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.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
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 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".
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.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
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."
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.
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."
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.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
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.
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.
>
>
>
>
>
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.
) :