As far as people wondering why anyone would join Rakdos. In addition to psychopaths and all that jazz, am I the only one who got the vibe a lot of Rakdos members are drug addicts? I don't know anything about Ravnica's stance on drugs, but I have to imagine that Rakdos is probably the #1 provider of recreational drugs. And if you look at contemporary society, there are plenty of people who would join Rakdos to 'get their fix'. Also, depending on the magnitude/effects of the drugs, self-mutilation or letting yourself get sacrificed might have seemed like a good idea at the time...
For a more kid friendly version replace each use of the word 'drug' with 'magic'!
So yeah, the Cult of Rakdos is the cult of Sex and Drugs - and maybe Rock & Roll. Given that this game is PG-13 they can only hint at sex from afar and to drug use from even further. But think about it: There are tons of drugs that are associated with self mutilation and violence. Now think about the kind of fix you can get from magic enhanced drugs.
"Word is on the street of a new drug named "the limber". The trip is strong, wracking and ecstatic, but the limb you inject it in will rot and fall apart. Still, some people are willing to lose an arm and a leg to get another fix. You can get it from the Wrecking Ball Club for the right price if you know the right guy. I am the right guy."
Sex, drugs, and rock and roll is very much the vibe I get from this version of Rakdos. Back when Rakdos (inexplicably) ran all the laborers in Ravnica, I could easily see a guy getting off of his low-pay, dead-end steel mill job, tossing on a leather jacket, and going to meet the boys for a few beers down at the club. See who was playing, maybe try to score something a little harder for later in the night. Rubbing shoulders with other weekend hedonists, hard rockers, and Hell's Angels. That's gateway Rakdos. Deeper Rakdos gets a job at the clubs, and lives the lifestyle 24/7. Really deep Rakdos ends up being like the late '60s Hell's Angels, Gypsy Jokers, or some other outlaw gang: reckless nomads who are low on funds, stealing enough to get by, lighting for a while at one club, then eventually getting run off by the respectable people so they have to start over again. And of course, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool psychopath, one of the harder clubs/rings of Rakdos culture is probably the place to be.
Now, if you're an average guy looking to let off steam and rebel a little, would you keep going to these hard rocking clubs if every time you threw up a "sign of the devil", there was a non-vanishing chance that an actual devil would appear? Probably not. The version you see in the cards kind of has to be the most extreme possible form of the culture. Gruul get whole tribes and ghettos of disgruntled rebels on the edge of Ravnican society, but Rakdos get the odd rebels from various walks of the center of Ravnican life.
I rather like the current take on the Azorius Senate. In Dissension they felt rather stupid to me, trying to stop change altogether whereas now they're at least a bit more practical and reasonable. Not all the guilds have to be carbon copies of what they were like in Ravnica Block anyway. It stands to reason that the Azorius would learn from their mistakes and be a bit more cooperative towards other guilds this time around.
Them liking the Izzet did initially strike me as odd, but compared to the other guilds, the Izzet really seem like the least of their worries. They generally obey the laws, their guild leader personally helped in defeating the Nephilim (IIRC) and they have never shown any malicious intent. They also have no political or philosophical agenda, which has to count for a lot in Ravnica. So the Izzet and the Azorius seeing eye to eye does makes sense to me.
I also get the impression they're setting up the Boros to be one of the bad guys in this block, which would be pretty cool.
This. I really like the Azorius, and did not like the "being all evil" vibe they got. So bravo to all Azorians!!!
Addressing two color pie discussions from earlier (quoted within spoilers because the threads are already a bit long)
Let me preface both by saying that in early Magic, white was good and black was evil. Everything associated with good (healing, heroism, self-sacrifice) was in white, and everything evil (including pretty much every card to use the word) was black. This was actually a pretty good idea for the times, because you don't want to fight yourself when you're trying to get a message across. The message back then was "please play this game; it has all the tropes of fantasy you already love and understand."
The message now is more nuanced: they've gotten away from synonymizing good with white and evil with black, and each color is now "deeper" with flaws, virtues, heroes and villains. Still, a lot of the flavor of each is still rooted back in the good/evil days, so it's a little silly to deny that evil has much more than its fair share share of evil, even as it is silly to say that all black is necessarily evil.
The corrupt or power hungry theme always struck me as too non-white.
Corrupt and power hungry is White incarnate.
Well said!
In any case, Maro did state that not all Rakdos are evil, so at least there's that.
Um, what? Lust for power is explicitly a trait of black. In fact, it's more than just a trait of black, it's their central philosophy. White is literally the exact opposite, being the color of selflessness. In theory, of course. Obviously not all white characters live up to their color's ideals.
is defined as being selfish. is defined as being the colour of order and morality (selflessness is and , and part- as is a the colour of love).
Power hunger is a common trait to both. It's just that is blissfully unaware and thinks it is doing good.
The thing here is that there is no color for control, power, morality, etc. These are all concepts that exist across color. Color is what you value and how you approach these concepts.
For example, to white, power comes from being able to endurance, and control means authority. You have power when nothing can harm or upset you/ You control someone whom you have just authority over, and are controlled when you must justly defer to another's authority. For blue, power is knowledge, and control comes from understanding something to the point that you can manipulate to your will. You have power when you understand a situation exactly, and control something when you manipulate it (by reason, trickery, or re-arrangement of the situation) into a force that serves your goals. Red's notion of power is the power to smash any opposition, and control is the charisma to invoke others' passions to fight with, for, or under you. Green's power lies in raw strength, and control in being the strongest so that you are essentially the alpha of the pack.
Black's power lies in... well, for lack of a better word, "power". The ability to do something, whatever it is, just because you can. When you can make your will manifest, no matter what anyone else wants, you have real power in black's eyes. No passions, manipulation, endurance, or strength... just your will being done because you want it. Control is dominance, the ability to force your will onto others even when they know it to be against their own wishes and will. If white craves the authority of a commander over subordinates, black craves the dominance of a master over slaves.
The point here is that all colors want power, but disagree on what constitutes power. All colors want control, but what they consider control differs. But most importantly, NONE of the colors say much on what one does after establishing power and control. You can hope that a white judge with authority over you is wise, kind, and out to serve you at least proportionally as much as himself. But if he isn't, that doesn't do anything to undermine his authority. He still has control over you. At the same time, if you are under the thrall of a powerful, feared lord, there's no reason that he cannot be a benevolent master, and wise and fair. Even if he is, it doesn't change the fact that he expects his will do be done, no matter how unjust it may become, and that he enforces his control with hard, brutal power when the day comes. This is where black and white come together in a mirror: the top of a hierarchy and the top of a pile of cowed foes give you the same range and view.
Um, what? Lust for power is explicitly a trait of black. In fact, it's more than just a trait of black, it's their central philosophy. White is literally the exact opposite, being the color of selflessness. In theory, of course. Obviously not all white characters live up to their color's ideals.
is defined as being selfish. is defined as being the colour of order and morality (selflessness is and , and part- as is a the colour of love).
Power hunger is a common trait to both. It's just that is blissfully unaware and thinks it is doing good.
Black's explicit end goal is omnipotence, also known as ultimate power.
If you mean that White characters want power, yes, they do. Every color does. White wants to use power to enforce peace and order, Red wants power to do what it wants when it wants, Blue wants the power to become omniscient, Green wants power to do... Whatever the hell WotC feel like characterizing Green as nowadays. It's just that Black is the one who cares about power itself and not the ability to do things with it, and Black is the one that cares about power the most for that reason.
Note that power hungry=/=evil, as our friend Black shows us.
Still, you can argue that psycological corruption (or noxious purity) is part of , since mind alteration does exist.
Oh sure, psychological corruption it's a part of White. It's also a part of every single other color. Most mind alteration Magic is Blue.
When you try to reduce each color to a single word, things get hairy. Doubly so for black. Each color represents a way of approaching each aspect of life, death, the mind, magic, and everything. For example, you can be born on an all white plane (highly civilized, highly-ordered), into an all-white culture (close-knit, rigid, tradition- and authority-based), take on an all-white mindset (peaceful, deferential), try to make a living through an all-white profession (soldier, healer, civial servant), still not necessarily get along with your all-white neighbors (kithkin, leonin, rhox) and wildlife (lions, hawks), die a white death (self-sacrificing, heroic), and maybe go on to a white afterlife (protective spirit). That's true of any color. We just don't talk about that as much because mono-colored planes don't represent the full range of life as we know it, and because those places are not as interesting. No matter where you are, you get a full life experience no matter what color, but it shapes/flavors/colors the experience. This much is not too controversial.
The weird thing about black comes from its fantasy evil roots. You can kind of fudge white into "community" or "order" and get most of the qualities you think white should have, but black is hard to pin down. As heir to all-things-evil, as well as okay-not-everything-HAS-to-be-EVIL-with-a-big-E, black's identity is sort of this slippery, multi-legged beast. Green has a similar issue as the heir to anything "natural". Nebulous early definitions mean it's hard to completely pin these down to a single word (especially for black without invoking the "e word".) "Power" is even MORE nebulous than "evil," because every color clearly demonstrates a desire for power.
So you have to look at the totality of what's out there and ask what black has done before. Black is the color of the bargain (mechanically trading resources like creatures and life for advantages like better creatures, damage, and cards more than other colors). The fact that a lot of these "trades" are involuntary can also make it parasitic, opportunistic. It also means that "bargain" is not really the best phrase for what's happening. The fact that it offers "power at any price" makes it a good color for raw ambition. But it focuses on hurting your opponent as much as helping you, with drain life, damage, point kill, and so on. I'm not saying that I've figured out a single word to hold on to that slippery identity for black. I am saying that "corruption" is a pretty good word for one of those legs.
It corrupts the body with disease, mutilation, and parasites. It corrupts the mind with fear and madness. It corrupts the heart with greed and callousness. It corrupts the soul with betrayal and hatred. It corrupts society with selfishness and abusive sacrifice of others. It corrupts life with sudden death. It corrupts death with life-mocking, zombified undeath.
These are the means that black uses to achieve its ends. It's said that power corrupts, that it's an inevitable consequence. Black is the only color that reverses and formalizes that relationship: it promises that corruption leads to power. And honestly, that works pretty well, as it also formalizes the enmity between the white (which seeks to order and unite all things under something greater) and black (which seeks to raise itself above all else by undermining the symmetry of most relationships and breaking down order everywhere white sows it). Corruption works pretty damn well as a leg for black.
I think it's easier to buy that people would be willing to give their lives over to a madness-fueled rampage if one thought about the life of a dysfunctional city. We have cities, one of which I live in, whose economies are strongly based on illegal activities that are often self-destructive for its participants. Children grow up not expecting to live past twenty-five because they have PTSD in elementary school and their lives are steeped in violence. Their governments are more willing to build new detention centers for them than to renovate collapsing schools. Learned helplessness occuring on a macro level.
Then, we add in the fact that oligarchs control all forms of legitimate business and many forms of illegitimate, and death (for you or them) does not get you out of debt. Police brutality is standard procedure. Death is almost banal, and if you can't afford to bury your family (assuming they died debt-free), you are probably going to be eating mushrooms grown from them come next harvest. If you live in a slum and you happen to survive roving gangs who want to prove to you the folly of civilization (when city or wilderness, you'll still be just trying to survive), you're basically waiting for the day the entire place gets bulldozed by an aristocrat deciding to gentrify his recently purchased neighborhood or a bureaucrat who just imminent domained your home for new public works project (that may blow up gloriously and if you're not killed in that explosion, you may be immolated by a dragon displeased at the failure).
Why not leave the ranks of rights-less guildless? If your life seems a lesson in nihilism, why not celebrate it? When you're done working an 18 hour shift at the mine, why not join (and ****) your co-workers at the circus? Why not choose how you go out?
On the other hand, the name "konstructors" for construction workers is way too goofy for the Azorious, of all people.
Pretty sure that's based on an actual word from any number of Eastern European languages. Similarly, a lawyer on Ravnica (like Teysa) is an advokat, which is Serbian (and I'm sure many other Eastern European languages) for 'lawyer'.
Dream_Spinner, your post is sobering. the fact that you live in such a city -- where violence is so widespread and government policy isn't doing anything to bolster social health -- shows how sheltered and safe the area i live in is.
then you add the idea of how much worse it is on ravnica, and it really does cast a more a sobering image when i imagine what ravnica might be like.
and the rakdosian view now, instead of seeming purely psychopathic or under-the-influcence-of-drugs-and-addiction -- becomes something i can very much relate to, and even a commentary on how humans might respond under horrible oppression.
thanks for your post, becuase it really brings in an insightful and illuminating take on rakdos and human nature in general, that i hadn't thought of.
I'll second silpheed_tandy, that was an excellent presentation of just how crapsack a world Ravnica can be.
As an Izzet-identifier myself, the Azorius's expressed views on the Izzet made me see that particular relationship in a whole new light. From the Izzet side, it's frustrating when the Azorius ruin all their fun with stuffy rules. From the Azorius side, the Izzet are very much not a problem, they just need to be kept in check when they get a little too crazy, and even then it's somewhat amusing because of just how unmalicious their lawbreaking is compared to other guilds'. Presented like that, it sounds like a parent-child relationship, and that makes sense to me. As for whether Niv-Mizzet would call Isperia "Mommy"...
If you want the evil, obstructive for the sake of it, over-obsessive with details and randomly stubborn side of the Azorius, read Jenna's story The Shadows of Prahv. After Wizards published that, everyone was complaining that the Azorius came across as too nasty, self-absorbed, unfair, useless and pointless. After Wizards published this Part of the Planeswalker's Guide, people are complaining that the Azorius seem too reasonable, excessively fair, only mildly obstructive and insufficiently self-absorbed? You really can't win, can you?
Some people want the Azorius to be the beuracratic enemies everybody loves to hate.
Some people want them to be a valid faction with a real pupose. More grey than black and white.
I rather like the current take on the Azorius Senate. In Dissension they felt rather stupid to me, trying to stop change altogether whereas now they're at least a bit more practical and reasonable. Not all the guilds have to be carbon copies of what they were like in Ravnica Block anyway. It stands to reason that the Azorius would learn from their mistakes and be a bit more cooperative towards other guilds this time around.
Them liking the Izzet did initially strike me as odd, but compared to the other guilds, the Izzet really seem like the least of their worries. They generally obey the laws, their guild leader personally helped in defeating the Nephilim (IIRC) and they have never shown any malicious intent. They also have no political or philosophical agenda, which has to count for a lot in Ravnica. So the Izzet and the Azorius seeing eye to eye does makes sense to me.
I also get the impression they're setting up the Boros to be one of the bad guys in this block, which would be pretty cool.
is defined as being selfish. 
is defined as being the colour of order and morality (selflessness is 
, and part-
as 
