Have some white wine . (And not GM_Champion saying how white is supposed to be the one color that is always good and blah blah blah.)!
Okay, I have to point out here that despite Wizard's arguments to the contrary, White does tend to be the 'good guys' all the time. I don't really count Elesh Norn because everybody/thing in that set was evil. Plus, as an added bonus, earlier that block White was busy working with Red to represent the main colors of the Good Guys while Black & Green were representing Bad Guys.
I also would submit Akroma as an example to prove my point: Despite initially not really being a Good Guy, she has since been turned into just another example of Angelic Power similar to Avacyn. Akroma's Memorial and Sword of Vengeance don't really say much about the fact that she wasn't exactly a moral paragon. Ask any player who isn't very familiar with Magic storyline from Onslaught Block and they'll probably tell you Akroma was the hero. Kamahl isn't anywhere near as well known.
Which leaves us once again with Kamigawa, that wonderful go-to example of white evil and black good .
Yeah, White is often the good guy and Black is often the bad guy, but that's mostly a consequence of how they see the world. Even the most twisted mono-White character can be said to care about others. They might express that care in a horrible fashion (like Elesh Norn does) or only care in the abstract sense (like how Akroma was willing to throw away thousands of lives in her war against Phage), but White's DEFINING TRAIT is "giving a damn."
Black, on the other hand, has difficulty giving a damn. Black's selfish and out to serve its own interests, and while Black doesn't HAVE to be evil to do so (and in fact is likely to not commit 'evil' actions unless it can see some benefit from doing so) it often is because one of Black's most defining traits is 'ambition', which is a heady mistress. Those Black characters that have ended up being heroic are the ones who have engaged in enlightened self-interest (Tesya, Sorin).
The most nonwhite card from back then is maybe Angry Mob . I say nonwhite instead of evil because, although they're angry, (a concept that conflicts order) they're likely trying to protect themselves and their loved ones. Even so, one out a few thousand isn't bad. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm sure it wasn't intentional. In all honesty, he might look back at that design today and say, "Maybe that should have been red-white, but I concentrated the design based on the fact that they're seeking to protect themselves from evil.", a very understandable and justified reason.
Whereas in the other case, we have someone (or a small group of) who are purposely twisting the principals out of sheer spite; or more politically correct, out of a lack in understanding of the intended implementations, of each color, their contradictory elements, and all other relative information; of which knowing and honoring these intended implementations would have prevented the person (or small group of) from misunderstanding the subject in such a way as to apply their own ideals unrightfully. More simply put, maybe Mr. Garfield should have sat down peacefully with each person and explained to them every aspect and detail (of every color and their combinations) so that they might understand the their boundaries. Of course, this doesn't cover the case in which a person knows the intended, but changes it purposely anyways.
And no one wants to talk about Magic artists? Really?! No one sees the Highway Robber art differently now? "Tonight madam, it's what—what, in the...". No one wants to talk about how great a painter Mrs. Nielson is?
Yeah, White is often the good guy and Black is often the bad guy, but that's mostly a consequence of how they see the world. Even the most twisted mono-White character can be said to care about others. They might express that care in a horrible fashion (like Elesh Norn does) or only care in the abstract sense (like how Akroma was willing to throw away thousands of lives in her war against Phage), but White's DEFINING TRAIT is "giving a damn."
Black, on the other hand, has difficulty giving a damn. Black's selfish and out to serve its own interests, and while Black doesn't HAVE to be evil to do so (and in fact is likely to not commit 'evil' actions unless it can see some benefit from doing so) it often is because one of Black's most defining traits is 'ambition', which is a heady mistress. Those Black characters that have ended up being heroic are the ones who have engaged in enlightened self-interest (Tesya, Sorin).
Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? I'm not saying White should or shouldn't be good and Black should or shouldn't be evil. I'm just saying it's silly for Wizards to insist White != Good and Black != Evil when they have used that as easy shorthand for years. Once again: Lorwyn Elves were black and evil, Shadowmoor elves were white and good. Given that the mechanics and story are separate (They could have had good elves in RedGreen if the wanted), it seems a bit odd that they insist on pushing the whole issue.
The most nonwhite card from back then is maybe Angry Mob . I say nonwhite instead of evil because, although they're angry, (a concept that conflicts order) they're likely trying to protect themselves and their loved ones. Even so, one out a few thousand isn't bad. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm sure it wasn't intentional. In all honesty, he might look back at that design today and say, "Maybe that should have been red-white, but I concentrated the design based on the fact that they're seeking to protect themselves from evil.", a very understandable and justified reason.
Whereas in the other case, we have someone (or a small group of) who are purposely twisting the principals out of sheer spite; or more politically correct, out of a lack in understanding of the intended implementations, of each color, their contradictory elements, and all other relative information; of which knowing and honoring these intended implementations would have prevented the person (or small group of) from misunderstanding the subject in such a way as to apply their own ideals unrightfully. More simply put, maybe Mr. Garfield should have sat down peacefully with each person and explained to them every aspect and detail (of every color and their combinations) so that they might understand the their boundaries. Of course, this doesn't cover the case in which a person knows the intended, but changes it purposely anyways.
And no one wants to talk about Magic artists? Really?! No one sees the Highway Robber art differently now? "Tonight madam, it's what—what, in the...". No one wants to talk about how great a painter Mrs. Nielson is?
Okay
I'm sure people would be fine talking about magic artists if that's what this thread was about. Or if you were talking about that instead of literally everything else you've said in this thread thus far.
Hey, Champion - Richard Garfield wrote and designed Akroma . Yes, THAT Akroma. You know. The evil one, that hates everyone but especially Phage?
Additionally, plenty of the cards you linked (but especially Divine Offering ) also illustrate White's bad side; White encourages conformity, fails to value freedom of will, and is willing to sacrifice individuals callously in order to preserve the whole.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I say this: if Richard Garfield is ON. FREAKING. RECORD. As saying that White was not meant to be 'good', then why shouldn't we trust his word? Hrm?
Richard Garfield also had absolutely nothing to with either Fourth Edition or Mirage. He designed Alpha and Arabian Nights and wasn't involved in Magic design again until Tempest.
So what was in the sets that Garfield did actually design? This and this . Yeah, causing the apocalypse, epitome of goodness. Also this thing .
Hey, Champion - Richard Garfield wrote and designed Akroma . Yes, THAT Akroma. You know. The evil one, that hates everyone but especially Phage?
Additionally, plenty of the cards you linked (but especially Divine Offering ) also illustrate White's bad side; White encourages conformity, fails to value freedom of will, and is willing to sacrifice individuals callously in order to preserve the whole.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I say this: if Richard Garfield is ON. FREAKING. RECORD. As saying that White was not meant to be 'good', then why shouldn't we trust his word? Hrm?
I believe the GM reason was Richard Garfield being a master trickster or some such. Now I gotta find that quote.
First of all, Garfield sees himself as blue. Ever notice the resemblance between him and Ertai, Wizard Adept ? He's a magician, and illusionist, so he might just be playing along when he says something. As a rule of thumb in this world, you should figure out the truth for yourself, don't rely on others to tell you. You'll likely get scammed and deceived. Once you figure out the truth about something, you might be able to draw it out of someone who wants to embrace the truth, but there are always conflict in which a person was out to deceive you from the start (for example, a jealous lover who wants you for themselves). If you just take a look at the evidence, it's there to prove white was intended as being the "holy" color, representing the divinity of a higher, and totally beneficent entity.
Whatever it has degenerated into these days, I'm sorry to say, doesn't reflect what the founding principals were. As I've said, certain people have taken over the game and starting building it according to what they think is right and wrong, and not what Garfield envisioned in the genesis. It was another theory of mine that Garfield and Rosewater have since for many years fought over Magic: the Gathering as two main characters in the cartoon Heavy Metal fight over the Locknar ( further supporting my theory that the Locknar was symbolic of the Mirari, which was the set symbol of Odyssey). I've done a lot of comprehensive research into things Jessica_Morgan, there is always more to things then meets the eye.
Which is why I would like to point out the "transform" mechanic before I end this. Some people might appear to be nice, fun-loving people by day, but by night, they transform into evil, violent, or hateful entities. If you're familiar with the term "face-value", this is a good way to explain it. Don't take a person's face-value for full-value. For example, if you are a girl, I'm sure there is a kind, passionate lover side to you. Women by nature live for love. It's what they eat, sleep, and breath. To find true love is the meaning of life to a girl. I've got enough experience with girls to know this is true. That's how I know, if you are a girl, you're not this mean at heart, this is just one side of you, the side I wish I didn't have to see.
Stop deleting my posts you jackwagon! Dictators prefer an unarmed population. MTGS, for all your nazi loving needs. Thank you SO much for turning Magic standard into Yugioh. Decks I playSpoiler:Show
Lastly, but certainly not least, I say this: if Richard Garfield is ON. FREAKING. RECORD. As saying that White was not meant to be 'good', then why shouldn't we trust his word? Hrm?
