you're in White's community, and remain a law-abiding citizen, then yes, White will look out for you. If you're different, you must be converted, or eliminated, because anything different is a potential threat to the stability of White's system. Look at the Kithkin of Shadowmoor. They're the perfect example of White's xenophobia.
Red is the color of passion. Compassion is a form of passion; it's right there in the word! Therefore, Red is the color of compassion.Okay, on a more serious note:White isn't the color of compassion. White is the color of order and society. If you in
Okay, on a more serious note: White isn't the color of compassion. White is the color of order and society. If you in any way stand against that order, White doesn't stop to ask why you're doing it, White just crushes you under the full weight of the law. You stole food; stealing is against the law. You were starving? Doesn't matter, you still stole. All of the effects you listed as examples of White being compassionate are actually flavored as "protecting me and mine". Like you say below, empathy only for those with whom you have a connection is not really empathy.
Yes, white is about order and society, true. What else is it about? More than that certainly. Lets throw a few in that were conveiniently left out. How about Self-sacrifice? Medicine and healing? Protection, damage prevention?
Honestly, if you were an uncommonly compassionate person who was about to learn the magic of one of the 5 colors, which form would you choose? I would guess white. Why would a compassionate person ever desire to burn sombody alive when they could simply show them how much their actions are hurting people instead? Do you know how painfull burns are?
Also, how does White in any way stay its hand when it comes to violence? Look at Rebuke , and other similar cards. If you break the law, White will punish you, even kill you. It doesn't stay its hand.
Thankyou. That's a perfect example of what I was talking about. A perfect example of white staying it's hand. If this were a red spell, it would be more like "Deal X damage to target" No differentiating between aggressors and bystanders. Kill whoever is there. Rebuke on the other hand will never harm sombody who isn't already actively trying to harm the caster.
Red does not represent selfishness as a concept; that would be Black. Red is the color of passion and living in the moment, which does tend more towards self-gratification, but it doesn't put its own desires above those of everyone else like Black does. Red will burn you if you get in its way, but if you don't, it will leave you alone.
I never said red represents selfishness. That is indeed black. However it doesn't change the fact that the red demeanor is generally selfish. Red does what it feels like. cares only about people whom it's close to while at best ignoring others. At worst killing them if they hinder red's fun. Generally speaking of course.
If you're in White's community, and remain a law-abiding citizen, then yes, White will look out for you. If you're different, you must be converted, or eliminated, because anything different is a potential threat to the stability of White's system.
Look at the Kithkin of Shadowmoor. They're the perfect example of White's xenophobia.
Two things.
First, Shadowmoor Kithkin were Blue/white.
Second, in every instance in the books in which shadowmoor Kithkin were encountered, they were allies. Perhaps not the warmest friends but certainly not cold-blooded murderers of non-uniformity.
The other white aligned race in Shadowmoor, Elves, were downright heroic
Yes, white is about order and society, true. What else is it about? More than that certainly. Lets throw a few in that were conveiniently left out. How about Self-sacrifice? Medicine and healing? Protection, damage prevention?Think about it. What do
Good. He Completes my W/U/B cycle. UW=Venser, UB=Tezzeret, BW=Sorin. Wish his price won't soar too high.
Am I the only one in favor of his new art? His new look is whiter and seems he is in a sacred mission.
Does anybody else also think he looks like Arthas in WC?
Good. He Completes my W/U/B cycle. UW=Venser, UB=Tezzeret, BW=Sorin. Wish his price won't soar too high.Am I the only one in favor of his new art? His new look is whiter and seems he is in a sacred mission.Does anybody else also think he looks like
Yeah, red likes emotions but that in no way means red has a complete monopoly on all emotions. If red represented compassion it would actually have to be compassionate sometimes. Right? And guess which color has the most compassionate spells? White. White heals, protects, rezzes, and stays it's hand when it comes to violence. All tools of a compassionate being.
That's partly due to elemental associations. is fire, rocks and metals, things that are traditionally associated with burning or smashing you, and is associted with the Sun, which is seen as a life force. Also, healing =/= compassion; in that case I could argue is compassionate since it repairs it's zombies with mana.
Empathy is driven by the ability to see beyond yourself. To see and understand suffering or unhappiness in another and aspire to fix it.
Red is selfish. I cares about how it feels. if a red character has some personal connection to those people, it cares. Otherwise no. That isn't empathy.
Green is predatory. It sees weakness and prey.
Empathy, however, is caused by emotions and instincts, and again you're ignoring this factor. Maro himself describes not as predatory, but as nurturing, and in fact predation is only one part of the colour; elves (sans the xenophobic ones), birds of paradise, elks and et cetera are not predators, but compassionate creatures, often well expressed in their mechnics. is selfish on the base, but guess what, all your feelings of empathy are caused by emotional responses. The Lorwyn flame-kin, Chandra, Koth and many other characters are evidence that this is natural to . Selfishness is also caused by emotions, but since always it was stressed that doesn't agree with exactly because the latter is selfish without being overly compassionate.
Yes. Don't see how this relates to what I said.
Spirits also work as undead slaves.
Mechanically speaking there is no difference between a random soldier and a saprolling. what's your point? I specifically stated that I'm talking about flavor, not mechanics.
There's no suggestion in either of her cards that Reya utilizes any mind altering magic.
She, and a few other canon angels that ressurect the dead to use as soldiers, are not considered very decent for doing so and are acting as a last resource when there's no more alternatives. It's clear their ressurections are not good.
"Yes, I betrayed my people and now kill and eat them without remorse. But I'm not evil. Just a shade of grey"
For all we care she could genuinely had suffered and went to the other side to get revenge. Innistrad has all of it's monsters are former humans, and not all of them become monsters on a whim.
I never said red represents selfishness. That is indeed black. However it doesn't change the fact that the red demeanor is generally selfish. Red does what it feels like. cares only about people whom it's close to while at best ignoring others. At worst killing them if they hinder red's fun. Generally speaking of course.
I could say the same for and empathy. acts morally, but does not represent compassion as a concept.
Also, thanks for using old cards. New ones expression unambiguous compassion are indeed rare.
Two things.
First, Shadowmoor Kithkin were Blue/white.
Second, in every instance in the books in which shadowmoor Kithkin were encountered, they were allies. Perhaps not the warmest friends but certainly not cold-blooded murderers of non-uniformity.
The other white aligned race in Shadowmoor, Elves, were downright heroic
Them being secondarily is a mechanical excuse; they're not the least bit . Also, they had the in-story benefit of having Brigid recalling her memories from Lorwyn; otherwise, they were indeed extremely paranoid xenophobes.
Second, the elves are only good because they're also , and in the cards they're also somewhat morally ambiguous given their obsession with beauty and mercy killing.
Third, Lorwyn kithkin were absolutely and they were morally ambiguous, with Gaddock Teeg being an antagonist and Brigid being the most anti-heroic of the good heroes' band. Rather ironic.
Moral of the story: you're more evil if you're pure than pseudo-/ or /.
That's partly due to elemental associations. :r: is fire, rocks and metals, things that are traditionally associated with burning or smashing you, and :w: is associted with the Sun, which is seen as a life force. Also, healing =/= compassion; in that
Moral of the story: you're more evil if you're pure than pseudo-/ or /.
Your post was really good and well formulated but you really should stop your bias on and the hate towards . Please believe me when i say this is not meant as an attack but just something that came to my attention.
Like KnightofSerra should stop being biased towards and hating on .
To go a little further, its all a matter of interpretation. To say a color is more evil than another is just wrong. What i meant with you being biased, is that you generally interpret stuff like that with more focus on whites bad attributes while on the other hand, you put more focus on the good attributes of the colors, especially and .
(But i didn't mean to say the arguments you put up in your last post about red were wrong, in fact they were all spot on)
Your post was really good and well formulated but you really should stop your bias on :b::r: and the hate towards :w:. Please believe me when i say this is not meant as an attack but just something that came to my attention. Like KnightofSerra should
I like /, but I don't hate . I like 's aesthetics and it's more community oriented aspects; it's the only colour I consistently play with because I like it's strategy oriented fighting style. It's just that I am sick and tired that people think that it is the "good colour" by default, when all colours are by nature neutral.
I like :b:/:r:, but I don't hate :w:. I like :w:'s aesthetics and it's more community oriented aspects; it's the only colour I consistently play with because I like it's strategy oriented fighting style. It's just that I am sick and tired that people
Yes i dont like that either. Its coming from the visuals depicted on magic cards. Red is a good example. Its about emotions but red cards typically only show its more destructive side. Its definitely a misunderstood color in terms of flavor.
I btw think white is a mechanically misunderstood color. Typically when you let new people look at white kill spells, you get something to hear like: "Oh thats not very friendly, why is this white?".
Yes i dont like that either. Its coming from the visuals depicted on magic cards. Red is a good example. Its about emotions but red cards typically only show its more destructive side. Its definitely a misunderstood color in terms of flavor.I btw thi
Although personally I understand why they make seem more benevolent in cards; love and arts mean nothing in a game that represents war, and can't be depicted in a card without someone facepalming.
The whole issue with these colour debates is that people overestimate the meaning of each colour. In the end, they're just mental concepts and spells related to said mental concepts. You'd think arguing about whereas emotions or ambition are good or evil would be stupid.
Although personally I understand why they make :r: seem more benevolent in cards; love and arts mean nothing in a game that represents war, and can't be depicted in a card without someone facepalming.The whole issue with these colour debates is that
As long as White is Lawful Good, it will stay its hand. If it is Lawful Neutral, not so much, and tends to be torn by the ethic which it feels it must also enforce. But if it is Lawful Evil, then heavy handed is the only handed, and that's where most white Villains fall into on the alignment-o-gram. All colors but Red tend to fall into Lawful categories, with determinations of following a creed or ethos that helps determine what they will do (an indepedant voice, if you will). Blue and White feel they should be constrained by such laws, while Green feels nothing and just follows; Black feels it should bend the laws, but still follows them in its interpretation. Black is not about lawlessness, but about picking and choosing, something that most Lawful Evil types do, and this is where you get some Black villains, although it seems to me most of them just slide into Chaotic Neutral, which is about doing what you want, or even further into Chaotic Evil because it's too easy to just make them into complete monsters. Some Red fall into Chaotic Evil, but for the most part they are Chaotic Neutral, and probably the only color so constrained on the alignment-o-gram, which just tells you that Magic has a very poor conception for how to portray its colors.
As long as White is Lawful Good, it will stay its hand. If it is Lawful Neutral, not so much, and tends to be torn by the ethic which it feels it must also enforce. But if it is Lawful Evil, then heavy handed is the only handed, and that's where most
is all Lawful alignments is mostly True Neutral, with Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil being valid options is Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil, with Lawful Evil and True Neutral being valid options but mostly only when mixed with either or is all Chaotic alignments is Neutral Good, Chaotic Good and True Neutral; Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil are possibilities depending on whereas said villain is an elf or a mindless beast
Well, this is how I think the colours fit::w: is all Lawful alignments:u: is mostly True Neutral, with Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil being valid options:b: is Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil, with Lawful Evil and True
is all Lawful alignments is mostly True Neutral, with Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil being valid options is Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil, with Lawful Evil and True Neutral being valid options but mostly only when mixed with either or is all Chaotic alignments is Neutral Good, Chaotic Good and True Neutral; Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil are possibilities depending on whereas said villain is an elf or a mindless beast
Here's my interpretation, simplified a bit for aesthetics. Keep in mind that, by the D&D alignment system, Good means selfless and Evil means selfish.
White is Good. It is the color most likely to sacrifice itself for another (though typically only those it considers worthy, ie those who are a part of its society, not outsiders). Blue is Lawful. It seeks to learn the rules in order to manipulate them, and manipulates the rules in order to learn them. Blue's primary law seems to be Science and Reason, but it also can care about legal order, as demonstrated by the Azorius. (White is also lawful, by the way, but like I said, I simplify this for aesthetic reasons. White is the color most about a legal system, but it's the only color for which Selflessness truly fits, so I slot it in as Good instead). Black is Evil. Again I point out that this just means Black is selfish. There is a lot more to evil than just being selfish, but D&D defines it that way, and that is where Black falls. Black's primary motivation is its own gains, and it will not balk to destroy those in its way, but will also not balk at helping others if it benefits Black as well. As others have said, all colors have potential for both good and evil; Black does not have a monopoly. Red is Chaotic. Red wants everyone to be free to do as they choose, to act in whichever manner makes them happiest. This is why I say Red is the most compassionate; Red is the color that most cares about what people WANT, rather than what they need (White) or what purpose they can serve (Blue, Black). Green is Neutral. Green strives to uphold the balance of nature, accepting that evil and good have equal purposes in the overall scheme, and that the loss of either side would throw everything into chaos.
I'd like to hear the thouhts of others on this.
Here's my interpretation, simplified a bit for aesthetics. Keep in mind that, by the D&D alignment system, Good means selfless and Evil means selfish.:w: White is Good. It is the color most likely to sacrifice itself for another (though typically onl
is all Lawful alignments is mostly True Neutral, with Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil being valid options is Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil, with Lawful Evil and True Neutral being valid options but mostly only when mixed with either or is all Chaotic alignments is Neutral Good, Chaotic Good and True Neutral; Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil are possibilities depending on whereas said villain is an elf or a mindless beast
Here's my interpretation, simplified a bit for aesthetics. Keep in mind that, by the D&D alignment system, Good means selfless and Evil means selfish.
White is Good. It is the color most likely to sacrifice itself for another (though typically only those it considers worthy, ie those who are a part of its society, not outsiders). Blue is Lawful. It seeks to learn the rules in order to manipulate them, and manipulates the rules in order to learn them. Blue's primary law seems to be Science and Reason, but it also can care about legal order, as demonstrated by the Azorius. (White is also lawful, by the way, but like I said, I simplify this for aesthetic reasons. White is the color most about a legal system, but it's the only color for which Selflessness truly fits, so I slot it in as Good instead). Black is Evil. Again I point out that this just means Black is selfish. There is a lot more to evil than just being selfish, but D&D defines it that way, and that is where Black falls. Black's primary motivation is its own gains, and it will not balk to destroy those in its way, but will also not balk at helping others if it benefits Black as well. As others have said, all colors have potential for both good and evil; Black does not have a monopoly. Red is Chaotic. Red wants everyone to be free to do as they choose, to act in whichever manner makes them happiest. This is why I say Red is the most compassionate; Red is the color that most cares about what people WANT, rather than what they need (White) or what purpose they can serve (Blue, Black). Green is Neutral. Green strives to uphold the balance of nature, accepting that evil and good have equal purposes in the overall scheme, and that the loss of either side would throw everything into chaos.
I'd like to hear the thouhts of others on this.
MaRo has described it as such, which explained why on Ravnica the Orzhov (Good/Evil) was the most conflicted guild and why the Izzet (Lawful/Chaotic) was just batshit insane.
Here's my interpretation, simplified a bit for aesthetics. Keep in mind that, by the D&D alignment system, Good means selfless and Evil means selfish.:w: White is Good. It is the color most likely to sacrifice itself for another (though typically onl
I agree with most except as Lawful and as neutral; doesn't really care about the law at all, except when it is leaning more towards , and can in fact be very chaotic, while has shown often that it isn't always about the balance and that sometimes it attacks what it considers to be a threat or demonstrates altruistic behaviour without anything to gain.
I agree with most except :u: as Lawful and :g: as neutral; :u: doesn't really care about the law at all, except when it is leaning more towards :w:, and can in fact be very chaotic, while :g: has shown often that it isn't always about the balance and
I agree with most except as Lawful and as neutral; doesn't really care about the law at all, except when it is leaning more towards , and can in fact be very chaotic, while has shown often that it isn't always about the balance and that sometimes it attacks what it considers to be a threat or demonstrates altruistic behaviour without anything to gain.
Not law as in the legal system. Blue rarely cares about that, you are correct. But Blue is the color most likely, excepting maybe White, to care about a methodology. Blue is the color of logic, reason, and knowledge. It is the color of learning. This implies, to some extent, that Blue seeks structure, that it seeks to understand the underlying pattern of the universe. Scientific law is still a law. Green being neutral is rather tricky, but it's the color of nature, and nature doesn't pick a side. Green attacks those it deems a threat to the natural order, which fits with neutrality. It (usually) only fights to re-establish the balance of nature.
Not law as in the legal system. Blue rarely cares about that, you are correct. But Blue is the color most likely, excepting maybe White, to care about a methodology. Blue is the color of logic, reason, and knowledge. It is the color of learning. This
I agree with most except as Lawful and as neutral; doesn't really care about the law at all, except when it is leaning more towards , and can in fact be very chaotic, while has shown often that it isn't always about the balance and that sometimes it attacks what it considers to be a threat or demonstrates altruistic behaviour without anything to gain.
Blue is very Lawful. It desires to develop both understanding and enforce said understanding through engineering. That it desires perfection, and has an ideal of the goal in mind, that it feels that there is a structure or a principle potentially higher than mere law, is what plops it down into Lawful. Blue is, effectively, Lawful Neutral with smatterings toward Lawful Evil regardless of which side of the wheel it turns.
Mad Scientists are Lawful Evil (they think their "work" is beyond all reproach, and do what they can to acheive "their work" -- this goal can supercede even their own lives); Tinkerers are perfectionists (they think there is an ultimate ideal a thing can be, and seek to perfect said thing towards that ideal, even if they cannot see it; The factions of Esper which sought to fully integrate or replace organics with etherium are an example here); ethermages or countermages are order personified, just not in the same way White is (they think that their ultimate goal, however obscure or hidden, must come to fruition, and will supress any and all attempts to upset or upstart this Order from occuring).
Blue is very Lawful. It desires to develop both understanding and enforce said understanding through engineering. That it desires perfection, and has an ideal of the goal in mind, that it feels that there is a structure or a principle potentially hig
That's partly due to elemental associations. is fire, rocks and metals, things that are traditionally associated with burning or smashing you, and is associted with the Sun, which is seen as a life force. Also, healing =/= compassion; in that case I could argue is compassionate since it repairs it's zombies with mana.
Repairing is not healing. Zombies are generally tools, not thinking beings. You fix them so they can serve you better. Not because you feel sorry for them.
Empathy, however, is caused by emotions and instincts, and again you're ignoring this factor. Maro himself describes not as predatory, but as nurturing, and in fact predation is only one part of the colour; elves (sans the xenophobic ones), birds of paradise, elks and et cetera are not predators, but compassionate creatures, often well expressed in their mechnics. is selfish on the base, but guess what, all your feelings of empathy are caused by emotional responses. The Lorwyn flame-kin, Chandra, Koth and many other characters are evidence that this is natural to . Selfishness is also caused by emotions, but since always it was stressed that doesn't agree with exactly because the latter is selfish without being overly compassionate.
Your entire point here seems to be that anything remotely associated with a feeling or emotion is red. Again. I don't believe red can claim dominance over all feelings and emotions. In the color articles, red is described as being the king of the more high passion aggressive emotions rather than every emotion.
She, and a few other canon angels that ressurect the dead to use as soldiers, are not considered very decent for doing so and are acting as a last resource when there's no more alternatives. It's clear their ressurections are not good.
Wizards does like to play the whole "Omg why am I alive again? I liked being dead!" card often enough. But no, you're wrong here. Reya has never been represented in that way.
I don't know about you but if I lay dying and an angel decended from the sky and fully healed me, I'd probably thank it at the very least. Maybe swearing alliegance while I was at it. I think the whole "I like being dead!" theme is silly and short-sighted.
For all we care she could genuinely had suffered and went to the other side to get revenge. Innistrad has all of it's monsters are former humans, and not all of them become monsters on a whim.
To quote a song from my favorite band;
This world may have failed you, it doesn't give you reason why. You could have chosen a different path in life.
Baisically assuming every conclusion you're jumping to is correct, she's still a victim who's chosen path of vengeance was to become a blood sucking monster and prey on more innocents. Creating more victims. Still evil.
The only info we have to go on is shakey at best but in no way creates a positive feeling.
"others, sensing the inevitable give themselves freely"
I believe this implies that she believed the human race doomed and wanted to join the winning side. Not admirable in my opinion. And yes, it echos the very same theme as Village Cannibals
It's true, it recent years, wizards has seemed bent on making red the new white and white the new black. But white still retains it's true ideals here and there.
Them being secondarily is a mechanical excuse; they're not the least bit . Also, they had the in-story benefit of having Brigid recalling her memories from Lorwyn; otherwise, they were indeed extremely paranoid xenophobes.
Oh I don't know. There was a certain subtle feeling of blue's cold, controlly nature to the shadowmoor kithkin. In any case they were working openly with the elves in that short stories Shadowmoor book. They listened to Maralen's plan and allowed her to leave unharmed. They allied with the elves to fight off the... I think it was cinders. Or was it Ashling? It's been a long time since I read those books. All in all, the kithkin made fairly capable allies. Yes, Paranoid, yes, Xenophobic, but not to the extent that they were beyond helping other races in battling the darker elements of their world.
Second, the elves are only good because they're also , and in the cards they're also somewhat morally ambiguous given their obsession with beauty and mercy killing.
As I recall, the Lorwyn elves were also green aligned. They weren't very nice however. There was no "Obsession" with mercy killing in the shadowmoor elves. They had one card that carried the theme. That was all. That's what we call an exaggeration. And exarggerations are lies.
You do realize that when you aren't honest in you're statements, it damages your credibility right?
Third, Lorwyn kithkin were absolutely and they were morally ambiguous, with Gaddock Teeg being an antagonist and Brigid being the most anti-heroic of the good heroes' band. Rather ironic.
Moral of the story: you're more evil if you're pure than pseudo-/ or /.
1st Teeg was as much green as white. He was also being threatened by the elves incase you'd forgottten. His entire town was being held hostage.
2nd, Lorwyn Kithkin seemed like some pretty decent folk.
And finally I thought Brigid was one of the interesting characters. She was the victim of two white concepts that in this case conflicted. Duty and loyalty. For a brief time she did indeed betray the protagonists, but she had many pressures put on her. Her people were in danger, she was their hero and could not allow herself to fail them.
It was in the end revealed that Gaddock teeg was manipulating the thoughtweft to put exreme pressure on Brigid to obey him. So Brigid has that excuse for her actions aswell.
Like KnightofSerra should stop being biased towards and hating on .
I actually don't mind red. one of my favorite color combos is in fact /
It only seems otherwise because red is quickly becoming sort of like magic's Mary Sue. And people will bite your head off for acting like red is anything but Mr. lovey dovey, passion, music, poetry guy.
Say anything negative about the color and people bite your head off and tell you that you are ignorant to red's positive side. As if positive was the only side the color has.
Repairing is not healing. Zombies are generally tools, not thinking beings. You fix them so they can serve you better. Not because you feel sorry for them.Your entire point here seems to be that anything remotely associated with a feeling or emotion
Oh and I want to jump on the D&D alignment bandwagon and throw out my own opinion. Just like religions in D&D I'd say colors tend to be able to support characters who move one alignment away from the color's primary alignment so even though White is lawfull good it does go so far as to provide the rare Chaotic Good character.
Oh and I want to jump on the D&D alignment bandwagon and throw out my own opinion. Just like religions in D&D I'd say colors tend to be able to support characters who move one alignment away from the color's primary alignment so even though White is
It only seems otherwise because red is quickly becoming sort of like magic's Mary Sue. And people will bite your head off for acting like red is anything but Mr. lovey dovey, passion, music, poetry guy.
hey man ur right i mn red is always getting the Good characters it is a Mary sue I wish white n blue got good-lookin cards like Bloodcraze Neonates and Charmander devils (nothing says good and MARY SUE than devils) and those curses and i Mean like is there anything that says GOOD AND MARY SUE than Kazuul the TYRANT OF THE CLIFFS and Stormmblood Beserker it is good and heroic everything red is good and heroic now
i agree Red is being portrayed too Goodly these days red is not Good white and blue are good every1 thinks red is good i asked my bro these days. He said red is the Hero of Magic and red is the Color of Good. there was no way he could have seen otherwise since 99% of reds cards scream good and MARY SUE and most (99%) white cards are portrayed as evil there isn't a single good white card now. maRo is truly out for the good colors.
look at blue these days for ex. it is alwayus the villian blue is often a nice guy (cuz blue akes the technology we uses so it is always good cuz blue seeks progress and progreses is good) but wizards dont know how the color pie works. it's a good Thing there are Smart people like u n me to point this out. Keep fighting the Good fight man.
hey man ur right i mn red is always getting the Good characters it is a Mary sue I wish white n blue got good-lookin cards like Bloodcraze Neonates and Charmander devils (nothing says good and MARY SUE than devils) and those curses and i Mean like is
Repairing is not healing. Zombies are generally tools, not thinking beings. You fix them so they can serve you better. Not because you feel sorry for them.
Fair enough.
Your entire point here seems to be that anything remotely associated with a feeling or emotion is red. Again. I don't believe red can claim dominance over all feelings and emotions. In the color articles, red is described as being the king of the more high passion aggressive emotions rather than every emotion.
Because, again, colours are fundamentally mental concepts. Everyone has characteristics of every colour, but in order for mana cost to count said aspects need to be dominant. Hence, is emotion in general, but only characters with high passion count.
Same with and morality.
Spirits are technically dead. Not undead. White spirits tend to be benevolent rather than slaves.
In storylines they are always servants, like the Order of Heliud's own spirit scouts and Augustin's enslavement of Szadek's soul (Szadek, of course, is /, but since Augustin enslaved him and doesn't seem to have many spirit related spells, the possibility that the mana cost is is open, like the non- yet still / Bant human Gwafa Hazid).
Wizards does like to play the whole "Omg why am I alive again? I liked being dead!" card often enough. But no, you're wrong here. Reya has never been represented in that way.
"You don't die until I consent".
This, combined with the fact that she pretty much is using the people she ressurects as soldiers, suggests that you pretty much have no choice in the saying. Doesn't matter if you think the war is pointless, you fight.
To be fair, the evil they were facing in story would have forced the adoption of such measures, but otherwise you'd need a very good excuse to force people to be your Pokemon.
It's true, it recent years, wizards has seemed bent on making red the new white and white the new black. But white still retains it's true ideals here and there.
With the exception of the innistradi cards, ALL are just examples of duty, not compassion.
Your hatred of is disturbing, to say the least. Creative is not replacing colours, it is showing what they truly wanted since the beginning: that all colours have good and bad sides (except appearently, other than some anti-heroes and boggarts).
Oh I don't know. There was a certain subtle feeling of blue's cold, controlly nature to the shadowmoor kithkin.
They don't seem very cold to me. Trying to be professional rather than emotional, yes, but not cold.
In any case they were working openly with the elves in that short stories Shadowmoor book. They listened to Maralen's plan and allowed her to leave unharmed. They allied with the elves to fight off the... I think it was cinders. Or was it Ashling? It's been a long time since I read those books. All in all, the kithkin made fairly capable allies. Yes, Paranoid, yes, Xenophobic, but not to the extent that they were beyond helping other races in battling the darker elements of their world.
That it was elves and that again there's Brigid's memories in the mindweft again explains it.
As I recall, the Lorwyn elves were also green aligned. They weren't very nice however. There was no "Obsession" with mercy killing in the shadowmoor elves. They had one card that carried the theme. That was all. That's what we call an exaggeration. And exarggerations are lies.
They were also part-, mind you (even though they honestly seem way more to me. Manipulating nature to fit your views of perfection? Basing your entire society on image?)
True, one card, but one card that seriously implies twisted world views. It is clear that they killed the creature without it's consent out of "mercy". And again, their obsessions with beauty mean that something that is ugly but less evil is probably screwed.
You do realize that when you aren't honest in you're statements, it damages your credibility right?
I could also ask this of you, since many things you've posted barely align with your statements.
1st Teeg was as much green as white. He was also being threatened by the elves incase you'd forgottten. His entire town was being held hostage.
Again, could easily be mechanical reasons. He can easily be both / or pure , from the characterisation we've got.
2nd, Lorwyn Kithkin seemed like some pretty decent folk.
Few of them were important characters, though.
And finally I thought Brigid was one of the interesting characters. She was the victim of two white concepts that in this case conflicted. Duty and loyalty. For a brief time she did indeed betray the protagonists, but she had many pressures put on her. Her people were in danger, she was their hero and could not allow herself to fail them.
It was in the end revealed that Gaddock teeg was manipulating the thoughtweft to put exreme pressure on Brigid to obey him. So Brigid has that excuse for her actions aswell.
Yet, compared to other protagonists, she was way more brutal. And it seems to be something of a double standard going on there, as previous criticisms you've constructed held betrayal in non- characters as despicable, yet here it is justified.
It only seems otherwise because red is quickly becoming sort of like magic's Mary Sue. And people will bite your head off for acting like red is anything but Mr. lovey dovey, passion, music, poetry guy.
Say anything negative about the color and people bite your head off and tell you that you are ignorant to red's positive side. As if positive was the only side the color has.
This is hypocrisy at it's finest. So you don't mind when is a Mary Sue but you do when is?
For starters, has these finer aspects being shown, but it is still associated with mindless brutality and bloodlust, which balances it. I understand that needs many more evil characters than it currently does (which is why Innistrad is more awesome; evil geists, evil werewolves, evil vampires, evil devils, et cetera, you literally can feel amased on how Creative gets with 's nasty side, with so many villain possibilities :D ), but overall it's image is screwed up to begin with. Sure, there's several protagonists, but this didn't seem to have changed the perspective on the colour as stupidity and mindless incarnate much.
Second, you are doing exactly the same with . Anyone bothers to show that is not goodness incarnate and that it has a fascist, morally opressive, millitant, xenophobic side, and you whine endlessly on how the characters are not pure or some other flimsy excuse. All colours have good and evil sides, and is no exception. It has many protagonists, but it has also a few anti-villains, a few morally ambiguous anti-heroes and a few bad guys are monstruous.
Fair enough. Because, again, colours are fundamentally mental concepts. Everyone has characteristics of every colour, but in order for mana cost to count said aspects need to be dominant. Hence, :r: is emotion in general, but only characters with hig
It only seems otherwise because red is quickly becoming sort of like magic's Mary Sue. And people will bite your head off for acting like red is anything but Mr. lovey dovey, passion, music, poetry guy.
hey man ur right i mn red is always getting the Good characters it is a Mary sue I wish white n blue got good-lookin cards like Bloodcraze Neonates and Charmander devils (nothing says good and MARY SUE than devils) and those curses and i Mean like is there anything that says GOOD AND MARY SUE than Kazuul the TYRANT OF THE CLIFFS and Stormmblood Beserker it is good and heroic everything red is good and heroic now
i agree Red is being portrayed too Goodly these days red is not Good white and blue are good every1 thinks red is good i asked my bro these days. He said red is the Hero of Magic and red is the Color of Good. there was no way he could have seen otherwise since 99% of reds cards scream good and MARY SUE and most (99%) white cards are portrayed as evil there isn't a single good white card now. maRo is truly out for the good colors.
look at blue these days for ex. it is alwayus the villian blue is often a nice guy (cuz blue akes the technology we uses so it is always good cuz blue seeks progress and progreses is good) but wizards dont know how the color pie works. it's a good Thing there are Smart people like u n me to point this out. Keep fighting the Good fight man.
Awesome trolling! I should call NezumiOfToshiro, PhoenixOfChandra and ElfOfNissa to argue as well.
hey man ur right i mn red is always getting the Good characters it is a Mary sue I wish white n blue got good-lookin cards like Bloodcraze Neonates and Charmander devils (nothing says good and MARY SUE than devils) and those curses and i Mean like is
Oh I don't know. There was a certain subtle feeling of blue's cold, controlly nature to the shadowmoor kithkin.
They don't seem very cold to me. Trying to be professional rather than emotional, yes, but not cold.
Blue at its worst tends to be the most coldhearted color. Contrary to its enemy, red, which embraces emotion, blue is emotionally unattached. MaRo stated it in its article feeling blue.
Blue therefore tends to be the least emphatic color. Its also the reason why is more bureaucratic than pure and is less compassionate than pure .
They don't seem very cold to me. Trying to be professional rather than emotional, yes, but not cold.[/quote]Blue at its worst tends to be the most coldhearted color. Contrary to its enemy, red, which embraces emotion, blue is emotionally unattached.
I know, but I was talking about the kithkin. They're not really cold; in fact, they're quite emotional, given how their paranoia puts them easily in either "scared mode" or "righteous fury" mode.
I know, but I was talking about the kithkin. They're not really cold; in fact, they're quite emotional, given how their paranoia puts them easily in either "scared mode" or "righteous fury" mode.
In storylines they are always servants, like the Order of Heliud's own spirit scouts and Augustin's enslavement of Szadek's soul (Szadek, of course, is /, but since Augustin enslaved him and doesn't seem to have many spirit related spells, the possibility that the mana cost is is open, like the non- yet still / Bant human Gwafa Hazid).
Alright, so every single white spirit is defined by the spirits serving a single / faction. Yeah, that's fair. I never cared to read Purifying Fire or whatever that book was called. Chandra bores me.
This, combined with the fact that she pretty much is using the people she ressurects as soldiers, suggests that you pretty much have no choice in the saying. Doesn't matter if you think the war is pointless, you fight.
Dude, most of the people she rezzes are soldiers to begin with. She's fighting a war incase you hadn't noticed. And there is still zero evidence that she has any mind altering magic or or forces service on those she rezzes.
Support your theory with evidence or keep it to yourself.
I've voiced a dislike for the flavortext of the latest Reya myself but when it all comes down to it, it's no different that some battle commander telling his soldier "Did I give you permission to die on me, soldier?" It's compassion disguised as an exertion of authority.
With the exception of the innistradi cards, ALL are just examples of duty, not compassion.
I really had hoped you wouldn't make me need to bother to spell it out for you.
[cardJhessian Balmgiver[/card] She's a healer helping the sick or injured. Why become a healer if you don't care about people? It's not like she's getting any money from it.
Accorder Paladin Do you hear him saying "I fight because sombody told me to" ? No, you hear him loudly declaring that he fights for the people of Mirrodin. He protects. Just like one would expect from a compassionate individual.
Angelic Overseer Read the flavortext. She can sense hope. And responds to it. That's compassion in a literal sense.
I'll Skip the other innistrad cards since you already accepted them.
Excommunicate That's the legal system itself making accomodations to compassionate thinking. It would be SO much easier just to execute a criminal. But wherever the card's flavor text comes from values life enough to give a person a second chance.
Kemba's Skyguard Yes, the Skyguard himself is simply dutifully following orrders. But that's not the source of compassion I was hoping you'd see. Read the orders. "Help anyone who needs it." What a compassionate thing to do.
Knight of the White orchid Protects everybody he finds on the plane. No personal gain. Just the satisfaction of knowing suffering may have been prevented.
Remember the fallen I thought this one was too obvious to require explanation. A lot of people died. Here is a white aligned protagonist mourning them. Nuff said.
Yet, compared to other protagonists, she was way more brutal. And it seems to be something of a double standard going on there, as previous criticisms you've constructed held betrayal in non- characters as despicable, yet here it is justified.
That broken horn elf guy was quite brutal. The Sapling was extremely poisionous. Brion was crushing people and throwing them. Brigid wasn't the only lethal character in the party by far.
Brigid was put in a position in which either choice led to betrayal. Betray her comrades or betray her people. The more selfless choice would have been to keep faith with her people. That's what she did.
Perhaps I must explain a baisic principle of morality. Loyalty is good. However, if put in a position in which loyalty is divided between two or more conflicting individuals or ideals, the honorable thing to do is to pick the option that leads to the greatest good without reguard to personal gain.
Brigid was put in a lousy spot and she made the best choice she could given the circumstances. I'll respect that.
This is hypocrisy at it's finest. So you don't mind when is a Mary Sue but you do when is?
Red fits the definition of a "Mary Sue" better.
Mary Sue characters for example often have flaws that are represented in a positive light intended to be endearing. Goblins are a great example of this in red. "It's symbolism. He was angry!"
None of whites flaws are ever seen in a positive or endearing light.
Second Mary Sues often outshine cannon characters at their own game. Like red claiming to be king of compassion.
White doesn't really outshine anyone at their own game. Heck even white's specialty of morality tends to be seen more as a flaw these days.
For starters, has these finer aspects being shown, but it is still associated with mindless brutality and bloodlust, which balances it. I understand that needs many more evil characters than it currently does (which is why Innistrad is more awesome; evil geists, evil werewolves, evil vampires, evil devils, et cetera, you literally can feel amased on how Creative gets with 's nasty side, with so many villain possibilities :D ), but overall it's image is screwed up to begin with. Sure, there's several protagonists, but this didn't seem to have changed the perspective on the colour as stupidity and mindless incarnate much.
Yes, I've very much enjoyed the Innistrad storyline sofar. It's given me hope when my respect for mtg was so diminished after Scars of Mirrodin. I'm still waiting for a novel.
Awesome trolling! I should call NezumiOfToshiro, PhoenixOfChandra and ElfOfNissa to argue as well.
Don't be immature. Trolls are callous human-parasites.
Alright, so every single white spirit is defined by the spirits serving a single :U:/:W: faction. Yeah, that's fair. I never cared to read Purifying Fire or whatever that book was called. Chandra bores me.Dude, most of the people she rezzes are soldi
Alright, so every single white spirit is defined by the spirits serving a single / faction. Yeah, that's fair. I never cared to read Purifying Fire or whatever that book was called. Chandra bores me.
If you use / magic to create things, they are /. That is the only reason why zombies are . Otherwise, they'd be colourless or , being stupid as they are.
Dude, most of the people she rezzes are soldiers to begin with. She's fighting a war incase you hadn't noticed. And there is still zero evidence that she has any mind altering magic or or forces service on those she rezzes.
Because changing opinions about a cause never occurs [/sarcasm]
Again, since mind altering magic is implied with spirits, it is totally reasonable to assume this is the case with the likes of Reya as well. The only other alternative is being a slave while still self aware, like Szadek's case, and that would make her much more monstruous.
She's a healer helping the sick or injured. Why become a healer if you don't care about people? It's not like she's getting any money from it.
1. How do you know she doesn't make money? 2. Again, duty. She can very well think that is is he right thing to do, but otherwise not care much bout individual people. There is a distinction between helping because you feel compassion and helping because you feel a duty to help, something you appearently cannot comprehend.
No, you hear him loudly declaring that he fights for the people of Mirrodin. He protects. Just like one would expect from a compassionate individual.
He said that he "fights for the Suns, the surface, and everything in between". Nothing about people in particular; for all we care, he his fighting because he feels the right to defend his home, and people are just a side bonus (he certainly seems to imply that by preffering to mention "the surface" and "the suns" over "the inhabbitants of Mirrodin").
To state that this is compassion is making a huge stretch.
Read the flavortext. She can sense hope. And responds to it. That's compassion in a literal sense.
...At no point does it say that she can sense hope. If anything, it seems to imply that she was born of hope itself.
That's the legal system itself making accomodations to compassionate thinking. It would be SO much easier just to execute a criminal. But wherever the card's flavor text comes from values life enough to give a person a second chance.
1. Shards of Alara. The staff claims that effects of other colours still exist in spite of their absence. Otherwise, I would be using Gwafa Hazid and Grixis' humans to deny your obsession with "good " and "evil ". 2. Again, can easily be interpreted as a more abstract sense of morality rather than compassion.
Yes, the Skyguard himself is simply dutifully following orrders. But that's not the source of compassion I was hoping you'd see. Read the orders. "Help anyone who needs it." What a compassionate thing to do.
Again, you are inferring things without bases. Whose to say that whoever ordered said leonin wasn't an aberration in it's species? This seems particularly to be the case because Leonin didn't had good relations with other races; they were at war with even the auriok. Furthermore, recall that the phyrexians were invading, so helping other creatures is on the leonin's best interest.
Protects everybody he finds on the plane. No personal gain. Just the satisfaction of knowing suffering may have been prevented.
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest (as always).
It indicates that he helps people, yes, but does not indicate compassion any more than duty.
I thought this one was too obvious to require explanation. A lot of people died. Here is a white aligned protagonist mourning them. Nuff said.
1. The text is worded as to imply duty (burden, for starters). 2. This is Elspeth. A coward. Not the best example of a character.
Another exaggeration. More credibility lost.
Dear, you're considered a joke among the Savor the Flavor folks, if not a deranged lunatic. I would not give lessons on credibility, specially after lying so much as you did previously.
Also, I am not sure how things function in your bubble, but spouting ad hominems gives the exact opposite of what you were going fo.
Red fits the definition of a "Mary Sue" better.
Mary Sue characters for example often have flaws that are represented in a positive light intended to be endearing. Goblins are a great example of this in red. "It's symbolism. He was angry!"
None of whites flaws are ever seen in a positive or endearing light.
Second Mary Sues often outshine cannon characters at their own game. Like red claiming to be king of compassion.
White doesn't really outshine anyone at their own game. Heck even white's specialty of morality tends to be seen more as a flaw these days.
1. Mary Sues have no flaws. Hence why they are Mary Sues. "Endearing flaws" is something many well respected characters have; is Scrooge McDuck a Mary Sue? I think not.
2. 's flaws are not really endearing. is often depicted as stupid, brutal and demonic (devils, dragons, other beings with bat wings and horns and fire). Very few people consider such attributes "endearing".
3. is not "claiming" to be the king of compassion; it is an opinion that is born out of logical thought. As you always ignore, colours are meant to be representations of mental concepts, and fits into the emotion side of the pie. Compassion is an emotion, hence it is . Since always did Cretaive took this view, so you're pretty much whining for no logical reason.
4. is usually the protagonist; if that's not a way of outshining everyone, I don't know what it is.
Don't be immature. Trolls are callous human-parasites.
Ironic you say that. Trolls at least provide laughs and subtle criticism. You, on the other hand, are not only wasting my time, but you also are actively attempting to block creativity just because you have a fetish for stereotypes that don't really make sense in the first place.
Ironic that a person who argues that is the champion of freedom, compassion and what-not exactly demonstrates the opressive aspects of that colour.
If you use :w:/:u: magic to create things, they are :w:/:u:. That is the only reason why zombies are :b:. Otherwise, they'd be colourless or :g:, being stupid as they are.Because changing opinions about a cause never occurs [/sarcasm]Again, since min
also Shamsiel stop trolling you callous human-parasite. Or else you will lose Our Respect (like that **** Scars block did cuz I mean they ahd white Phyrexians and blue Phyrxeians I mean blue and white zombies srsly???) and if you do god help you cus youll not have the Rispect of smart pple like me and KOS.
and youwlll hate it.
i'm losing respect for magic as well. it used to be a great game with depth cuz only white n blue were heroes and did only good. all colors havin good n evi facets detracts from that depth KOS is very smart and ll agree to that.
also Shamsiel stop trolling you callous human-parasite. Or else you will lose Our Respect (like that **** Scars block did cuz I mean they ahd white Phyrexians and blue Phyrxeians I mean blue and white zombies srsly???) and if you do god help you cus
agree with knightofserra red only gets endearing cards. i Mean bloodlust is endearing like devuls are and nothin screams GOOD MARY SUE more than throwin pple into hell . also "kill everyone" like forked bolt is a very endearing attitude. no i'm not a sociopath stop looking at me like this you sicko.
lets look at white now it only gets evul cards like Hero of bladehold and angel's mercy n Loxodon partisan an Mirran Crusader (thats why scars block sucked so much I LOST MY REPSECT for it cuz white only had evilc ards and don't even get me started on ble Vedalken anatomist blue zombies blue doesnt use zombies Innistrad got that wrong too they don't understand blue as well as i do)
I would say there's no arguing that white is the color that fits Mary Sue the most, sry KoS thats just the truth.
Although i bet he kind of meant that sometimes reds violent sides are visualized in a humoristic way. But i'd say thats more of a goblin phenomenon than a red one.
PS now i really want to start a YMTC contest that demands cards, which flavor whites bad side :D
I would say there's no arguing that white is the color that fits Mary Sue the most, sry KoS thats just the truth.Although i bet he kind of meant that sometimes reds violent sides are visualized in a humoristic way. But i'd say thats more of a goblin
Indeed, by what people really mean as a "mary sue", fills the "purity sue" characteristics, and that's a very bad thing. Hence why 's more negative aspects are well apreciated; you sympathise with flawed people, not wishful fullfillments. In particular, I like the idea of a anti-hero; we've already seen anti-villains, but characters that are still heroic protagonists but very, very flawed are just as exotic. An example would be Rorschach from Watchmen.
's humouristic traits indeed appear to be exclusive to golins. Whenever goblins extend to other colours, this becomes even more appearent; aligned boggarts in Lorwyn are just like the pure goblins from elsewhere. So, if anything, it's the goblins who are the "mary sues" (under KOS's definition).
Indeed, by what people really mean as a "mary sue", :w: fills the "purity sue" characteristics, and that's a very bad thing. Hence why :w:'s more negative aspects are well apreciated; you sympathise with flawed people, not wishful fullfillments. In p
Ok, so now white is 'mary sue'. So can you give me some card examples of that?
Because I don't get that either. I mean they are generally the 'good guys' but that has nothing to do with the mary sue trope.
How are they flawless, tiresome author insertion characters?
Ok, so now white is 'mary sue'. So can you give me some card examples of that?Because I don't get that either. I mean they are generally the 'good guys' but that has nothing to do with the mary sue trope.How are they flawless, tiresome author inserti
Becuse it represents the "ideal hero", the flawless, selfless model of moral perfection. This evident in pre-revisionist sets.
Of course, nowadays no colour is a mary sue, as and characters under now thankfully have flaws like everyone else.
Becuse it represents the "ideal hero", the flawless, selfless model of moral perfection. This evident in pre-revisionist sets.Of course, nowadays no colour is a mary sue, as :w: and characters under :w: now thankfully have flaws like everyone else.
Becuse it represents the "ideal hero", the flawless, selfless model of moral perfection. This evident in pre-revisionist sets.
Of course, nowadays no colour is a mary sue, as and characters under now thankfully have flaws like everyone else.
What like The Dark? Fallen Empires? : ]
I think we must understand different things by Mary Sue. White is definitely the 'good' colour in magic, even if it isn't philosophically strictly true and there are plenty of exceptions. But as a colour it doesn't seem like its stuffed with ridiculously perfect author insertions or that we are supposed to be more impressed by it than other colours.
What like The Dark? Fallen Empires? : ]I think we must understand different things by Mary Sue. White is definitely the 'good' colour in magic, even if it isn't philosophically strictly true and there are plenty of exceptions. But as a colour it does
all KOS is saying is that white SHOULD be perfect and good cuz GOOD TRAIT is GOOD and white is GOOD thus white has GOOD TRAIT. the Dark and Fallen empires didn't exist Brainwash is totaly a blue card cuz mindwarping is blue so it isn't white it is a Mistake. I know cuz I'm wizardOfTeferi i'm the blue fanboy. but blue mindcontrols only for progress thus its good.
I mean does anyone remember when New pharexia DARED to make evil white Pharexians and red GOOD COMPASSIONATE (a white trait) pharexians? KOS was lone ihs rightaous cruzade (i helped too but RED-aligned orcs deleted my posts, very conveniant right?) to point out this Mistak and nothing was done.
R&D totally LOST HIS RESPECT there . Hope that'll teach em.
hey guys that aint rightall KOS is saying is that white SHOULD be perfect and good cuz GOOD TRAIT is GOOD and white is GOOD thus white has GOOD TRAIT. the Dark and Fallen empires didn't exist Brainwash is totaly a
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion on and ? If you're the embodiment of , then sure you must find alliance in darkness and hatred of nature.
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion on :b: and :g:? If you're the embodiment of :u:, then sure you must find alliance in darkness and hatred of nature.
all KOS is saying is that white SHOULD be perfect and good cuz GOOD TRAIT is GOOD and white is GOOD thus white has GOOD TRAIT. the Dark and Fallen empires didn't exist Brainwash is totaly a blue card cuz mindwarping is blue so it isn't white it is a Mistake. I know cuz I'm wizardOfTeferi i'm the blue fanboy. but blue mindcontrols only for progress thus its good.
I mean does anyone remember when New pharexia DARED to make evil white Pharexians and red GOOD COMPASSIONATE (a white trait) pharexians? KOS was lone ihs rightaous cruzade (i helped too but RED-aligned orcs deleted my posts, very conveniant right?) to point out this Mistak and nothing was done.
R&D totally LOST HIS RESPECT there . Hope that'll teach em.
You know, I hate to break your trolling thunder , here, bud, but unless you are intentionally ignoring the original tropes, you need to understand some basic principles being applied by the R&D guys to the color pie. Or rather, I'll let them: Wizards say they have a more complex version of this, and a chart where mechanics fall in regards to the wheel, but this will do. Note where Red has "emotional action" and "impulse" while White has "law" and "uncreative." White is not about compassion: Compassion equals love, and all White "loves" is Order and constraint; Red is opposed to this because it is impaired by restriction, and desires -- nay craves -- not being tethered; Red cares, but this is very hard to encapsulate on the color's chart with its mechanics, while white has a mechanic of "preservation". Despite this, the lifegain/preservation aspect of White has been shifting somewhat to Green which, oddly enough, shares a border with Red.
But, in case you are not trolling, you need to try to watch your punctuation and spelling: it's atrocious.
You know, I hate to break your t rolling thunder , here, bud, but unless you are intentionally ignoring the original tropes, you need to understand some basic principles being applied by the R&D guys to the color pie
He's obviously trolling. I mean I feel ridiculous even pointing that out.
Oh, I know he's trolling; it's hilarious to read. But I give myself an out that, in case he's not trolling, I can take something he says seriously: Never attribute to malice what can be instead attributed to stupidity (Hanlon's Razor).
Oh, I know he's trolling; it's hilarious to read. But I give myself an out that, in case he's not trolling, I can take something he says seriously: Never attribute to malice what can be instead attributed to stupidity (Hanlon's Razor).
He's obviously trolling. I mean I feel ridiculous even pointing that out.
Oh, I know he's trolling; it's hilarious to read. But I give myself an out that, in case he's not trolling, I can take something he says seriously: Never attribute to malice what can be instead attributed to stupidity (Hanlon's Razor).
While Hanlon's Razor is generally a very nice philosophy to follow, I have to say without a doubt that he's trolling.
WizardofTeferi is just a mup created by one of the regulars to make fun of KnightofSerra's limited understanding of the color pie, and his need to argue about it every chance he gets.
Oh, I know he's trolling; it's hilarious to read. But I give myself an out that, in case he's not trolling, I can take something he says seriously: Never attribute to malice what can be instead attributed to stupidity (Hanlon's Razor).[/quote]While H
Can you give some examples of cards which evidence this red = mary sue theory?
Because I don't see it at all.
At least sombody here knows how take a reasonable approach to new opinions. Most folks here are like "We have a turd in the punchbowl......Quick! lets make fun of him!"
Truthfully I don't even think "Mary Sue" is a fair accusation to just about anything mtg. I'm really just trying to show that red is closer than white to hitting that definition.
Kinda difficult to pick out self insertions in cards. I mean uless it's somthing like Dark Confidant or Ranger of Eos where sombody actually put his face on it...
www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.a... I guess all the creative peeps from writers to artists to our internal Creative Team really felt the Izzet vibe. They ran away with the show. It does not surprise me, since blue and red most accurately describe the creative mind itself. What does surprise me is the strong showing from the anti-creative Azorius. Maybe the creative minds have an understanding of their nemeses.
So theres Matt Cavotta identifying Blue and Red as the colors that most fit the creative team. And also calling out Blue/White as their "Nemesis"
Obviously Blue is found in both those color combos so if we leave that out, the catalyst that determines whether or not he sees the color combo as "Me" or "My nemesis" is red and white.
Compare the flavor of the two guilds that fit those colors. Izzet were the funny zainy mad scientists that cause you to inexplicably smile every time you read over izzet themed flavor text. They're creative and intelligent just like you! But comically reckless!
Azorius was baisically a parody of how annoying the government can be. They were meant to inspire dislike.
Prahv, where much work is done to make sure nothing is accomplished.
Really?
And what about the Scars of Mirrodin block? All colors turn evil when they become phyrexian. Except red is oddly accomodating. They couldn't keep up with the theme when it came to red. Red must be the least bad guy. Red phyrexians could have say.....believed that skin was oppressive and constricting and so decided to liberate people of their skin where ever they found it. Or they could have been thrown into a red mana fueled rage whenever they see non-phyrexians.
No, they had to be the nice phyrexians. Red stood beside white as the most resillient team of Mirran opposition. And when they lost the war, even white was corrupted and evil at the end no matter how unlike normal white it became but when it came to red, they stopped and said. "No, we'll make these phyrexians nice." (relatively speaking)
That's really all I can come up with off the top of my head. I suppose I'll wait and see what you have to say to that before I throw out anything else..
Alright, so every single white spirit is defined by the spirits serving a single / faction. Yeah, that's fair. I never cared to read Purifying Fire or whatever that book was called. Chandra bores me.
If you use / magic to create things, they are /. That is the only reason why zombies are . Otherwise, they'd be colourless or , being stupid as they are.
Sooooo because / magic is capable of commanding spirits, it works that way in every instance? Weak reasoning.
Again, since mind altering magic is implied with spirits, it is totally reasonable to assume this is the case with the likes of Reya as well. The only other alternative is being a slave while still self aware, like Szadek's case, and that would make her much more monstruous.
No, actually that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption. Why? Because as I said before you have zero real evidence that that is the case. It's dishonest and unfair of you to make such sinister accusations of sombody, even a fictional character like Reya Dawnbringer with you're only supporting evidence being that a guild in an entirely different dimension that shared 1 color in common with Reya, allowed people to willingly bind their spirits to service for a predetermined period of time after their deaths.
Come on, even the rest of you people who make fun of me must admit that's shakey.
2. Again, can easily be interpreted as a more abstract sense of morality rather than compassion.
does not indicate compassion any more than duty.
1. The text is worded as to imply duty (burden, for starters).
You're starting to sound like a broken record here. Are you really so dense? Duty isn't usually somthing you're born with. Why do you think the healer took on the responsibility of treating sick people? Or the knight dedicates himself to protecting people at his own personal peril? They could have been wealthy merchants or fat aristocrats on couches sipping wine and eating grapes untouched by work or duty. But no, Knight of the White Orchid is out there in the hot dusty planes shielding the lives of travelers with his own. Maybe it's his duty, but he's not a mindless robot programmed to do his job. He chose it. Why would he do that if not because he believed in it?
It's like I'm telling you water flows downstream because of gravity and you're saying "No, it's because it's not flowing up stream." Yes, you're right. But you're stopping halfway to the true explanation because you prefer the more conveinient, incomplete truth to the whole thing.
He said that he "fights for the Suns, the surface, and everything in between". Nothing about people in particular; for all we care, he his fighting because he feels the right to defend his home, and people are just a side bonus (he certainly seems to imply that by preffering to mention "the surface" and "the suns" over "the inhabbitants of Mirrodin").
To state that this is compassion is making a huge stretch.
A bigger stretch than you saying Reya likes to create mindless soldier drones? Haha!
Presumably, the general population of mirrodin lives somwhere between the sky and the planet's sruface. So yes, the "everything in between" line would include the mirrans. And that's all mirrans. Not only the white mirrans. Or the ones who follow this "white aligned community" he is probably a member of. But everyone.
Truely, this denial of all good intentions I encounter on these forums is confusing to say the least.
...At no point does it say that she can sense hope. If anything, it seems to imply that she was born of hope itself.
Ya know, I like your explanation better. I'm going to ditch my own and just accept yours. Now we have an embodiment of white mana materializing from the need of the people. It's as if the white mana is compassion itself manifesting to allieviate the suffering of others. Haha, and I thought you disagreed with me.
Again, you are inferring things without bases. Whose to say that whoever ordered said leonin wasn't an aberration in it's species? This seems particularly to be the case because Leonin didn't had good relations with other races; they were at war with even the auriok. Furthermore, recall that the phyrexians were invading, so helping other creatures is on the leonin's best interest.
The flavor text takes place at the beginning of the block. It wasn't even known what exactly the phyrexians were at that time. That's why it does "anything strange" rather than naming them. Yes, the Leonine had poor relations with many other races. That only adds to the compassion the card represents. Look how quickly the Skyguard is willing to ditch old grudges when a potential threat to all shows itself.
I also thought it was pretty droll when you declared I was "infering things without basis" immediately before you declared that whoever was giving the orders must be some kind of freak. Because a white character can never be acting out of compassion apparently.
Dear, you're considered a joke among the Savor the Flavor folks, if not a deranged lunatic. I would not give lessons on credibility, specially after lying so much as you did previously.
Don't worry I don't think particularly highly of them either. Braying sheep the lot of them.
If you're calling me a liar you'd better be able back that up like I did when I accused you of the same. And don't think "he says this is compassion when it's clearly duty!" counts. You're going to have to find somthing not based entirely on my disagreement with your interpretations. Otherwise grow up and have the courage to accept when you've done somthing wrong. Rather than taking the path of immaturity and just shouting back "No U!"
I'm also pretty sure I'm not "dear" to you. Best not to start off you're accusation of dishonesty with a claim to non-existant sentiments.
I think we must understand different things by Mary Sue. White is definitely the 'good' colour in magic, even if it isn't philosophically strictly true and there are plenty of exceptions. But as a colour it doesn't seem like its stuffed with ridiculously perfect author insertions or that we are supposed to be more impressed by it than other colours.
Yes, I feel the same way. Infact I feel effort is often made to make white less impressive than other colors as a handicap for being the most morally focused.
Wizards say they have a more complex version of this, and a chart where mechanics fall in regards to the wheel, but this will do. Note where Red has "emotional action" and "impulse" while White has "law" and "uncreative." White is not about compassion: Compassion equals love, and all White "loves" is Order and constraint; Red is opposed to this because it is impaired by restriction, and desires -- nay craves -- not being tethered; Red cares, but this is very hard to encapsulate on the color's chart with its mechanics, while white has a mechanic of "preservation". Despite this, the lifegain/preservation aspect of White has been shifting somewhat to Green which, oddly enough, shares a border with Red.
Compassion and love are two very different principles.
Love is a personal connection. You feel emotionally attached to another person or thing.
Compassion is being aware of suffering, unhappiness or hardship in others, even strangers or people you have zero affection for, and feeling driven to prevent it.
Example: When the villain's schieme backfires and threatens to kill the villain. The hero usually saves the villain if he can. Compassion without love.
It's true, Love often includes compassion for the target of the affection, but don't let that confuse you. They are seperate motivations.
I also have opinions reguarding that "Uncreative" remark but I'll keep those to myself for the time being.
WizardofTeferi is just a mup created by one of the regulars to make fun of KnightofSerra's limited understanding of the color pie, and his need to argue about it every chance he gets.
I'm just trying to chat and throw out ideas that are "out of the box." Why do you guys always have to be so mean about it?
At least sombody here knows how take a reasonable approach to new opinions. Most folks here are like "We have a turd in the punchbowl......Quick! lets make fun of him!"Truthfully I don't even think "Mary Sue" is a fair accusation to just about anythi
Shamsiel you shallow Human-Parasite (youd fit right there in Innistrad did you know) green is everything wrong with the color pae too cuz green is being portraed as "wisdom" (Harmonaze ) and I mean green is dumb wisdom is smart so it should been blue (Concentrate )
green is a MARY SUE
also man I agree with KOS again you guys are just dogpling on him cuiz you guys cant be Rasonable thats cuz you guys can't refute his points lol.
And you Guys have to be so MEAN about it. just cuz KOS is more "out of the Box" than the Conformast ideas of you guys just cuz he DARES being against the status quo of red's MARY SUE statis and u are just BRAYING SHEEP WHO MINDLESSLY REPEAT EVERYTHING UR FED by teh red istablishment
he doenst think too highly of you guys cuz hes too smart to care. how does that make you feel you guys?
also you guys stop being Mean cuz his opinions are Rasonable if you guys dont like it we're going to repeat them until you guys do.
Shamsiel you shallow Human-Parasite (youd fit right there in Innistrad did you know) green is everything wrong with the color pae too cuz green is being portraed as "wisdom" ( Harmonaze ) and I mean green is dumb wis
Yes, there are examples of white characters being compassionate. This does not mean compassion is a white trait. There are examples of white characters being scientific (Harmless Assault ) but that is a Blue trait. There are examples of white characters enraged (Sunspear Shikara ), but that is a Red trait. White is the color that cares about taking care of its people, which means providing what they need and preventing them from coming to harm. However, White doesn't necessarily care about what its people want. White is all about the greater good, and if that requires sacrificing some for the many, then so be it. White doesn't see people with their own hopes and dreams, it sees citizens, parts of the whole, cogs in the machine that is society. This impersonal approach is contrary to compassion. Red is the color that cares about the individual, the color that cares about having an unrestricted ability to do what you want to do. Red cares the most about desires and feelings; it is the color that most sees people as people. Red is not willing to look away when an individual is suffering, even if that suffering is necessary for the system at large to continue to function. Red would rather tear down society from its roots than let it stand in the way of even one person's path to happiness. That's compassion.
@KnightOfSerra:Yes, there are examples of white characters being compassionate. This does not mean compassion is a white trait. There are examples of white characters being scientific ( Harmless Assault ) but that is
That's really all I can come up with off the top of my head. I suppose I'll wait and see what you have to say to that before I throw out anything else..
So there are some worlds on which Red gets to shine. Then there are other where it don't and where White gets to shine (Alara, Innistrad). Isn't that the beauty of the color pie? Diversity. Colors fulfilling different roles in different settings/stories.
On that topic, I think White and Red lend themselves the best for heroes. Green and blue are both morally detached, not very judgmental, and Black is selfish.
So there are some worlds on which Red gets to shine. Then there are other where it don't and where White gets to shine (Alara, Innistrad). Isn't that the beauty of the color pie? Diversity. Colors fulfilling different roles in different settings/stor
Wizards say they have a more complex version of this, and a chart where mechanics fall in regards to the wheel, but this will do. Note where Red has "emotional action" and "impulse" while White has "law" and "uncreative." White is not about compassion: Compassion equals love, and all White "loves" is Order and constraint; Red is opposed to this because it is impaired by restriction, and desires -- nay craves -- not being tethered; Red cares, but this is very hard to encapsulate on the color's chart with its mechanics, while white has a mechanic of "preservation". Despite this, the lifegain/preservation aspect of White has been shifting somewhat to Green which, oddly enough, shares a border with Red.
To which the inestimable KnightofSerra responded:
Compassion and love are two very different principles.
Love is a personal connection. You feel emotionally attached to another person or thing.
Compassion is being aware of suffering, unhappiness or hardship in others, even strangers or people you have zero affection for, and feeling driven to prevent it.
Example: When the villain's schieme backfires and threatens to kill the villain. The hero usually saves the villain if he can. Compassion without love.
It's true, Love often includes compassion for the target of the affection, but don't let that confuse you. They are seperate motivations.
I also have opinions reguarding that "Uncreative" remark but I'll keep those to myself for the time being.
I think you have taken something of a personal perspective into White based on a few particular cards, like this Catholic priest "receiving" tribute from an altar boy or Healing Salve (especially the Urza's Saga version). But this is barely a part of White. This is much more of an obvious sense of White, and the sense of preservation is about the status quo, not necessarily growth of a lifetotal. Because of this, White does not seek innovation or development of a system, and would rather stymie evolution than progress it. White is the opponent of Progress when it is unbalanced, and this may eventually be most of the time. White is a punitive color, and seeks to hurt its opponents for stepping over the line, which it defines based on its own position in the scheme of the moment. It has a plan, and hurts those who defy the path it sets in this plan, even if you don't know of it. White is fascist, arbitrary, and stultifying.
Yes, there is a historical element of White that has a strong affinity with lifegain and protection/prevention, but this has shifted to a particular series of cards in White's "modern" identity, regardless of what it used to be like. It still gets those lifegain cards, but they've become fewer and fewer because they are not effective in gameplay and skew the things that White necessarily does in comparison to the other colors. In short, White was losing its color identity, and had to lose the chaff of "compassion, healing, etc." in order to find its more negative but ultimately moderate position as the "balance" color.
So instead of Healing Salve , you get lifelink, which it shares with Black; rather than running Reverse Damage , you get Vengeful Archon and redirect effects; Holy Day becomes Harmless Assault , focusing instead on the power of aggressive defense. Total Fog effects now appear in modern Green, as well.
White is a gatekeeper; it does not care for you, or about you, save that you function in its plan, and follow its ideal, and that you believe as it does. If you are not as white as the rest of the sheep, you endanger the rest of the flock, because you stand out. So better than you are removed, or culled, than allow the flock to become prey.
There is a desire to have "love" and "compassion" on cards, to enable the feeling that emotionality can have a positive force and be expressable in the game. Until now, that was White's "lifegain" effects, but that has slipped because Red is more emotive and caring, believe it or not, but cannot get lifegain because that is not in Red's purview. So Red's ability to care is diminished on cards. Thus, this makes it very difficult to show how Red is the caring, compassionate color mechanically, and must instead be evoked through flavor and story. Red values freedom, and the unbridled path to pursue what it wants, and this cannot simply be constrained to destruction: that is simply how it tends to express. One method used to evoke "freedom" was cards like Grip of Chaos , which unfortunately became a griefer and debilitative effect because it was flavored and functioned as a "screw you" card, mean, and spiteful. But chaos is not about messing with things, it's about hedonism and the absence of constraining order. It is the natural state of the universe, and is the path this universe (and all systems in it) devolve to (this is 2nd law-entropy-degredation of patterns stuff, by the way).
I wrote:To which the inestimable KnightofSerra responded:I think you have taken something of a personal perspective into White based on a few particular cards, like this Catholic priest "receiving" tribute from an altar boy
Qilong stop saying hes inestinable this won't win the respect he lost for you braying sheep back don't you know.
free-Thinkers like KOS who challanged the sheep were always persicuted. In this thread its being no differant.
Qilong stop saying hes inestinable this won't win the respect he lost for you braying sheep back don't you know.free-Thinkers like KOS who challanged the sheep were always persicuted. In this thread its being no differant.
Yes, there are examples of white characters being compassionate. This does not mean compassion is a white trait. There are examples of white characters being scientific (Harmless Assault ) but that is a Blue trait. There are examples of white characters enraged (Sunspear Shikara ), but that is a Red trait. White is the color that cares about taking care of its people, which means providing what they need and preventing them from coming to harm. However, White doesn't necessarily care about what its people want. White is all about the greater good, and if that requires sacrificing some for the many, then so be it. White doesn't see people with their own hopes and dreams, it sees citizens, parts of the whole, cogs in the machine that is society. This impersonal approach is contrary to compassion. Red is the color that cares about the individual, the color that cares about having an unrestricted ability to do what you want to do. Red cares the most about desires and feelings; it is the color that most sees people as people. Red is not willing to look away when an individual is suffering, even if that suffering is necessary for the system at large to continue to function. Red would rather tear down society from its roots than let it stand in the way of even one person's path to happiness. That's compassion.
But red is totally willing to look away from the suffering of another if that person has no emotional connection to red. If you're a stranger, red generally doesn't care.
I think you have taken something of a personal perspective into White based on a few particular cards, like this Catholic priest "receiving" tribute from an altar boy or Healing Salve (especially the Urza's Saga version). But this is barely a part of White. This is much more of an obvious sense of White, and the sense of preservation is about the status quo, not necessarily growth of a lifetotal. Because of this, White does not seek innovation or development of a system, and would rather stymie evolution than progress it. White is the opponent of Progress when it is unbalanced, and this may eventually be most of the time. White is a punitive color, and seeks to hurt its opponents for stepping over the line, which it defines based on its own position in the scheme of the moment. It has a plan, and hurts those who defy the path it sets in this plan, even if you don't know of it. White is fascist, arbitrary, and stultifying.
Yes, there is a historical element of White that has a strong affinity with lifegain and protection/prevention, but this has shifted to a particular series of cards in White's "modern" identity, regardless of what it used to be like. It still gets those lifegain cards, but they've become fewer and fewer because they are not effective in gameplay and skew the things that White necessarily does in comparison to the other colors. In short, White was losing its color identity, and had to lose the chaff of "compassion, healing, etc." in order to find its more negative but ultimately moderate position as the "balance" color.
So instead of Healing Salve , you get lifelink, which it shares with Black; rather than running Reverse Damage , you get Vengeful Archon and redirect effects; Holy Day becomes Harmless Assault , focusing instead on the power of aggressive defense. Total Fog effects now appear in modern Green, as well.
White is a gatekeeper; it does not care for you, or about you, save that you function in its plan, and follow its ideal, and that you believe as it does. If you are not as white as the rest of the sheep, you endanger the rest of the flock, because you stand out. So better than you are removed, or culled, than allow the flock to become prey.
There is a desire to have "love" and "compassion" on cards, to enable the feeling that emotionality can have a positive force and be expressable in the game. Until now, that was White's "lifegain" effects, but that has slipped because Red is more emotive and caring, believe it or not, but cannot get lifegain because that is not in Red's purview. So Red's ability to care is diminished on cards. Thus, this makes it very difficult to show how Red is the caring, compassionate color mechanically, and must instead be evoked through flavor and story. Red values freedom, and the unbridled path to pursue what it wants, and this cannot simply be constrained to destruction: that is simply how it tends to express. One method used to evoke "freedom" was cards like Grip of Chaos , which unfortunately became a griefer and debilitative effect because it was flavored and functioned as a "screw you" card, mean, and spiteful. But chaos is not about messing with things, it's about hedonism and the absence of constraining order. It is the natural state of the universe, and is the path this universe (and all systems in it) devolve to (this is 2nd law-entropy-degredation of patterns stuff, by the way).
If white hates evolution and progression so much, why does it hold Blue and green as allies?
Do you two ever look at white cards? Cus I mean, you really don't see much of this crazy. "I protect you but I don't care about anything and I will kill everything different than me!" mentality you consider to be white's true essence in the card game. And white has plenty of Life gain even in this day and age. It's amazing how much bad press a color can get without actually earning it.
You guys make white sound so extremely one-dimensional. It has no thoughts, no motivations or desires. It only wants to create and preserve a system/community and destroy all others. reallly? It has so many more dimensions than you give it credit for.
Why would anyone ever like the color if that was all it stood for?
It's amazing how wizards can say "Hey Guys! White isn't always good, black isn't always evil and red isn't always destructively violent!"
And you guys just take it and run with it yelling "White is evil! Black is good and Red is peacefull!"
Try a little moderation for a change. Perhaps a little less black and white mentality.
That's really all I can come up with off the top of my head. I suppose I'll wait and see what you have to say to that before I throw out anything else..
So there are some worlds on which Red gets to shine. Then there are other where it don't and where White gets to shine (Alara, Innistrad). Isn't that the beauty of the color pie? Diversity. Colors fulfilling different roles in different settings/stories.
On that topic, I think White and Red lend themselves the best for heroes. Green and blue are both morally detached, not very judgmental, and Black is selfish.
Yeah, I totally agree.
In all honesty I have no idea how this conversation got turned into white vs red color pie arguing. As I recall, my initial points were simply that Sorin's actions on Innistrad didn't fit mono black.
But red is totally willing to look away from the suffering of another if that person has no emotional connection to red. If you're a stranger, red generally doesn't care.If white hates evolution and progression so much, why does it hold Blue and gree
You guys make white sound so extremely one-dimensional.
KOS nails it again
thats the mentalaty that led to that awful Scars block (which LOST MY RESPECT) where whate only got evul cards like Mirran Cruzades or Heroinn of bladeholder. KOS even made a thread about that injustace IIRC (i made one about the blu injustace too but orcs locked it and they locked KOS thread too. thought polace much?)
also You guys beter not disagree or me and KOS will repaet this a few thousand more times till you guys give up. yes this is a threat.
KOS nails it againthats the mentalaty that led to that awful Scars block (which LOST MY RESPECT) where whate only got evul cards like Mirran Cruzades or Heroinn of bladeholder. KOS even made a thread about that injustace IIRC (i made one about the bl
If white hates evolution and progression so much, why does it hold Blue and green as allies?
If Green gets Harmonize and Hunter's Insight , while Blue gets Concentrate and Brainstorm , then where's White's draw:3? The answer is that development and progress are not compiled as the Arc attributes, and abilities can appear on two sides of a color without appearing in the middle. Note that Blue's sense of progress is selfish (part of the Black border), while Green is about unchecked evolution (part of the Red border), rather than guidance. Blue and White share a forceful vision or "plan" (I may have mentioned this), which is true also of Black, while Red and Green oppose guidance and constraint, which leads the latter to "equivalence when it comes about" and the former to "whomever gets ahead, does" mentalities. White, like Blue, opposes this (and thus must be against development! -- no, that's not the logical progression of this reasoning, but it seems to be what I'm reading above).
"I protect you but I don't care about anything and I will kill everything different than me!" mentality you consider to be white's true essence in the card game. And white has plenty of Life gain even in this day and age. It's amazing how much bad press a color can get without actually earning it.
I never said anything about White's "true" mentality in the game. White is about balance. It cares for everyone to be just like everyone else. This naturally stifles creativity (Red) and selfishness (Black). The real point here is that White is the opponent of the individual, who only matters when it serves the greater whole, thus making White "caring" about homogeneity. When individuals crop up (remember me talking about that off-color sheep?), they are either ousted, or converted. White "changes" things by whitewashing (or brainwashing) it, which is why it also gets things like Pacifism , Recumbent Bliss , or especially the flavor text on the Alara Oblivion Ring and Path to Exile . It accepts you when you agree with it. White's vision is absolute, not mutable; Blue's vision is mutable, and Green attempts to Zen itself, thus absolving itself of "vision."
You guys make white sound so extremely one-dimensional. It has no thoughts, no motivations or desires. It only wants to create and preserve a system/community and destroy all others. reallly? It has so many more dimensions than you give it credit for.
It HAD other motives, but White doesn't need other aspects. It contains multitudes even within the sense of constraint and order: It commands armies, all of which are homogenous, and thus maintains militaristic superiority. It commands judges in the form of "celestial" beings, who serve the greater good rather than any individual motive. It keeps things that serve its greater purpose around to continue serving its purpose.
Why would anyone ever like the color if that was all it stood for?
Don't get me wrong, every color thinks it's right and the one who will win out. This is a system of gaming that pits the colors against one another, and thus the colors don't -- and should not -- represent all attributes of personality. The idea is that the colors are subsets of personality, not the opposite. Personally, White is my favorite color, and why I take this attitude of yours a tad personal. You are trying to appeal to my emotionality because that resonates in you. On my side, White appeals to me because it evokes the sense that I can understand the world, but also that I can apply the rules of the universe to anything in it (my Green informs me to let this bit go, and qualify my Zen Buddhism by just being part of the whole, and enjoying it).
It's amazing how wizards can say "Hey Guys! White isn't always good, black isn't always evil and red isn't always destructively violent!"
And you guys just take it and run with it yelling "White is evil! Black is good and Red is peacefull!"
Where is this again? I demand links and citations!
If Green gets Harmonize and Hunter's Insight , while Blue gets Concentrate and Brainstorm , then where's Whi
Oh btw, the article that spoiled the card is a fine example of a white character being compassionate.
I believe you are not getting what I said at all. You know very well that, when mana is used to create something, those things become that colour. Zombies don't represent ideals like vampires or demons, and neither do many spirits.
Look at Drogskol Reaver. Even I don't think it is the least bit , yet it is part .
And Saint Traft is not either. I am assuming somehow mana got into the mix to justify that.
No, actually that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption. Why? Because as I said before you have zero real evidence that that is the case. It's dishonest and unfair of you to make such sinister accusations of sombody, even a fictional character like Reya Dawnbringer with you're only supporting evidence being that a guild in an entirely different dimension that shared 1 color in common with Reya, allowed people to willingly bind their spirits to service for a predetermined period of time after their deaths.
I believe I have also used the Order of Heliud as an example.
Are you really so dense? Duty isn't usually somthing you're born with. Why do you think the healer took on the responsibility of treating sick people? Or the knight dedicates himself to protecting people at his own personal peril? They could have been wealthy merchants or fat aristocrats on couches sipping wine and eating grapes untouched by work or duty. But no, Knight of the White Orchid is out there in the hot dusty planes shielding the lives of travelers with his own. Maybe it's his duty, but he's not a mindless robot programmed to do his job. He chose it. Why would he do that if not because he believed in it?
Your understanding of duty and compassion seems lacking. You don't seem to understand what compassion and duty even mean.
Both the medic and the knight may or may not care about the people they're involved with, but they know what they're doing is right. They know that it is their job to help those people either way, but they personally might not empathise with the individual people they're working with.
A compassionate person would be more personal in their aproach.
Either way, it's not like either are absolute robots, but there is no evidence that they truly feel compassion, just that they're performing their duty. Duty, and not compassion, seems to be their main motivators in either case.
Presumably, the general population of mirrodin lives somwhere between the sky and the planet's sruface. So yes, the "everything in between" line would include the mirrans. And that's all mirrans. Not only the white mirrans. Or the ones who follow this "white aligned community" he is probably a member of. But everyone.
Again, the fact that he specifically focuses more on the non-living things than on the living ones shows that he is more dutiful than compassionate. The living beings are even an afterthought. And again, no compassion. When you're fighting a war against monstruous faux aliens that were previous members of your family, would you want to have all your potential allies dead?
Mirran cards, if anything, show the more pragmatic side of , not the more compassionate.
Ya know, I like your explanation better. I'm going to ditch my own and just accept yours. Now we have an embodiment of white mana materializing from the need of the people. It's as if the white mana is compassion itself manifesting to allieviate the suffering of others. Haha, and I thought you disagreed with me.
I'm sorry, how old are you?
Neverless, hope = compassion is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Look at Tzeentch from Warhammer; he's the perfect icon of how hope isn't compassionate.
The flavor text takes place at the beginning of the block. It wasn't even known what exactly the phyrexians were at that time. That's why it does "anything strange" rather than naming them. Yes, the Leonine had poor relations with many other races. That only adds to the compassion the card represents. Look how quickly the Skyguard is willing to ditch old grudges when a potential threat to all shows itself.
I also thought it was pretty droll when you declared I was "infering things without basis" immediately before you declared that whoever was giving the orders must be some kind of freak. Because a white character can never be acting out of compassion apparently.
They did not knew what the phyrexians were at the time, but it was obvious that they were stronger than previous enemies, so certainly was on their best interest. And again, your poor understanding of duty and compassion shows again. They were clearly following orders, as you indicated, so grudges had no place. The person who ordered them, again, is not indicated to be compassionate, just that he/she/it knows both that it is the right thing to kill the phyrexians and that they cannot afford loosing allies.
Don't worry I don't think particularly highly of them either. Braying sheep the lot of them.
Sure, people who understand far more than you are braying sheep. I might as well call people who are not obsessed with a single colour dumb rhinoceri, no matter how they like to encourage creativity and storytelling.
I've always wondered that myself. Are fantasy authors just not allowed to make idealistic hero types anymore?
To put it in a way you can understand, depends on how well they're written.
Unlike you, most people want characters they can relate with. An idealistic hero type not only is simply not interesting, as it is a cardboard persona rather than a character, but also a wishful fullfillment fantasy, something that only the most egocentric and immature people want.
Sure, people like Wonder Woman and Superman are idealistic heroes written brilliantly, but even them have inner turmoils and struggles that make them interesting. And most of the time they do end up being boring and forgetable because writers fail to pick on their flaws. Why do you think Batman is more popular than either of them combined? Why do you think the Wonder Woman unaired pilot showed her as a psychotic anti-heroine?
Compassion and love are two very different principles.
Love is a personal connection. You feel emotionally attached to another person or thing.
Compassion is being aware of suffering, unhappiness or hardship in others, even strangers or people you have zero affection for, and feeling driven to prevent it.
Example: When the villain's schieme backfires and threatens to kill the villain. The hero usually saves the villain if he can. Compassion without love.
It's true, Love often includes compassion for the target of the affection, but don't let that confuse you. They are seperate motivations.
I also have opinions reguarding that "Uncreative" remark but I'll keep those to myself for the time being.
1- Psychologists now consider compassion to be derived from love. Essencially, it is an "upgraded" form. Indeed, true compassion is felt when you really understand what is going on, much like love; you don't feel imediate compassion for every single person out there until you see them suffering, much like you don't love every single woman or man out there until you notice someone...interesting. 2- I have seen heroes preserving the villain's life not due to compassion, but due to duty. Batman, for instance, hates the Joker, but he knows that he cannot kill him, otherwise his morality goes down the drain, so he saves him when he can.
3- is uncreative. Not only does it lack the emotional potency of , but focuses on conformity rther than individuality.
But red is totally willing to look away from the suffering of another if that person has no emotional connection to red. If you're a stranger, red generally doesn't care.
Depends. Since is literally all emotions, it can easily be distracted or angered, and those things can get in the way of compassion. However, if suffering is undeniable, compassion inevitably bleeds through.
If white hates evolution and progression so much, why does it hold Blue and green as allies?
Great, more hypocrisy and stupidity.
and value the weak to go die in a pit while the strong thrive. doesn't, even when it isn't feeling particularly compassionate. Similarly, both and are associated with flesh, while opts for other materials.
and value evolution, but doesn't. values the status quo. Similarly, and value philosophy. values comformity over philosophy.
Do you two ever look at white cards? Cus I mean, you really don't see much of this crazy.
"I protect you but I don't care about anything and I will kill everything different than me!" mentality you consider to be white's true essence in the card game. And white has plenty of Life gain even in this day and age. It's amazing how much bad press a color can get without actually earning it.
You guys make white sound so extremely one-dimensional. It has no thoughts, no motivations or desires. It only wants to create and preserve a system/community and destroy all others. reallly? It has so many more dimensions than you give it credit for.
Why would anyone ever like the color if that was all it stood for?
It's amazing how wizards can say "Hey Guys! White isn't always good, black isn't always evil and red isn't always destructively violent!"
And you guys just take it and run with it yelling "White is evil! Black is good and Red is peacefull!"
Try a little moderation for a change. Perhaps a little less black and white mentality.
...
Neat. You're an hypocrite, a liar, an imbecile and close minded. Everything you just said is naught but double standards, since you are doing exactly what you accused others of doing.
I believe you are not getting what I said at all. You know very well that, when mana is used to create something, those things become that colour. Zombies don't represent :b: ideals like vampires or demons, and neither do many spirits.Look at Drogsko
Shamsiel you shallow Human-Parasite (youd fit right there in Innistrad did you know) green is everything wrong with the color pae too cuz green is being portraed as "wisdom" (Harmonaze ) and I mean green is dumb wisdom is smart so it should been blue (Concentrate )
green is a MARY SUE
also man I agree with KOS again you guys are just dogpling on him cuiz you guys cant be Rasonable thats cuz you guys can't refute his points lol.
And you Guys have to be so MEAN about it. just cuz KOS is more "out of the Box" than the Conformast ideas of you guys just cuz he DARES being against the status quo of red's MARY SUE statis and u are just BRAYING SHEEP WHO MINDLESSLY REPEAT EVERYTHING UR FED by teh red istablishment
he doenst think too highly of you guys cuz hes too smart to care. how does that make you feel you guys?
also you guys stop being Mean cuz his opinions are Rasonable if you guys dont like it we're going to repeat them until you guys do.
I have to disagree with some posters in this thread about white being the color of status quo. White may be uncreative but the color of status quo is green.
Every color has an ulterior main motive.
Blue seeks for omniscience and black strives for omnipotence, thats pretty straight forward. Red seeks for a world of freedom, where everyone can do as he wishes. Now whites main goal is a peaceful world, a world in where everybody is friends (yes a very mary sue like world). However laws and order are its tools to achieve that goal, don't confuse cause and effect. If the world is peaceful then, and only then, it seeks to maintain the status quo (like all the other colors would as well). Now greens main goal on the other hand IS the status quo. It wants the world to stay the same without interference and watch nature unfurl around. Don't confuse growth with progress or anti-status quo. (Btw the article its not easy being green, really makes that obvious)
Tldr, White is likely to maintain the status quo in a lot of cases, but the color of status quo is green.
I have to disagree with some posters in this thread about white being the color of status quo. White may be uncreative but the color of status quo is green.Every color has an ulterior main motive.Blue seeks for omniscience and black strives for omnip
Part of white is doing what you believe to be morally, ideally right, even when it is absolutely against the status quo. Seel also rebels, various fanatics, archangel radiant vs false prophet etc.
While I don't really agree with KoS' position I do think people are running way too far with the rigidity of the colour pie. I also think planar chaos cards should be kept out of the discussion.
How do you guys explain cards like lionheart maverick ?Part of white is doing what you believe to be morally, ideally right, even when it is absolutely against the status quo. Seel also rebels, various fanatics, arc
Now whites main goal is a peaceful world, a world in where everybody is friends (yes a very mary sue like world). However laws and order are its tools to achieve that goal, don't confuse cause and effect. If the world is peaceful then, and only then, it seeks to maintain the status quo (like all the other colors would as well).
It's interesting that White also includes idealism which gets in the way of such goals (I will never murder, even to save a thousand others) and an inherent rejection of that idealism in order to achieve those goals (I am willing to damn my soul in order to bring the world to peace).
Like every colour (and philosophy), it contains contradictions at the edges.
But if you're going to talk about the colour as a whole, you have to more or less put those contradictions to the side, or understand how they spring from the same essential beliefs.
It's interesting that White also includes idealism which gets in the way of such goals (I will never murder, even to save a thousand others) and an inherent rejection of that idealism in order to achieve those goals (I am willing to damn my soul in o
Did you notice the off-color activation from a multicolor block? The ability is a common-level Green ability. White grants vigilance (defensiveness).
Part of white is doing what you believe to be morally, ideally right, even when it is absolutely against the status quo. Seel also rebels, various fanatics, archangel radiant vs false prophet etc.
While I don't really agree with KoS' position I do think people are running way too far with the rigidity of the colour pie. I also think planar chaos cards should be kept out of the discussion.
Yes, White can disrupt the flow of the current status quo, but recall that its ideal is absolute stillness and non-change, its plan. It will balance (as I said) the board state with Wrath of God , Armageddon , and Tempest of Light , if need be. That's the point, in fact, of a card like Balance = everybody gets the same stuff, down to the same level. As a game, this tool is used to prevent your opponents from developing beyond you, or at all, but that's not the point: how a player treats the game or designs a deck matters little to the little stories the cards themselves are supposed to tell.
Now whites main goal is a peaceful world, a world in where everybody is friends (yes a very mary sue like world). However laws and order are its tools to achieve that goal, don't confuse cause and effect. If the world is peaceful then, and only then, it seeks to maintain the status quo (like all the other colors would as well).
It's interesting that White also includes idealism which gets in the way of such goals (I will never murder, even to save a thousand others) and an inherent rejection of that idealism in order to achieve those goals (I am willing to damn my soul in order to bring the world to peace).
What are you talking about? White cannot damn its soul: it is, by definition, doing the deed that exhonerates it by its actions, and it cannot act outside of its own constraint. Otherwise, it would be Black ... or Red. You're talking a strategy of gaming that involves some people doing things with White cards, which is not the same thing. But pick a card in the modern philosophy othat matches the White "damns its soul to acheive its goal."
Like every colour (and philosophy), it contains contradictions at the edges.
See above. No contradictions, at least if you focus the concept of the color, its embodiment, to an ideal: White = Balance Blue = Progress Black = Power Red = Hedonism Green = Development
Some colors have plans, some do not. White's goal is no corruption, no difference; and nothing is the most absolute unchanging thing ever. Blue's goal is to find more, create more, do more, and thus values investigation without a real end goal involved. Black values itself, and thus any means, any goal, is "right;" it's goal is whatever fulfils whatever enlightened self-interest it can find. Red has plans, lots of them, but they cange constantly to fit its mood or desires, and it would have it no other way save that no one tells it what to do. Green has no plan, and no goal; where it is and where it is going is the thing that matters, and making more of that, and the most of it, is the purpose of its existence.
So, White finds meaning in holding to "the blueprints," Blue in creating its perfect outcome, Black in creating its perfect self, Red in "having fun" and Green in just being. That's all there really is to it. This is simplistic stuff, ultimately, when you pare the colors down to their core ideals. Yes, there are fuzzy things at the edges, but "contradictions" may be explained as alternate explanations of this ultimate ideal. The perfect color wheel doesn't look like an exact circle divided into 72 degrees of arc each, but the colors "blend" into zones at the edges and towards the centre; there, the colors may blend into their opposite ideals, where yes, there is common ground and "contradictions" may arise.
But if you're going to talk about the colour as a whole, you have to more or less put those contradictions to the side, or understand how they spring from the same essential beliefs.
Did you notice the off-color activation from a multicolor block? The ability is a common-level Green ability. White grants vigilance (defensiveness).Yes, White can disrupt the flow of the current status quo, but recall that its ideal is absolute stil
Well, to understand and status quo, think this way. When things are blantantly chaotic or unfair, justice should be imposed. When things are blantantly "okay" but someone tries to change things, justice should be imposed. is ambivalent towards change; if it is in the minority position, then it is ambitious, but if it is dominant, then it is opressive.
The Azorius in Ravnica should logically be the ones changing things "for the greater good", since they're even part , but they are the guild most hellbent on imposing the status quo, thinking that things are okay the way they are. Likewise, Selesnya should be imposing the status quo, but they think they should take over Ravnica for everything to be fine; they're the guild most focused on converting people either normally or by brainwashing.
The colour pie is more complex than even I give it credit for, and all colours can demonstrate willingness to change things or to keep them as they are.
Well, to understand :w: and status quo, think this way. When things are blantantly chaotic or unfair, justice should be imposed. When things are blantantly "okay" but someone tries to change things, justice should be imposed. :w: is ambivalent toward
What are you talking about? White cannot damn its soul: it is, by definition, doing the deed that exhonerates it by its actions, and it cannot act outside of its own constraint. Otherwise, it would be Black ... or Red. You're talking a strategy of gaming that involves some people doing things with White cards, which is not the same thing. But pick a card in the modern philosophy othat matches the White "damns its soul to acheive its goal."
No, I'm not talking about what players do with the cards at all. I see you have a habit of making assumptions like that. It's pretty obnoxious.
I don't know a good single card example off the top of my head and I'm not sure what the best way to search for one would be, but I'm certain I've seen white cards where both the ends justify the means and the salvation of the greater whole comes at the cost of the purity of the individual. If I see one in the future and this discussion is still going I'll post it up.
Maybe the cards I'm thinking of aren't from the modern world you're talking about though.
No, I'm not talking about what players do with the cards at all. I see you have a habit of making assumptions like that. It's pretty obnoxious.I don't know a good single card example off the top of my head and I'm not sure what the best way to search
What are you talking about? White cannot damn its soul: it is, by definition, doing the deed that exhonerates it by its actions, and it cannot act outside of its own constraint. Otherwise, it would be Black ... or Red. You're talking a strategy of gaming that involves some people doing things with White cards, which is not the same thing. But pick a card in the modern philosophy othat matches the White "damns its soul to acheive its goal."
I don't know a good single card example off the top of my head and I'm not sure what the best way to search for one would be, but I'm certain I've seen white cards where both the ends justify the means and the salvation of the greater whole comes at the cost of the purity of the individual. If I see one in the future and this discussion is still going I'll post it up.
But what I'm talking about is you claiming that White will "damn its soul" to do a thing, and that's simply not a part of the philosophy of White. White doesn't care about the individual save that it serve the Greater Good. It thus needs no compassion, feels no compassion, becayse to it the individual who suffers only matters in that the suffering can spread, for which there are two options: stem the disease by curing it, or excise the disease from the system. Will White kill its own to serve a larger purpose? Sure.
Angel's Herald is a modern example of a creature that sacs itself to acheive a greater goal, and the flavor text reminds us of this: "Rigorous faith and belief are rewarded on occasion, and richly so." Animal Boneyard is an example of an old card. The same is true of Benevolent Bodyguard , while modern versions include Kithkin Spellduster and Ronom Unicorn . The most egregious example of White having a "sac something else to acheive another thing" is Caregiver , which represents an aversion to the Ravnica Guilds -- I would otherwise hesitate to bring in Ravnica cards, because even monocolored cards are influenced mechanically by their applied guild-alliances, and this is one of the few in that Block which seem solidly outside the two-color system. You also get guys like Knight-Captain of Eos , but it's part of a three-color system, and embodies effects that are now also in Green, a "holistic" pair.
But none of this is "damn its soul" material. Each of these represent flavor of people "willing to die for a cause." In some cases, however horrible this image might be, this is effectively suiciding for White. Contrast Black's "sacrifice another creature" that appears on Demons, or compare to Red's "Sac this: do that" that appears very frequently and of a whole range of permanent types in order to give the effect of "everything blows up" or "look what I can do!" attitude.
Maybe the cards I'm thinking of aren't from the modern world you're talking about though.
In the past White was a far more compassionate color, with less structured identity. MaRo has made great strides in enforcing an ideal and narrow think to the color since his time began in R&D, and as a result the color pie has changed from when Garfield conceived of it. The game changed. When White used to be okay with those rare or few individuals, it wasn't the homogenous military or host of celestials; it was instead the color of icons, or champions, and of "peace" and "harmony." White was a frakkin' flower child. It had a "don't hurt me!" and "not in the face!" attitude, and this is where the "compassion" cards come in. This stuff is gone in the current era, and has been gone since around Onslaught or so (for the most part, a few cards sneak in for spice). So when I am talking about "modern" design, I am talking about how the color pie looks NOW, not how it used to look when Invasion or Urza's Saga was around.
You had written:
Part of white is doing what you believe to be morally, ideally right, even when it is absolutely against the status quo. Seel also rebels, various fanatics, archangel radiant vs false prophet etc.
to which I replied:
You're talking a strategy of gaming that involves some people doing things with White cards, which is not the same thing.
and to which you responding in that progressive tone:
No, I'm not talking about what players do with the cards at all. I see you have a habit of making assumptions like that. It's pretty obnoxious.
I've been attempting to show you that this idea, especially that of "Rebels," is part of White's history, but doesn't define it necessarily. I pointed out that "modern" and past incarnations of the pie differ. What I am discussing is the more structured now. Rebels, those who defy the regime, whose backs are broken by oppression, defines Red, not White. Weenies are defined in the military, or insectile, or swarming sense, and while you can get Gobbies and Bugs like this to fight for you, White just uses Soldiers or the equivalent classes, but this is one area where White agrees with Red, and certainly with Green (it's part of their Arc and Sector identities).
Incidentally, I get to make assumptions -- it's part of the argumentation system, as well as Science. I am aware of the assumptions, but it seems the attitude above implies that my being confronted with this would make me balk at further discussion. There would be little other value otherwise, am I right? I am making declarative statements, and I can guess that this might cause some people to feel defensive, resulting in the tone of the last quoted statement above, and the requisite attack it embodies. Perhaps you feel I am talking down to you, or attempting to dimish your personal feelings, but I'm not. Be better than that; I'm treating you as an equal argumentor.
I don't know a good single card example off the top of my head and I'm not sure what the best way to search for one would be, but I'm certain I've seen white cards where both the ends justify the means and the salvation of the greater whole comes at
I get to make assumptions -- it's part of the argumentation system, as well as Science. I am aware of the assumptions, but it seems the attitude above implies that my being confronted with this would make me balk at further discussion.
Your assumption was baseless and wrong. Not for the first time. To quote you, 'Be better than that'. Or just carry on being obnoxious. I don't actually mind either way.
Your assumption was baseless and wrong. Not for the first time. To quote you, 'Be better than that'. Or just carry on being obnoxious. I don't actually mind either way.
To my understanding, every color can be compassionate but none is compassionate per se, not even red. Compassion is a feeling, which makes red the most likely to be compassionate. But red doesn't have all feelings all the time. Red is not always angry and red is not always compassionate.
However white may be not as compassionate as red but it is definitely a close second imho. This is how i would rank the colors likeliness to be compassionate:
>>>>
Edit: Now that i look at it, its more or less going from least phyrexian to most phyrexian as well. At least when you focus on their "coldheartedness". Neat ^^
To my understanding, every color can be compassionate but none is compassionate per se, not even red.Compassion is a feeling, which makes red the most likely to be compassionate. But red doesn't have all feelings all the time.Red is not always angry
To my understanding, every color can be compassionate but none is compassionate per se, not even red. Compassion is a feeling, which makes red the most likely to be compassionate. But red doesn't have all feelings all the time. Red is not always angry and red is not always compassionate.
However white may be not as compassionate as red but it is definitely a close second imho. This is how i would rank the colors likeliness to be compassionate:
>>>>
Edit: Now that i look at it, its more or less going from least phyrexian to most phyrexian as well. At least when you focus on their "coldheartedness". Neat ^^
The way I look at the color pie, no sentient creature completely embodies a single color (excepting angels and demons, as they are literally formed from their color's mana). Every elf and human and goblin has traits from all of the colors. After all, a White-aligned human soldier is not incapable of feeling anger, even though anger is definitely a part of Red's slice of the pie. What makes a person aligned to a color is their primary motivation. For instance, a knight desires power, which is a Black trait, but the reason behind that desire for power is (usually) to uphold the law and protect those in need, which makes the knight White-aligned. I'm obviously not talking about Black-aligned knights, since they are the ones who became consumed by the quest for power itself. So all people, regardless of color alignment, are capable of being compassionate, but compassion, like other emotions, is Red-aligned. You can be compassionate and not be Red, but when you place compassion above everything else, above duty and self-interest and the natural order, you're Red.
The way I look at the color pie, no sentient creature completely embodies a single color (excepting angels and demons, as they are literally formed from their color's mana). Every elf and human and goblin has traits from all of the colors. After all,
If Green gets Harmonize and Hunter's Insight , while Blue gets Concentrate and Brainstorm , then where's White's draw:3? The answer is that development and progress are not compiled as the Arc attributes, and abilities can appear on two sides of a color without appearing in the middle. Note that Blue's sense of progress is selfish (part of the Black border), while Green is about unchecked evolution (part of the Red border), rather than guidance. Blue and White share a forceful vision or "plan" (I may have mentioned this), which is true also of Black, while Red and Green oppose guidance and constraint, which leads the latter to "equivalence when it comes about" and the former to "whomever gets ahead, does" mentalities. White, like Blue, opposes this (and thus must be against development! -- no, that's not the logical progression of this reasoning, but it seems to be what I'm reading above).
As I recall, green gets draw effects because it fits a "growth" theme. Not because it has any desire to learn. That's also why green gets lifegain as i recall. It's all about getting bigger. Bigger creatures, bigger hands, bigger life.
I find it suprising that you people get so focused on this idea that white's only motivation is the preservation of the status quo. That's actually more of a green thing.
Green creates things like, food chains, natural balance, circle of life and so on. Green doesn't care about the individual. Individuals die or get preyed upon. That's life. And green will defend these "status quos" as brutally as it has to.
I never said anything about White's "true" mentality in the game. White is about balance. It cares for everyone to be just like everyone else. This naturally stifles creativity (Red) and selfishness (Black). The real point here is that White is the opponent of the individual, who only matters when it serves the greater whole, thus making White "caring" about homogeneity. When individuals crop up (remember me talking about that off-color sheep?), they are either ousted, or converted. White "changes" things by whitewashing (or brainwashing) it, which is why it also gets things like Pacifism , Recumbent Bliss , or especially the flavor text on the Alara Oblivion Ring and Path to Exile . It accepts you when you agree with it. White's vision is absolute, not mutable; Blue's vision is mutable, and Green attempts to Zen itself, thus absolving itself of "vision."
I also find it odd that white gets stuck with this "uncreative" label when military tactics are in white's piece of the color pie. If you catch red in a fight, you'll see nothing but removal. Destroy, destroy, destroy.
besides, you're just assuming that white throws out removal on everybody who annoys it. Like red would do. A part of the law aspect is creating punishments that fit crimes.
It HAD other motives, but White doesn't need other aspects. It contains multitudes even within the sense of constraint and order: It commands armies, all of which are homogenous, and thus maintains militaristic superiority. It commands judges in the form of "celestial" beings, who serve the greater good rather than any individual motive. It keeps things that serve its greater purpose around to continue serving its purpose.
So that's your belief then? White used to be complex but now all aspects except enforcer of the status quo have been removed and you think that's awesome?
Boy am I glad wizards doesn't have you as one of their flavor guys.
Don't get me wrong, every color thinks it's right and the one who will win out. This is a system of gaming that pits the colors against one another, and thus the colors don't -- and should not -- represent all attributes of personality. The idea is that the colors are subsets of personality, not the opposite. Personally, White is my favorite color, and why I take this attitude of yours a tad personal. You are trying to appeal to my emotionality because that resonates in you. On my side, White appeals to me because it evokes the sense that I can understand the world, but also that I can apply the rules of the universe to anything in it (my Green informs me to let this bit go, and qualify my Zen Buddhism by just being part of the whole, and enjoying it).
And now you're going to tell me white is your favorite color? I'm not buying it.
If I had to guess, you say what you do about white because you love to have a sufficiently disagreeable nemesis for red and black.
I mention this because I believe it’s important to separate the white-black conflict from good versus evil. Morality versus amorality. Light versus dark. Purity versus corruption. The white/black conflict takes on many shades, but "good versus evil" is far too subjective to use properly.
There was another one I recall, somthing about black knight vs white knight. Can't find it though.
Did you know that Red is the color or art and music and passion? Combine that with Green, the color of nature, spiritualism, and community and you get a hippie commune of drum circles, dreamcatchers, and recreational drug use. Let's see that win a Pro Tour.)
I believe you are not getting what I said at all. You know very well that, when mana is used to create something, those things become that colour. Zombies don't represent ideals like vampires or demons, and neither do many spirits.
Look at Drogskol Reaver. Even I don't think it is the least bit , yet it is part .
And Saint Traft is not either. I am assuming somehow mana got into the mix to justify that.
Oh I'm getting what you said. I just disagree.
The thing about the colors is that they are defined by two things. Ideals and tactics. Usually cards are a color because they fit it's ideals. Sometimes they simply use it's methods. I believe this is the case with Drogskull reaver. Sometimes they simply live in the area that is a source of that mana like Savannah Lions or River Boa .
In Saint Traft's case I would assume that he was a White character at heart but also had some skill with blue magic aswell. Perhaps he trained in some card drawing type spells. To help him keep on his feet vs the horrors of Innistrad.
In any case, he is a / spirit who does not appear enslaved or under the control of any being or organization so this should go far to refute your claim that a white or white and blue spirit is be default a slave or a mindslave which should undermine your declaration that Reya Dawnbringer forces all she rezzes to become soldiers to her whims.
Your understanding of duty and compassion seems lacking. You don't seem to understand what compassion and duty even mean.
Bahahahhaha. You have no idea. Really you don't. I'll not get too into it but that's pretty much the only thing I study. My two favorite words. Aside from honor, truth and justice.
Both the medic and the knight may or may not care about the people they're involved with, but they know what they're doing is right. They know that it is their job to help those people either way, but they personally might not empathise with the individual people they're working with.
A compassionate person would be more personal in their aproach.
Either way, it's not like either are absolute robots, but there is no evidence that they truly feel compassion, just that they're performing their duty. Duty, and not compassion, seems to be their main motivators in either cas.
And why do they care what is right. Why is their duty important? Reason this out to the logical conclusion....
Again, the fact that he specifically focuses more on the non-living things than on the living ones shows that he is more dutiful than compassionate. The living beings are even an afterthought. And again, no compassion. When you're fighting a war against monstruous faux aliens that were previous members of your family, would you want to have all your potential allies dead?
Mirran cards, if anything, show the more pragmatic side of , not the more compassionate.
How is it an afterthought if he includes them in a declaration of his chief motivations? It's not like "I fight for Bill and Tom and everything in between!" would have worked because then you actually would ignore the land and animals and anyone who's name starts with an A, U, V, X, Y and Z.
Neverless, hope = compassion is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Look at Tzeentch from Warhammer; he's the perfect icon of how hope isn't compassionate.
I'm 26. Why? Want to make fun of my age now? I wouldn''t put such immaturities past you people.
You've confused my meaning again. I was infering that compassion drives a being to answer the hopes of another good being.
Are you confusing my meaning on purpose? So it's easier to refute? Or simply not even bothering to put thought into what I say? I would believe either. If either answer is yes, tell me now so I can move on.
They did not knew what the phyrexians were at the time, but it was obvious that they were stronger than previous enemies, so certainly was on their best interest. And again, your poor understanding of duty and compassion shows again. They were clearly following orders, as you indicated, so grudges had no place. The person who ordered them, again, is not indicated to be compassionate, just that he/she/it knows both that it is the right thing to kill the phyrexians and that they cannot afford loosing allies.
No, I don't think at that time they had yet percieved the danger Phyrexia posed.
Yes, the Skyhunter is following orders, we went over that already remember? And I told you I was talking about the commander? This discussion is never going to progress if you keep backtracking to older issues.
So apparently saving people, protecting and healing aren't compassionate things to do. I'm starting to wonder what exactly you think is a compassionate action?
Sure, people who understand far more than you are braying sheep. I might as well call people who are not obsessed with a single colour dumb rhinoceri, no matter how they like to encourage creativity and storytelling.
Call me whatever you like. It's just making you look bad.
I've heard this sort of opinion before. If these people's understanding surpasses my own so greatly, I have no witnessed any evidence as such. I'm not going to just say "what? this person has posted more on the forum than me? I'd better yield to his infinite wisdom!" quite yet.
To put it in a way you can understand, depends on how well they're written.
Unlike you, most people want characters they can relate with. An idealistic hero type not only is simply not interesting, as it is a cardboard persona rather than a character, but also a wishful fullfillment fantasy, something that only the most egocentric and immature people want.
Sure, people like Wonder Woman and Superman are idealistic heroes written brilliantly, but even them have inner turmoils and struggles that make them interesting. And most of the time they do end up being boring and forgetable because writers fail to pick on their flaws. Why do you think Batman is more popular than either of them combined? Why do you think the Wonder Woman unaired pilot showed her as a psychotic anti-heroine?
Wow, I just had a middle school flashback. As I was reading you post, all I could hear was "That's stupid! You need to like the things I like or you're gay!"
*sigh, kids can be so cruel.
Say what you will, after reading the Song of Ice and Fire books, I very much enjoyed the chapters involving, Eddard Stark, Brienne of Tarth and Ser Barristan Selmy.
1- Psychologists now consider compassion to be derived from love. Essencially, it is an "upgraded" form. Indeed, true compassion is felt when you really understand what is going on, much like love; you don't feel imediate compassion for every single person out there until you see them suffering, much like you don't love every single woman or man out there until you notice someone...interesting. 2- I have seen heroes preserving the villain's life not due to compassion, but due to duty. Batman, for instance, hates the Joker, but he knows that he cannot kill him, otherwise his morality goes down the drain, so he saves him when he can.
Wikipedia'd compassion eh? Well it's good to see I've inspired research into one of the more important things in life.
*sigh and here comes the tired old "It's not compassion, it's duty!" argument. I say again. Tell me exactly what you think a "compassionate action" is. Maybe we can get somwhere with that.
and value the weak to go die in a pit while the strong thrive. doesn't, even when it isn't feeling particularly compassionate. Similarly, both and are associated with flesh, while opts for other materials.
and value evolution, but doesn't. values the status quo. Similarly, and value philosophy. values comformity over philosophy.
Hmm, I really don't see where you are going with this. I see the rather uncalled for name-calling. But I don't see where you're goign with this. You know how each color has two allies and two enemies right?
Okay, red opts for other materials...... I don't see how that is going anywhere.
I see you trying to agrue that white opposes and ideals. That seems wrong. They are allied color pairs. So while methods and motivations may differ, White and green and white and blue should be perfectly capable of coexisting together.
Neat. You're an hypocrite, a liar, an imbecile and close minded. Everything you just said is naught but double standards, since you are doing exactly what you accused others of doing.
Alright, lets be reasonable here. Yes, it's easy to just spout out negative things about a person. I'm gonna have to ask you to justify them however.
Where am I lying? Where is my hypocrysy? Where are you and you cohorts being open-minded?
When I say these things I usually provide justification for those accusations. Can you?
I have to disagree with some posters in this thread about white being the color of status quo. White may be uncreative but the color of status quo is green.
Every color has an ulterior main motive.
Blue seeks for omniscience and black strives for omnipotence, thats pretty straight forward. Red seeks for a world of freedom, where everyone can do as he wishes. Now whites main goal is a peaceful world, a world in where everybody is friends (yes a very mary sue like world). However laws and order are its tools to achieve that goal, don't confuse cause and effect. If the world is peaceful then, and only then, it seeks to maintain the status quo (like all the other colors would as well). Now greens main goal on the other hand IS the status quo. It wants the world to stay the same without interference and watch nature unfurl around. Don't confuse growth with progress or anti-status quo. (Btw the article its not easy being green, really makes that obvious)
Tldr, White is likely to maintain the status quo in a lot of cases, but the color of status quo is green.
Part of white is doing what you believe to be morally, ideally right, even when it is absolutely against the status quo. Seel also rebels, various fanatics, archangel radiant vs false prophet etc.
While I don't really agree with KoS' position I do think people are running way too far with the rigidity of the colour pie. I also think planar chaos cards should be kept out of the discussion.
Yes, White can disrupt the flow of the current status quo, but recall that its ideal is absolute stillness and non-change, its plan. It will balance (as I said) the board state with Wrath of God , Armageddon , and Tempest of Light , if need be. That's the point, in fact, of a card like Balance = everybody gets the same stuff, down to the same level. As a game, this tool is used to prevent your opponents from developing beyond you, or at all, but that's not the point: how a player treats the game or designs a deck matters little to the little stories the cards themselves are supposed to tell.
White's goal is a peacefull utopia where everybody's gets along. Such a world may or may not include change. So says MaRo.
What are you talking about? White cannot damn its soul: it is, by definition, doing the deed that exhonerates it by its actions, and it cannot act outside of its own constraint. Otherwise, it would be Black ... or Red. You're talking a strategy of gaming that involves some people doing things with White cards, which is not the same thing. But pick a card in the modern philosophy othat matches the White "damns its soul to acheive its goal."
Like every colour (and philosophy), it contains contradictions at the edges.
See above. No contradictions, at least if you focus the concept of the color, its embodiment, to an ideal: White = Balance Blue = Progress Black = Power Red = Hedonism Green = Development
White characters often purposely upset the balance. Grand Arbiter Augustin IV for example may be multicolored but his entire purpose and eventual fall stemmed from his desire to destroy the status quo. An interesting motivation for a / character.
Green often desires to stifle development as it could upset the natural balance.
As I recall, green gets draw effects because it fits a "growth" theme. Not because it has any desire to learn. That's also why green gets lifegain as i recall. It's all about getting bigger. Bigger creatures, bigger hands, bigger life.I find it supri
To my understanding, every color can be compassionate but none is compassionate per se, not even red. Compassion is a feeling, which makes red the most likely to be compassionate. But red doesn't have all feelings all the time. Red is not always angry and red is not always compassionate.
However white may be not as compassionate as red but it is definitely a close second imho. This is how i would rank the colors likeliness to be compassionate:
>>>>
Edit: Now that i look at it, its more or less going from least phyrexian to most phyrexian as well. At least when you focus on their "coldheartedness". Neat ^^
Compassion is, perhaps, best quantified by looking at what the word is build from: Latin provides us with com- (white, together, joined) + passus (suffer, endure). It literally means "to suffer along with." Compassion, thus, is a perspective of sympathy for someone suffering. It also bears noting that this is about two, and only two individuals: one who suffers, and one who acknowledges this suffering with a sense of alleviation. Compassion, then, requires the subject to care about individuals and someone other than itself. This leaves White, Green and Black out of the equation: Black only cares about itself, and Green and White have no sense of individuality. Blue and Red, then, are the colors most likely to contain compassion, as Red cares for the individual, and blue encompasses indivudals into the whole. As said above, I agree that it's not just one color's province, but I also do not think it is arrayed as noted above.
>>>>
Note that this doesn't directly reflect the way the color pie works: Green gets "regenerate that" effects, as does White, but the chain presented here progresses both on the axis of "regarding others," while it may be split into "individualism" and "group," which are here represented by imperfect sets: UBR cares about the individual, GW does not; RGW cares about protecting others, B does not, and U sometimes.
Compassion is, perhaps, best quantified by looking at what the word is build from: Latin provides us with com- (white, together, joined) + passus (suffer, endure). It literally means "to suffer along with." Compassion, thus, is a perspective of sympa
I guess i have to go a little more into detail why i ordered it this way.
>>>>
We seem to both agree that red is the most compassionate because it values emotion and therefore is likely to be compassionate.
However thats the reason why i think blue is the least compassionate. Blue is emotionally detached. A good example for a blue character would be sheldon from the big bang theory - an almost autistic character. Black is selfish and therefore very unlikely to be compassionate but at least its able to get the feelings of others. Thats why i see black being a little bit more compassionate than blue.
So far that would leave us with: >>>
Now w/g are a little bit hard to evaluate in terms of who is more/less compassionate. I just saw more white values contributing to compassion as i saw for green. Its more or less duty and morals versus instincts. Both can contribute to compassion.
I guess i have to go a little more into detail why i ordered it this way.:r:>:w:>:g:>:b:>:u:We seem to both agree that red is the most compassionate because it values emotion and therefore is likely to be compassionate. However thats the reason why i
I find it suprising that you people get so focused on this idea that white's only motivation is the preservation of the status quo. That's actually more of a green thing.
I can't speak for everyone's intentions, but from what I'm reading, you're the only one trying to condense the colors down to being about one and only one thing. You accuse everyone else of trying to make White sound one-dimensional, but we're all trying to show that there's more to the color than being "the good guy". You're also the one who's saying Red is about one and only one thing: destruction. All of the colors have nuances and depth. White is about protecting people and upholding justice, but it is also about fascism and sacrificing the few for the many. White is most certainly not always pristine and good; no color is, just as no color is always corrupt and evil. Again I bring up my favorite example of White being something other than good and pure: Nevermore . White is telling its citizens that certain thoughts are off limits. That is not compassionate or kind; it is a dictator imposing her own beliefs on others. Red is more than destruction. Red encompasses all emotions, positive and negative, creative and destructive. Red is about hate but also about love; it is about rage but also about compassion. It's harder to portray the kinder side of Red on cards because Magic is a game about a battle, and you don't stop fighting to hug your opponent. However, just as there is more to life than war, there is more to Red than fire and chaos. So no, I'm not saying any color is one-dimensional, or is only about one thing. I'm trying to show you that there is more to the color pie than "White is good, Red is mean".
I can't speak for everyone's intentions, but from what I'm reading, you're the only one trying to condense the colors down to being about one and only one thing. You accuse everyone else of trying to make White sound one-dimensional, but we're all tr
It HAD other motives, but White doesn't need other aspects. It contains multitudes even within the sense of constraint and order: It commands armies, all of which are homogenous, and thus maintains militaristic superiority. It commands judges in the form of "celestial" beings, who serve the greater good rather than any individual motive. It keeps things that serve its greater purpose around to continue serving its purpose.
So that's your belief then? White used to be complex but now all aspects except enforcer of the status quo have been removed and you think that's awesome? Boy am I glad wizards doesn't have you as one of their flavor guys.
I get the impression you didn't understand what I wrote, by your takeaway message above. I am talking about the historic elements of what effects were in the color based on the cards (this is about the GAME); things have actually been removed or shifted from White in order to reflect a changing design philosophy. Also, please consider reading it from my perspective, and try, just TRY, to think like me, rather than characterize my view based on your own beliefs. It's hard, people tend not to do it, but I think you can.
Don't get me wrong, every color thinks it's right and the one who will win out. This is a system of gaming that pits the colors against one another, and thus the colors don't -- and should not -- represent all attributes of personality. The idea is that the colors are subsets of personality, not the opposite. Personally, White is my favorite color, and why I take this attitude of yours a tad personal. You are trying to appeal to my emotionality because that resonates in you. On my side, White appeals to me because it evokes the sense that I can understand the world, but also that I can apply the rules of the universe to anything in it (my Green informs me to let this bit go, and qualify my Zen Buddhism by just being part of the whole, and enjoying it).
And now you're going to tell me white is your favorite color? I'm not buying it. If I had to guess, you say what you do about white because you love to have a sufficiently disagreeable nemesis for red and black.
This isn't about flavor in the game. This is about the quality of my self-reflective righteousness. I perceive there to be an ultimate truth which others defy or ignore and cause harm. I want to reach out and smack people who disobey, cross the street "improperly," lie, cheat, steal. I think Eldrazi and infect shouldn't be in the game, and punish people in my playgroup accordingly for using cards which WotC handed them because they (in my view) destroy the flow of how the game should be. I have a strict idealism that I think you are a part of regardles sof how you view it yourself. But I'm not an idiot, either. I don't think I'm right, nor do I know I'm right; that's just how the side in me that sees the greater interconnectedness rationalizes my actions. As a relativist, and a Buddhist, I feel that the ultimate expression of truth is, ultimately, a personal thing among all of us. But I still feel that what you do impacts others, and that by correctly moderating one's actions, communities of individuals can become harmonious. White is my Id, Black is my Ego, and Green the Superego. So I am, in order, White, Green and Black. That's if I were to pretend that the philosophies of the color pie had any relation to real life.
It's amazing how wizards can say "Hey Guys! White isn't always good, black isn't always evil and red isn't always destructively violent!" And you guys just take it and run with it yelling "White is evil! Black is good and Red is peacefull!"
So, I'm gonna lay the smackdown on this again. Not once have I said that White is good, or is not good. I wrote, in another post, that White exemplies Lawful on the D&D alignment, but not Lawful Good. Blue is also Lawful. But there's a gap in behavior between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, and White can contain both. Note, however, that you failed to apparently note where I write that White is not a superset of personality traits, but a subset. Magic R&D reflects this, perhaps subconsiously, by noting that everyone, as individuals, has aspects OF the pie in them, and thus everyone is basically :wubrg:. Also, it doesn't matter because we're not Magic cards or D&D characters ... but's fun to complain and debate the topic in relation to how personalities are categorized and boxed up by perceptions.
Yes, White can disrupt the flow of the current status quo, but recall that its ideal is absolute stillness and non-change, its plan. It will balance (as I said) the board state with Wrath of God , Armageddon , and Tempest of Light , if need be. That's the point, in fact, of a card like Balance = everybody gets the same stuff, down to the same level. As a game, this tool is used to prevent your opponents from developing beyond you, or at all, but that's not the point: how a player treats the game or designs a deck matters little to the little stories the cards themselves are supposed to tell.
White's goal is a peacefull utopia where everybody's gets along. Such a world may or may not include change. So says MaRo.
Indeed, White will attain it's goal however it can. MaRo does say the color has a path to "Utopia," but consider this is flavored in the style of White. Utopia is not "Paradise:" Recall that More's concept of Utopia was a place with segregated classes, much as in Indian castes, and slavery, things which we, as "developed" nations disavow. The concept is meant to apply to "a perfect place," but its subjective, and perhaps MaRo doesn't get that. That R&D doesn't understand what "Gothic Horror" means, of course, just affirms that their philosophy is not really hardcore.
Wait, seriously? That's "modern"? Also, where did you get THAT idea in the first place? Ihsan was a knight who got knocked off by Sengir, then forced (as a doomed spirit) to lead his armies.
Like every colour (and philosophy), it contains contradictions at the edges.
See above. No contradictions, at least if you focus the concept of the color, its embodiment, to an ideal: White = Balance Blue = Progress Black = Power Red = Hedonism Green = Development
White characters often purposely upset the balance. Grand Arbiter Augustin IV for example may be multicolored but his entire purpose and eventual fall stemmed from his desire to destroy the status quo. An interesting motivation for a / character.
Yes, but not a monoWhite character. Note that deliberation and the changing of plans means that a singular, concise course is not in plan. Augustin conspired to destroy what he felt was his greatest enemy, Rakdos, but could not because the Guildpact stood in the way, so he arranged the Boros to arrest Szadek (forbidden in the Pact, and thus breaking it) in order to arrange the plan to force Rakdos out and then eliminate him. As he explained, this was the ultimate good. Admittedly, the Guildpact was doing more harm for Ravnica than good. The White side sees this as a unified whole, working together, while the Blue side sees that the system can be improved (White does not see improvement, it sees a goal which it must attain). In this way, Augustin was reasserting the status quo despite the effect of the Guildpact holding sway for *sigh* 10,000 years (Magic has no sense of scale).
Which is why I qualified its ideal as Development. No matter where, it grows. Evolution is not guided, it simply occurs.
Spoiler:
Show
So that's your belief then? White used to be complex but now all aspects except enforcer of the status quo have been removed and you think that's awesome?Boy am I glad wizards doesn't have you as one of their flavor guys.[/quote]
I can't speak for everyone's intentions, but from what I'm reading, you're the only one trying to condense the colors down to being about one and only one thing. You accuse everyone else of trying to make White sound one-dimensional, but we're all trying to show that there's more to the color than being "the good guy". You're also the one who's saying Red is about one and only one thing: destruction.
Are you reading this thread? Are you really reading what I'm saying? Because that's not even in the same ballpark.
My initial point: Sorin's Behavior correctly fits that of a / character.
Points I was dragged into:
1. White and not red is the color that favors compassion.
2. White is not simply a one-dimensional order machine that patrols around the streets repeating "Peace is mandatory, citizen."
[Again I bring up my favorite example of White being something other than good and pure: Nevermore . White is telling its citizens that certain thoughts are off limits. That is not compassionate or kind; it is a dictator imposing her own beliefs on others.
The odd part of that card's flavor text is that it is completely without precedent.
In other words; Nowhere else in the Innistrad storyline or cards does it show even a hint that the church of Avacyn enforces thought restrictions.
I suspect it's just a one-of instance where a flavor writer possibly unfamiliar with the storyline just snuck in his own bias and it was either missed or allowed because it is such a powerfull statement. Though really other than it's uniqueness within the set, I have no baisis for such a belief. So don't take my saying so any farther than what it is.
Most reasonable conclusion I can come to is that perhaps as Avacyn's power fades, some priest somwhere not privy to the truth about Avacyn's dissapearance who believes that perhaps Avacyn's power waxes and wanes according to the strength of the faith of her followers is trying to tell people not to think unfaithfull thoughts or deeds in hopes that Avacyn's power might return. In this case and this case only I would say it's worth a shot. Constitutional or not, if forbidding people from thinking bad things saves the human race or even buys a brief respite from the horrors the faith holds back, it may be worth trying. I'm not saying I would favor such an act. Only that perhaps you should try looking at the card from alternate angles before you condemn it outright.
Red is more than destruction. Red encompasses all emotions, positive and negative, creative and destructive. Red is about hate but also about love; it is about rage but also about compassion. It's harder to portray the kinder side of Red on cards because Magic is a game about a battle, and you don't stop fighting to hug your opponent. However, just as there is more to life than war, there is more to Red than fire and chaos.
Red fans always complain about that. "Red can't show it's nice side in a game focused around warfare!"
Well ya know what? White does . But everybody still frowns on white.
So no, I'm not saying any color is one-dimensional, or is only about one thing. I'm trying to show you that there is more to the color pie than "White is good, Red is mean".
Well then maybe you should say that. Because there is a huge difference between
"White is the color of tyranny. It's is a merciless order robot."
and
"Order is one of white's many tools and in utilizing that tool, it can become oppressive, unfriendly and antagonistic at times even if it's usually a very positively motivated color."
Are you reading this thread? Are you really reading what I'm saying? Because that's not even in the same ballpark.My initial point: Sorin's Behavior correctly fits that of a :B:/:W: character. Points I was dragged into:1. White and not red is the col
I also find it odd that white gets stuck with this "uncreative" label when military tactics are in white's piece of the color pie.
White is uncreative because to be creative means you have to be or think different and white doesn't like anything different. This is where that Izzet versus Azorius thingy comes from, and I'm sure the people at Wizards emphasized this because of personal experience.
Your argument is weakened by the fact that both Feint and Ambush are actually red =p Flanking is both too.
As for military tactics, white characters will likely only use proven ones, not create new ones on the fly. They will apply them tactically, not creatively.
besides, you're just assuming that white throws out removal on everybody who annoys it. Like red would do. A part of the law aspect is creating punishments that fit crimes.
Wow, I just had a middle school flashback. As I was reading you post, all I could hear was "That's stupid! You need to like the things I like or you're gay!"
No it's purely economical. If more people like flawed characters, those will sell better so those will be made more. There are no judgmental values applied. That would be a white thing.
White would say "flawed characters are liked by the majority, so that's the right thing. Anybody who likes otherwise is gay".
Well then maybe you should say that. Because there is a huge difference between
"White is the color of tyranny. It's is a merciless order robot."
and
"Order is one of white's many tools and in utilizing that tool, it can become oppressive, unfriendly and antagonistic at times even if it's usually a very positively motivated color."
Note how the second is about 4 times as long as the first. That's why people say the first when they mean the second. If all our communication had to be done like the way contracts and laws are written, we wouldn't get very far.
(Note also that I've written my replies in the first way too so they can be misunderstood easily as well)
If I ask someone "do you know what time it is?" I'm not asking a yes/no question, I want to know the time. Just a difference in what I say and what I mean.
Again, there's a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about those two.
White is uncreative because to be creative means you have to be or think different and white doesn't like anything different. This is where that Izzet versus Azorius thingy comes from, and I'm sure the people at Wizards emphasized this because of per
I get the impression you didn't understand what I wrote, by your takeaway message above. I am talking about the historic elements of what effects were in the color based on the cards (this is about the GAME); things have actually been removed or shifted from White in order to reflect a changing design philosophy. Also, please consider reading it from my perspective, and try, just TRY, to think like me, rather than characterize my view based on your own beliefs. It's hard, people tend not to do it, but I think you can.
Alright, fine, you've got me trying to grasp you're motives and thoughts here.....
So you say you like that white implies that you can understand existence and classify, organize and divide it into catagories and apply universal rules? Am I getting anywhere close? That seems rather vague, perhaps you can further expand on this subject? Sounds rather to me.
This isn't about flavor in the game. This is about the quality of my self-reflective righteousness. I perceive there to be an ultimate truth which others defy or ignore and cause harm. I want to reach out and smack people who disobey, cross the street "improperly," lie, cheat, steal. I think Eldrazi and infect shouldn't be in the game, and punish people in my playgroup accordingly for using cards which WotC handed them because they (in my view) destroy the flow of how the game should be. I have a strict idealism that I think you are a part of regardles sof how you view it yourself. But I'm not an idiot, either. I don't think I'm right, nor do I know I'm right; that's just how the side in me that sees the greater interconnectedness rationalizes my actions. As a relativist, and a Buddhist, I feel that the ultimate expression of truth is, ultimately, a personal thing among all of us. But I still feel that what you do impacts others, and that by correctly moderating one's actions, communities of individuals can become harmonious. White is my Id, Black is my Ego, and Green the Superego. So I am, in order, White, Green and Black. That's if I were to pretend that the philosophies of the color pie had any relation to real life.
What a coincidence. I also hate Eldrazi and Infect. How do you "punish" those who use them?
So, I'm gonna lay the smackdown on this again. Not once have I said that White is good, or is not good. I wrote, in another post, that White exemplies Lawful on the D&D alignment, but not Lawful Good. Blue is also Lawful. But there's a gap in behavior between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, and White can contain both. Note, however, that you failed to apparently note where I write that White is not a superset of personality traits, but a subset. Magic R&D reflects this, perhaps subconsiously, by noting that everyone, as individuals, has aspects OF the pie in them, and thus everyone is basically :wubrg:. Also, it doesn't matter because we're not Magic cards or D&D characters ... but's fun to complain and debate the topic in relation to how personalities are categorized and boxed up by perceptions.
I disagree. I would say that White is Lawfull Good at it's core.
Though I treat the color in a similar way as religions in D&D. So although white be Lawfull and Good, It includes a variety of people with a variety of alignments.
I would say that most white aligned antagonists in MTG are probably Lawfull Neutral and not Lawfull Evil. They aren't doing evil deeds for personal gains or because they like inflicting harsh laws upon a society or out of cruelty or spite. It's simply the law of the land. or they were following orders. Or they believed it was the only option. Or some other well meaning but flawed belief.
Lawfull Evil characters are more at home in and in my opinion.
I'd also like to point out that I know a number of people who are very obviously mono colored or close to it. At least three or four friends and/or aquaintances who very heavily fall under a single color.
I do love the artwork for Knight of the Skyward eye. I only wish the card were more playable and also that the Knight himself was not inadverantly a pawn of the main antagonist.
You do accept Lionheart Maverick as a valid point though. that's progress at least.
Indeed, White will attain it's goal however it can. MaRo does say the color has a path to "Utopia," but consider this is flavored in the style of White. Utopia is not "Paradise:" Recall that More's concept of Utopia was a place with segregated classes, much as in Indian castes, and slavery, things which we, as "developed" nations disavow. The concept is meant to apply to "a perfect place," but its subjective, and perhaps MaRo doesn't get that. That R&D doesn't understand what "Gothic Horror" means, of course, just affirms that their philosophy is not really hardcore.
I don't think MaRo means anyone's specific interpretation of the word Utopia but simply the generally understood meaning. A Perfect world. I also disagree with your statement that white will do anything to achieve it's goal. The limits a white character will accept in order to achieve this goal are extremely subjective and I think that a white aligned character who will literally stop at nothing is exceedingly rare.
Wait, seriously? That's "modern"? Also, where did you get THAT idea in the first place? Ihsan was a knight who got knocked off by Sengir, then forced (as a doomed spirit) to lead his armies.
You ever look into the actions that led to Ihsan's fall? The Baron was quickly advancing on all sides. Ihsan, a Paladin of Serra, decided that if he pretended to join Sengir, that he could trick the baron into making him a vampire and would then have the power to defeat Baron Sengir himself. Sengir, guessed Ihsan's motives however and transformed him into a shade instead.
I don't agree with Ihsan. I believe that a good person in a fantasy setting should never resort to evil or unholy magics. Such an act only shows a lack of confidence in the power of good. But the fact remains that Ihsan was a white aligned character who sought out perdition with the intent of saving everyone by the act.
Yes, but not a monoWhite character. Note that deliberation and the changing of plans means that a singular, concise course is not in plan. Augustin conspired to destroy what he felt was his greatest enemy, Rakdos, but could not because the Guildpact stood in the way, so he arranged the Boros to arrest Szadek (forbidden in the Pact, and thus breaking it) in order to arrange the plan to force Rakdos out and then eliminate him. As he explained, this was the ultimate good. Admittedly, the Guildpact was doing more harm for Ravnica than good. The White side sees this as a unified whole, working together, while the Blue side sees that the system can be improved (White does not see improvement, it sees a goal which it must attain). In this way, Augustin was reasserting the status quo despite the effect of the Guildpact holding sway for *sigh* 10,000 years (Magic has no sense of scale).
I don't recall Augustin having any specific aims at Rakdos himself. He did not like that evil guilds like the Rakdos and Dimir were allowed by the guildpact to not be answerable for so many crimes. To quote him from the book "The guildpact is order that preserves chaos." It is a status quo that keeps all guilds in balance. Augustin desired to destroy the status quo in order to bring about a time of chaos in which he could defeat the guilds he viewed as evil.
It's true though he's not mono-white and so I would consider this only "circumstantial" evidence against your "white = status quo" declaration.
Meh, I like that the status quo type ideaology is a green thing. Green is almost never a villain. Why? Because it never really stands for anything.
I really don't like green getting creature removal like it has been in recent expansions. Though I agree that some of those things do feel quite green and naturalize doesn't. I only really see green as flavorwise being able to destroy artifacts. That's such a flavorfull thing for green to oppose. And so easy to explain any green creature accomplishing. Just step on it!
However I feel that "Sharing" is more of a white thing. It just feels like somthing that sombody who likes equality and cooperation would love. And it creates a duality with black.
Black takes. White gives. I like it!
But whatever, green and white are ally colors so they can share some mechanics or do things the other might appreciate.
White is uncreative because to be creative means you have to be or think different and white doesn't like anything different. This is where that Izzet versus Azorius thingy comes from, and I'm sure the people at Wizards emphasized this because of personal experience.
I'd disagree. White generally is fine with "differences." It's true you see a random white (more commonly /:W character here and there who comments on his appreciation of uniformity but nothing so common and overwhelming to justify declaring this one of white's main attributes.
As to the Azorius and the Izzet, I think the flavor text of mindmoil makes a perfect example of the friction between the two organizations.
"My criticism of the Izzet is that their impulse for learning seems too much like impulse and too little like learning."
—Trigori, Azorius senator
That being said, the two guilds were not at war. The Izzet worked their mechaniations legally and with approval of the Azorius.
Your argument is weakened by the fact that both Feint and Ambush are actually red =p Flanking is both too.
BAhahahaha, I think you've caught me there. Though I suppose I could reply that this at least show that red and white exhibit comparable levels of military creativity.
Or take the path of a few here and just say "OMG old cards don't count!" But I think I'll stick with my first answer.
As for military tactics, white characters will likely only use proven ones, not create new ones on the fly. They will apply them tactically, not creatively.
You can't fight a war using only tried and true methods. Not against an equal enemy force at least. Suprise is of utmost importance in battle. I believe Sun Tsu said somthing along the lines of "Never do anything the enemy expects."
Where you are weak, appear strong. Where you are strong, appear weak. Blah blah blah.
No it's purely economical. If more people like flawed characters, those will sell better so those will be made more. There are no judgmental values applied. That would be a white thing.
White would say "flawed characters are liked by the majority, so that's the right thing. Anybody who likes otherwise is gay".
See now you're just trolling. You can't really believe that? You're just trying to get an angry reaction from me. Read it for yourself, it's swimming in judgments.
Actually yes, both sides are quite misunderstanding each other's points. This happened in earlier threads too.
It seems like people overexaggerate their beliefs reguarding white just because they think my beliefs are much more extreme than they are. it's like.
"Hey this guy thinks white is incapable of evil. I must pretend white is incapable of good because you don't come to understandings through compromise only buy denouncing his view as forcefully as possible."
Alright, fine, you've got me trying to grasp you're motives and thoughts here.....So you say you like that white implies that you can understand existence and classify, organize and divide it into catagories and apply universal rules? Am I getting an
I get the impression you didn't understand what I wrote, by your takeaway message above. I am talking about the historic elements of what effects were in the color based on the cards (this is about the GAME); things have actually been removed or shifted from White in order to reflect a changing design philosophy. Also, please consider reading it from my perspective, and try, just TRY, to think like me, rather than characterize my view based on your own beliefs. It's hard, people tend not to do it, but I think you can.
Alright, fine, you've got me trying to grasp you're motives and thoughts here..... So you say you like that white implies that you can understand existence and classify, organize and divide it into catagories and apply universal rules? Am I getting anywhere close? That seems rather vague, perhaps you can further expand on this subject? Sounds rather to me.
Blue wants to know, and is more interested in the process than in the destination. White is more interested in getting to the destination than the process. Beleive it or not, this allows White the "ends justify the means" mentality that in extreme cases results in fanaticism. In the long view, White sets its goal, and everything is about acheiving this; Blue is about methodology, which is one way it tweaks and redesigns and alters things on its journey. Blue thinks everything is a blank slate, and can be altered to suit whatever is necessary, so eschews the idea of the inate nature (what it rejects about Green); White, on the other hand, shares with Green the concept of the indelible, which is perceives as an absolute truth. In this way, I think there is an absolute truth, even if I don't know what it is. Yes, investigation, as a scientist, imparts a Blue spin on this. But where White wins out is the absolute application of Law to the issue. Everyone should be doing it this way, because it is right. I cannot qualify this feeling, so I leave it out of discussions, but it makes me pretty Lawful Good.
This isn't about flavor in the game. This is about the quality of my self-reflective righteousness. I perceive there to be an ultimate truth which others defy or ignore and cause harm. I want to reach out and smack people who disobey, cross the street "improperly," lie, cheat, steal. I think Eldrazi and infect shouldn't be in the game, and punish people in my playgroup accordingly for using cards which WotC handed them because they (in my view) destroy the flow of how the game should be. I have a strict idealism that I think you are a part of regardles sof how you view it yourself. But I'm not an idiot, either. I don't think I'm right, nor do I know I'm right; that's just how the side in me that sees the greater interconnectedness rationalizes my actions. As a relativist, and a Buddhist, I feel that the ultimate expression of truth is, ultimately, a personal thing among all of us. But I still feel that what you do impacts others, and that by correctly moderating one's actions, communities of individuals can become harmonious. White is my Id, Black is my Ego, and Green the Superego. So I am, in order, White, Green and Black. That's if I were to pretend that the philosophies of the color pie had any relation to real life.
What a coincidence. I also hate Eldrazi and Infect. How do you "punish" those who use them?
I play online. So I block players. I try to make sure I don't get into games with them, and I make sure they don't get into games with me.
So, I'm gonna lay the smackdown on this again. Not once have I said that White is good, or is not good. I wrote, in another post, that White exemplies Lawful on the D&D alignment, but not Lawful Good. Blue is also Lawful. But there's a gap in behavior between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, and White can contain both. Note, however, that you failed to apparently note where I write that White is not a superset of personality traits, but a subset. Magic R&D reflects this, perhaps subconsiously, by noting that everyone, as individuals, has aspects OF the pie in them, and thus everyone is basically :wubrg:. Also, it doesn't matter because we're not Magic cards or D&D characters ... but's fun to complain and debate the topic in relation to how personalities are categorized and boxed up by perceptions.
I disagree. I would say that White is Lawfull Good at it's core.
And that's where this discussion strays. You see, I think of the colors as two axes of relation in the wheel, not slices out of a circle, and R&D tends to agree with this. The radius is a gradient of intensity, or extremism, from the harder core to the softer edges. The arc is the influence of alternate ideals. At the edges of the arc, the color blends with others, and in this way can lose aspects of its identity, and at the same time as gain others. Some effects only tend to appear at the edges, effects that tend to come in as two-color abilities only (such as Vindicate -- White alone gets Saltblast , Black alone gets Befoul ). At its core, White is extreme, hardcore, Lawful Godo in the sense of Lawful Stupid. It beleives only in its own Law, does not compromise, and is absolute without reason. At its soft periphery, it can accept qualities of others as workable in its system, capable of being reasoned with, compromising and encompassing, and is thus Lawful Neutral. Each of these is about defining the "greater good," and for the sake of community, White feels that while you are totally, utterly wrong, it's okay with that as long as you don't step outside the Rules.
I would say that most white aligned antagonists in MTG are probably Lawfull Neutral and not Lawfull Evil. They aren't doing evil deeds for personal gains or because they like inflicting harsh laws upon a society or out of cruelty or spite. It's simply the law of the land. or they were following orders. Or they believed it was the only option. Or some other well meaning but flawed belief.
I think Konda was Lawful Neutral, but there's a side that got pretty "evil". Don't get me wrong, but he was doing some pretty bad stuff, but it was about ignorance of the minutiae that the whole Kamigawa situation went heads up. Konda was trying to preserve his city state and, on the heels of people like Alexander the Great and Jenghiz Khaan, saw value in not just relinguishing his state to heirs who would tear it apart; he only reasoned that the state existed as it was with him at the helm, and would not leave it. He still held himself to that law, save where he needed to break his promises and conspire with corrupt and nonideal people to steal O-Kagachi's child. This theft, abduction, and forced servitude of the kami should have been foreseen, and when it went to Hell, he ignored the situation and just made it worse, effectively abandoning the city state for his own ideal. He got a bit selfish there. That's what makes it dip its toe into Evil.
Indeed, White will attain it's goal however it can. MaRo does say the color has a path to "Utopia," but consider this is flavored in the style of White. Utopia is not "Paradise:" Recall that More's concept of Utopia was a place with segregated classes, much as in Indian castes, and slavery, things which we, as "developed" nations disavow. The concept is meant to apply to "a perfect place," but its subjective, and perhaps MaRo doesn't get that. That R&D doesn't understand what "Gothic Horror" means, of course, just affirms that their philosophy is not really hardcore.
I don't think MaRo means anyone's specific interpretation of the word Utopia but simply the generally understood meaning. A Perfect world. I also disagree with your statement that white will do anything to achieve it's goal. The limits a white character will accept in order to achieve this goal are extremely subjective and I think that a white aligned character who will literally stop at nothing is exceedingly rare.
The problem is in the definition, then. The word "utopia" is not synonymous in literature with the term "eden," which si what most people are talking about. I will frankly prefer an imperfect paradise with hidden and secret things. Oh, and lots of rain and cloudcover.
Wait, seriously? That's "modern"? Also, where did you get THAT idea in the first place? Ihsan was a knight who got knocked off by Sengir, then forced (as a doomed spirit) to lead his armies.
You ever look into the actions that led to Ihsan's fall? The Baron was quickly advancing on all sides. Ihsan, a Paladin of Serra, decided that if he pretended to join Sengir, that he could trick the baron into making him a vampire and would then have the power to defeat Baron Sengir himself. Sengir, guessed Ihsan's motives however and transformed him into a shade instead. I don't agree with Ihsan. I believe that a good person in a fantasy setting should never resort to evil or unholy magics. Such an act only shows a lack of confidence in the power of good. But the fact remains that Ihsan was a white aligned character who sought out perdition with the intent of saving everyone by the act.
If so, Ihsan did not seek perdition: He sought to change his nature to gain power to defeat an Evil. Ihsan himself did not become evil, he was merely a pawn. There was no selling of the soul, Faust-style, involved.
Yes, but not a monoWhite character. Note that deliberation and the changing of plans means that a singular, concise course is not in plan. Augustin conspired to destroy what he felt was his greatest enemy, Rakdos, but could not because the Guildpact stood in the way, so he arranged the Boros to arrest Szadek (forbidden in the Pact, and thus breaking it) in order to arrange the plan to force Rakdos out and then eliminate him. As he explained, this was the ultimate good. Admittedly, the Guildpact was doing more harm for Ravnica than good. The White side sees this as a unified whole, working together, while the Blue side sees that the system can be improved (White does not see improvement, it sees a goal which it must attain). In this way, Augustin was reasserting the status quo despite the effect of the Guildpact holding sway for *sigh* 10,000 years (Magic has no sense of scale).
I don't recall Augustin having any specific aims at Rakdos himself. He did not like that evil guilds like the Rakdos and Dimir were allowed by the guildpact to not be answerable for so many crimes. To quote him from the book "The guildpact is order that preserves chaos." It is a status quo that keeps all guilds in balance. Augustin desired to destroy the status quo in order to bring about a time of chaos in which he could defeat the guilds he viewed as evil. It's true though he's not mono-white and so I would consider this only "circumstantial" evidence against your "white = status quo" declaration.
That's the point: the way things were going it was always chaos: this is not status quo in the sense that White seeks to attain. It cannot be the ideal or perfect state, and thus is never the goal. Augustin felt the world would be better with Szadek as a slave and Rakdos destroyed. With Momir on his side and Nivvy gone, the Boros angels banished, and the Orzhov playing their games with the populace, there was little to really stop him from upending the Guildpact and reasserting the previous condition. But, one can say that the status quo is the state you are in right now, in which case Augustin was changing the state from one to another, but still, the same.
Meh, I like that the status quo type ideaology is a green thing. Green is almost never a villain. Why? Because it never really stands for anything.
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. In stories, for example, you set a tone and a pace, vary it, then bring the pace back to the original. This is called restoring the status quo, and is what Augustin was doing by destroying the Guildpact. Green does not want to be whatever it was before, it wants to be, and continue being, despite and often endorsing the changes that occur. For it, an increasing tempo or a stronger rhythm is just fine, even if its an eternal crescendo.
Except Black also gives ... pain. Torment. Blue takes ... your lands, your creatures, sometimes your card draw. Black is into whatever pops its cork today. Black is about satisfying its desires, by any means. It really is the color of "ends justify the means," but it just so happens to share this with White. You see, I like a good clean symmetry between the two colors, just as many other enemy pairs have clean symmetries and strong structure in their respective slices of the pie.
Spoiler:
Show
Alright, fine, you've got me trying to grasp you're motives and thoughts here.....So you say you like that white implies that you can understand existence and classify, organize and divide it into catagories and apply universal r
I'd disagree. White generally is fine with "differences." It's true you see a random white (more commonly /:W character here and there who comments on his appreciation of uniformity but nothing so common and overwhelming to justify declaring this one of white's main attributes.
As lot of these miscommunications are a "cow is an animal, animal isn't a cow" thing. It's that if someone is averse to differences, that comes from his side, not that all aligned characters are like that.
It's the difference between argueing "this isn't white" and "white isn't this". And this argument has gone on for so long because people are arguing on different levels.
See now you're just trolling. You can't really believe that? You're just trying to get an angry reaction from me. Read it for yourself, it's swimming in judgments.
I honestly don't see what you mean with judgments.
As lot of these miscommunications are a "cow is an animal, animal isn't a cow" thing. It's that if someone is averse to differences, that comes from his :W: side, not that all :W: aligned characters are like that. It's the difference between argueing
Meh, I like that the status quo type ideaology is a green thing. Green is almost never a villain. Why? Because it never really stands for anything.
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. In stories, for example, you set a tone and a pace, vary it, then bring the pace back to the original. This is called restoring the status quo, and is what Augustin was doing by destroying the Guildpact. Green does not want to be whatever it was before, it wants to be, and continue being, despite and often endorsing the changes that occur. For it, an increasing tempo or a stronger rhythm is just fine, even if its an eternal crescendo.
- From MaRo's Its not easy being green: "While every other color fights to change the world, green battles to keep it the same." =Status Quo
- From MaRo's Group Think ( Selesnya Guild Article): "Green/white's greatest weakness is its inability to innovate. As its members are always working towards the same goal, there is no diversity of thought or experience. There are significant barriers to any kind of change and as such green/white evolves very slowly. Much slower than the other nine guilds."
This is where white agrees to green, they both like the status quo. But to emphasize on the fact that it is mainly green, to show what happens when you combine white with its other ally, blue (from MaRo's Slow and Steady, ) :
"Philosophically, the largest overlap between the two colors stems from a similar motivation. Both colors want to improve the world. White does this in its quest to promote peace, while Blue does it out of its interest in reaching perfection."
So when you combine white with green you get a focus on the status quo, when you combine white with blue you get a focus on progress -> Green is status quo, white is only partly status quo.
- From mtgsalvation's article about Red: "while Red is highly dynamic and constantly changing, Green will actively seek to prevent change from happening, and this causes the most strife between the two colors." = green is status quo
I could go on with this but i think its not needed. There are numerous examples that show that green out of all colors, values status quo the most. I don't mean to contradict you but i seriously don't think this is debatable. Green is status quo by definition, with its strife to prevent change from happening as one of its core values.
I can see where you are coming from but you confuse growth with change. Progress is change but growth simply means more of everything that already exists.
Do you agree?
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. In stories, fo
Meh, I like that the status quo type ideaology is a green thing. Green is almost never a villain. Why? Because it never really stands for anything.
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. In stories, for example, you set a tone and a pace, vary it, then bring the pace back to the original. This is called restoring the status quo, and is what Augustin was doing by destroying the Guildpact. Green does not want to be whatever it was before, it wants to be, and continue being, despite and often endorsing the changes that occur. For it, an increasing tempo or a stronger rhythm is just fine, even if its an eternal crescendo.
- From MaRo's Its not easy being green: "While every other color fights to change the world, green battles to keep it the same." =Status Quo
- From MaRo's Group Think ( Selesnya Guild Article): "Green/white's greatest weakness is its inability to innovate. As its members are always working towards the same goal, there is no diversity of thought or experience. There are significant barriers to any kind of change and as such green/white evolves very slowly. Much slower than the other nine guilds."
This is where white agrees to green, they both like the status quo. But to emphasize on the fact that it is mainly green, to show what happens when you combine white with its other ally, blue (from MaRo's Slow and Steady, ) :
"Philosophically, the largest overlap between the two colors stems from a similar motivation. Both colors want to improve the world. White does this in its quest to promote peace, while Blue does it out of its interest in reaching perfection."
So when you combine white with green you get a focus on the status quo, when you combine white with blue you get a focus on progress -> Green is status quo, white is only partly status quo.
- From mtgsalvation's article about Red: "while Red is highly dynamic and constantly changing, Green will actively seek to prevent change from happening, and this causes the most strife between the two colors." = green is status quo
I could go on with this but i think its not needed. There are numerous examples that show that green out of all colors, values status quo the most. I don't mean to contradict you but i seriously don't think this is debatable. Green is status quo by definition, with its strife to prevent change from happening as one of its core values.
I can see where you are coming from but you confuse growth with change. Progress is change but growth simply means more of everything that already exists.
Do you agree?
In a word? No. And I think I voiced my opinion on the boards at the time those articles were printed.
Green cares for evolution. The thing about Green's place in the world is about natural selection: Those things surviving that ought to survive. Fitness is not a static quality, but a measure of how compatible you are with your environment, and how well you can alter yourself or your environment to suit the other. Because of this, Green must embody change. It doesn't guide it, though, and can't direct a process toward any goal, because it's not about end results. That's where MaRo gets the idea, in his flawed logic, that having no eventual goal means Green is about the status quo. Green is not trying to change anything, it just is changing. Otherwise, Green would not promote growth of various sorts, land development, creatures that grow, etc.
MaRo's writings contain this contradiction because, I think, he doesn't fully understand where the nuance comes in that when Green is a force for change without direction, it doesn't stand for the opposite of change for a purpose (keeping things the same, i.e., status quo).
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. In stories, fo
I would say that White is Lawfull Good at it's core.
I think this is the point from which all disagreements have stemmed. The D&D definitions of Good and Evil are "Selfless" and "Selfish" respectively. By those definitions, you are right. White is Good. Where the D&D definitions break down is the assumption that Good (read: selfless) people cannot commit evil (read: harms others; not the D&D definition here) acts. White usually does the right thing and genuinely helps its people, but occasionally, when taken to the extreme, it oversteps a boundary and starts causing harm. For example, White may decide to outlaw sports, as they promote violence and take away people from the workforce, harming the productivity of the state. This is wholly selflessly motivated, and thus is White and fits the D&D definition of Good, but I'd argue that the citizens would most assuredly not be happy with this. Thus I'd consider it an evil act. There are stronger examples, but they've been raised before and rejected, so I'm trying a little more mellow of an example.
It seems like people overexaggerate their beliefs reguarding white just because they think my beliefs are much more extreme than they are. it's like.
"Hey this guy thinks white is incapable of evil. I must pretend white is incapable of good because you don't come to understandings through compromise only buy denouncing his view as forcefully as possible."
I think you're reading what others here are saying differently than intended. I don't see anyone saying White is incapable of being good. It very clearly is. Innistrad is the perfect example of that. What everyone is saying is that White is also capable of doing evil. At least that's how I'm reading it. You may be right and I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. But I assure you, at least my stance is that "White is generally good, but has the capacity for evil when taken to the extreme."
I don't. Green is about change, and being constant in this. Mutatis mutandis and all that. "Status quo" means the way something is before it becomes changed, and the phrase is typically used to refer to the pattern that doesn't differ. ... Green cares for evolution. The thing about Green's place in the world is about natural selection: Those things surviving that ought to survive. Fitness is not a static quality, but a measure of how compatible you are with your environment, and how well you can alter yourself or your environment to suit the other. Because of this, Green must embody change. It doesn't guide it, though, and can't direct a process toward any goal, because it's not about end results. That's where MaRo gets the idea, in his flawed logic, that having no eventual goal means Green is about the status quo. Green is not trying to change anything, it just is changing. Otherwise, Green would not promote growth of various sorts, land development, creatures that grow, etc.
I think Green can still be the color of the status quo AND the color of evolution and growth. Green supports the status quo of the natural order. Evolution and change are a part of that natural order. So, as contradictory as it sounds, I'd say that Green supports a status quo that contains change and evolution as a part of itself. Evolution is natural change, so Green supports it. Mechanization is artificial change, so Green does not see it as part of the status quo and opposes it.
I think this is the point from which all disagreements have stemmed. The D&D definitions of Good and Evil are "Selfless" and "Selfish" respectively. By those definitions, you are right. White is Good. Where the D&D definitions break down is the assum
is emotions, 
is morality; the two easily interchange and this is why we have so many 
or 
, 
is a mechanical excuse; they're not the least bit 
Wizards say they have a more complex version of this, and a chart where mechanics fall in regards to the wheel, but this will do. Note where Red has "emotional action" and "impulse" while White has "law" and "uncreative." White is not about compassion: Compassion equals love, and all White "loves" is Order and constraint; Red is opposed to this because it is impaired by restriction, and desires -- nay craves -- not being tethered; Red cares, but this is very hard to encapsulate on the color's chart with its mechanics, while white has a mechanic of "preservation". Despite this, the lifegain/preservation aspect of White has been shifting somewhat to Green which, oddly enough, shares a border with Red.
>
) :
