Community

Well, you are right in it being basically definable as a blasphemy, but the theory proposed was that it reacted in accordance to the "evil" of the creatures, which would highly depend on the personal views of the caster. It could certainly work as , since is not opposed to morality as a concept, and thus can call things "evil", but is fundamentally ammoral, thus it could not conceive a spell flavoured like that.

In AR, Innistrad seems very "black and white", with the good , and cards being simply different aspects of bleeding into other colours, but the previous sets didn't feel as if the evil side of , or was "", just that it was sincerily the evil side of those colours. This is why AV was such a disappointed: it went from a genuinely riveting treatment of the colour pie into a generic "light is always good even though you can get skin cancer from it".

I think that what happens in blasphemous act is that wards that usually bar a giant beastie and/or demon from getting in fails, and that thing proceeds to have its Happy Fun Time with those inside the church.
That or those wards fail to stop a mage from casting a crazy strong hate/rage spell that just straight up makes peoples blood decide it wants to be on the outside of the body.

Jan 27, 2013 -- 6:22PM, Shamsiel wrote:

This is why AV was such a disappointed: it went from a genuinely riveting treatment of the colour pie into a generic "light is always good even though you can get skin cancer from it".

I don't think that's entirely fair; every color but black was portrayed with good guys in it.

Not really.
Vigilante justice swings either way.
White because of the justice part, red because of the vigilante part.