Alternate Alignment System - the Color Wheel [P.E.A.C.H.]

[Lord_Gareth]

Disclaimer: The original Color Wheel was designed by Wizards of the Coast for their trading card game, Magic: the Gathering. Parts have been changed to make it more applicable to Dungeons and Dragons.


Color as Alignment

The Color Wheel differs from the traditional D&D alignments in that the five Colors possess both literal incarnations (such as Outsiders) and non-literal philosiphies; that is, they are both ideologies and forces that shape the cosmos. While no part of this system falls apart when dealing with literal incarnations, the following is centered around mortals, for whom the colors are ideologies. That last bears repeating - any given character's color-alignment is not irrevocable, and does not represent some cosmic force nesting in their soul; it serves merely as a baseline descriptor for personality and methodology.

Each character, then, has a Primary Color - this represents the greater portion (or most fundamental portions) of their personality, ideology, and goals. For a character who only possesses a Primary Color, it also represents their most commonly used methodology. Primary Color is very intrinsic to the character; while it can change, it should only change after long, involved character development, or after especially severe or sudden stress, trauma, or magical interference. The death of a loved one, the birth of one's child, systemic magical torture, or witnessing an incarnate deity are all examples of events that might change a Primary Color.

Each character also has up to two Secondary Colors, which modify their Primary Color. Secondary Colors combine with the Primary Color to create a new philosiphy and outlook on life, but the Primary Color retains precedence; that is, the goals and outlooks of the Primary Color are still a greater part of the alignment mix than those of the Secondary Colors. Most often, Secondary Colors represent the lengths that a character is willing to go in order to fulfill the goals postulated by their Primary Color; that is, Secondary Colors most often represents methodology, as opposed to ideology. This isn't always the case, but it is important to note that a character needn't support or believe in their Secondary Colors - merely use them. Secondary Colors are much more fluid than their Primary counterparts, and change as a character's belief in what is acceptable or effective changes.

Each color has two Allied Colors - colors closely related to them. A color shares certain aspects of ideology and methodology with its allies, and societies based on those colors often get along to a certain extent. What this means is that a given character doesn't necessarily have to take on Secondary Colors or change their Color alignment if they're dipping into the methods/ideas of their Allied Colors.

Additionally, each color has two Enemy Colors - colors opposed to them in both ideology and methodology. It is important to note that a character can have a Color Alignment that includes Enemy Colors; the combinations are not impossible, but do create sources of self-conflict. Generally speaking, any given color actively opposes its enemy, even if only out of self-interest, but this needn't necessarily be the case, and it's certainly possible for a mixed-color group to cooperate, even if they bicker and fight over methods (or ideas) whenever they have the chance to sit down with a few pints. Generally speaking, repeated or prolonged participation in the methods or ideas of an Enemy Color should necessitate taking it on as a Secondary Color or an alignment shift to include that color.

The five colors are broken down as follows:

White - Order and Community: White believes in the rule of law. Only by upholding the fabric of society can life become peaceful and ideal. White believes in a clear-cut sense of right and wrong, and works with unity, intelligence, and planning in order to accomplish its goals. To White, the individual is not as important as the society; though it might regret it afterwards, the sacrifice of the one to save the many is perfectly acceptable to White. At its best, White creates utopian societies where well-managed rules ensure peace, tranquility, and happiness. At its worst, White creates war-driven dictatorships ruled by fanatics and madmen. Good luck explaining that to White. Allied Colors - Blue and Green. Enemy Colors - Black and Red.

Blue - Knowledge and Discovery: Blue believes in perfection; every thing and every being has infinite potential, and all it takes to unlock that potential is enough knowledge. Thus, the "Platonic" goal of Blue is omniscience - if one knows all the answers, one can do anything, be anything, and change anything. Blue loves learning secrets, and trickery, roundabout solutions, logical thought and careful, methodical planning are all hallmarks of its methods. At its best, Blue's is the enlightened scientist, fulfilling an obligation to society in order to improve and perfect all aspects of life. At its worst, Blue is an emotionless torturer, prying into forbidden secrets and vivisecting its victims for the sheer sake of knowledge. Allied Colors - Black and White. Enemy Colors Green and Red.

Black - Power and Individuality: Black believes that everyone is selfish. It's a cold, bleak philosiphy, but it's there - everyone's going to look out for Number One, and so should you. Black's "Platonic" goal is omnipotence; only if you have all the power are you assured of your freedom. Those who espouse Black's philosiphies often end up participating in some rather unwholesome and/or bizzare practices (blood sacrifice, for example, or ritual scarification), but it is important to note that the profit-centric shopkeeper is just as Black as the soul-trading sorcerer. At its best, Black creates societies of enlightened self-interest, where individual rights and opportunities take precedence over communal rules. At its worst, Black creates societies where the worst atrocities are permissable so long as one is capable of committing them without retribution. Allied Colors - Blue and Red. Enemy Colors - Green and White.

Red - Freedom and Emotion: Red believes in acting on one's emotions, and in the freedom to do so; if you love, act upon it. If you rage, attack, if you feel sorrow, weep. Red believes in absolute freedom, and that people are happiest when they're honest with themselves. Trickery, spontenaity, and direct solutions are all hallmarks of Red's methodology; Red is far more likely to simply smash a wall or blow it up than it is to, say, build a door through it. At its best, Red is genuinely loyal, caring, and committed to the idea of personal freedom. At its worst, Red is random and pointlessly destructive, smashing through restricting obstacles, laws, and people simply because they're there. Allied Colors - Black and Green. Enemy Colors - Blue and White.

Green - Growth and Nature: Green believes that everything was made perfect as it is. Nature has already given you all the tools and weapons you need to survive, thrive, and excel - all one has to do is find one's place in Nature, accept it, and embrace it. Green opposes artifice and encroachment upon nature; direct, physical solutions, instinct, and enhancing magic are all hallmarks of Green's philosiphy. Important to note is that Green believes in destiny and predestination - but also that these forces can be violated (hence Green's violent opposition of what others might call progress). At its best, Green creates peaceful, group-oriented societies that live in harmony with nature. At its worst, Green's traditionalistic nature drags societies down into violent, anti-technological fanatacism. Allied Colors - Red and White. Enemy Colors - Black and Blue.


Making the Shift - Introducing the Color Wheel to Your Game

Shifting the nine traditional alignments to the Color Wheel isn't as hard as it might seem. Certain classes require certain alignments; all one has to do is examine why they require those alignments and then translate to a color restriction. Paladins, for example, are required to be Lawful Good because they are expected to produce the most good for the most people whenever possible; this translates easily into a requirement that Paladins have White in their alignment mix. Monks, on the other hand, are required to be Lawful because they need strict self-discipline and control to learn their art; thus, a Monk's alignment requirement would be "Any Non-Red, Non-Green".

Abilities such as Smite translate simply into Smite Enemy Color; any given character/monster is treated as all of its colors for the purposes of such abilities. Similar methods can be applied to spells which require certain alignments.

Recommended Mechanical Changes

The following changes are recommended (but certainly not required) for games that include the Color Wheel.

- Clerics no longer channel positive/negative energy to spontaenously cast spells. Instead, a cleric may sacrifice a spell of equal or greater level to spontaenously cast a cure spell on a creature which either shares a color with them or has a color allied with their own, or to spontaenously cast an inflict spell on a creature which has a color opposed to their own. If a creature has both (a W cleric casting on a B/U wizard), they may choose whether to heal or harm. Keep in mind that, under this system, positive and negative energy no longer exist. That means that cure spells no longer hurt undead, and inflict no longer heal them; instead, the undead are affected by cure and inflict just as other creatures are.

- Smite [Alignment] becomes Smite Enemy Color. In the case of paladins, it becomes Smite Red/Black (affecting creatures who are red, black, or both).

- Detect [Alignment] becomes Detect Alignment; creatures are entitled to a Will save to avoid the affect. The Detect [Alignment] group of spells is otherwise unchanged.


Two-Color Mixes

The following are general examples of what might happen when you start mixing two colors. It's important to note that these mixes can be done with either color Primary. One's choice of Primary color shifts the focus of the mix a bit, one direction or the other; for example, a White primary character with Black as a secondary color would more often put the agenda of their group as a whole first.

Black/White: Black/White, at first glance, look like they won't mix, but they find common ground in a compromise; a small group which constantly strives to increase its own power, wealth, and comfort. Organized crime is a great example of Black/White in action, but so would a small group of men who constantly pass the mayorship of a village between each other. The biggest self-conflict that occurs with a Black/White character is when the desires/needs of the group conflict with the desires/needs of the individual.

Black/Green: Black's conflict with green is one of individualism vs. predestination; their compromise is found in the idea of fluid destiny. In essence, a Black/Green individual or organization has a different idea of "natural" than a purely Green organization, while still adhering to the idea of conforming to Nature that would be distasteful to a purely Black one. The biggest self-conflict facing a Black/Green character is one of motivation and the definition of "acceptable" - how far can one push the boundries before one has left "nature", however vaguely it is defined. Pushed too hard or too far, Black/Green becomes paralyzed by indecision or else snaps into manic fanatacism.

Black/Blue: Black/Blue combines knowledge with the ruthless will to pursue it. Black's focus on individuality and selfishness gains a serious edge when combined with Blue's trickery and pursuit of knowledge, creating characters and organizations that delve deep into forbidden lore, make extensive use of blackmail, and other, similar maneuvers. Power corrupts, though, and combining knowledge and raw power can very easily lead Black/Blue to showcasing the worst examples of both colors. Black/Blue's biggest weakness is indecision - should it take a direct approach, or try something more subtle?

Black/Red: Anarchy ascendant; Black/Red "organizations" barely qualify as such. Black/Red believes in both selfishness and absolute freedom, and while this can, occasionally, lead to genteel philosiphers espousing the virtues of both, it most often ends up with hedonistic sociopaths gleefully seeking their next thrill without heed to the consequences or the collateral damage. Their unwillingness - or inability - to empathize with others is their biggest weakness; very often, Black/Red fails to understand the concept of consequences to their actions, let alone anticipate them.

White/Green: Harmony is the key word when talking about this color pair; White/Green integrates nature into its society, combining White's love of order with Green's belief in predestination. White/Green's greatest weakness is pride; all too often, it falls into the trap that its way is best, and that no one else can possibly know what's good. At its best, White/Green is genuinely caring, wise, and harmonious. At its worst, White/Green creates emotionless hive-minds, where each individual is enslaved to the will of the whole.

White/Blue: White/Blue believes in the rule of law, and creates and enforces laws that it believes will benefit the most number of people. It also uses those laws as a weapon and a shield, turning them so deliberate and obtuse that, in some of the most extreme cases, it can take a lifetime to learn all of the rules. White/Blue's greatest failing is overanalyzation; White/Blue has a very reactionary nature, and would often prefer to do nothing until it has more information rather than take a risk.

White/Red: White/Red believes in societies which support and protect individual freedoms while still looking out for the common good. Very often, White/Red is willing to use less-than-ordered means to achieve order or defend the public good; a vigilante might be White/Red, as might the leader of the mob out to lynch a local pedarast. White/Red's greatest source of self-conflict is when personal freedoms conflict with societal good; they must decide where to draw the line or go mad with the unresolvable conflict.

Red/Green: Savage is the term to describe Red/Green - raw emotion mixes with instinct to create a being that acts less on thought than it does intuition. Red/Green is brutally direct, preferring quick physical solutions over more lengthy intellectual social ones. Red/Green does not mix well with societies in general; Green's love of nature combines with Red's raw emotion (in this case, rage) with predictable results. Its greatest failing is an utter lack of thought; unless they fight to retain some form of self-control, Red/Green often barrels headfirst through life, unaware and unheeding of the consequences for their recklessly destructive actions.

Red/Blue: Red/Blue combines intuition with logic; mad tinkers, eccentrict old wizards, and gibbering oracles might all be Red/Blue. A Red/Blue character might resemble an obsessive fanboy, researching and practically worshipping their object of interest, but they might also easily resemble an absentminded genius, leaping from one project to the next without testing or sometimes even finishing their previous work. Red/Blue's greatest weakness is consistency; all their brilliance won't help them a lick if they can't carry a project, plan, or thought to completion.

Blue/Green: Blue/Green believes that nature's basic blueprint can be improved. At first, this attitude seems purely Blue, but Blue/Green is adamant that nature has the right idea; they're just speeding things along. Blue/Green mixes Blue's intelligence and foresight with Green's penchant for direct solutions, applying just the right amount of brute force to a weak point in a problem for maximum results. Blue/Green's greatest weakess is self-denial; rather than deal with the paradox of change vs. destiny, Blue/Green ignores it, and thus often misses vital flaws in its plans, thought patterns, and personality.


Alignment Subtypes and Outsiders

The idea of living beings which represent aspects of philosiphy, ideology, or morality is as old as human myth, and the Color Wheel certainly does not exclude the idea. However, each color shifts somewhat when one is dealing with it as a universal force, rather than purely as a matter of philosiphy. It is important to note that the forces represented by each color are amoral, and thus their creations carry quite a bit of that amorality with them. The colors as forces of reality break down as follows:

White - Order: White distills into pure cosmic order; the force that resists chance and independance. Where purely White forces pass, ironclad patterns and laws are left in the fabric of reality; overexposure to the distilled essence of White can leave local reality in a kind of feedback loop, forever caught in the same predictable chain of events.

Blue - Change: Distinct from the idea of Chaos, Blue distills into pure change; anything that can be changed is in the wake of Blue energy, refining or debasing itself into entirely new forms. Fabulous inventions of magic and technology are the result of the application of raw Blue energy - so are world-shattering catastrophes.

Black - Entropy: Individual cases may very, but the cold stark truth of it is that Black takes; in the presence of raw Black energy things break down, fall apart, and die. Left unchecked, raw Black energy consumes whole worlds, attempting to feed its endless hunger.

Red - Chaos: Red's love of freedom distills into pure Chaos; anything that can happen, will happen, and the passing of pure Red energy would often be hilarious if the effects weren't so devastating. Red leaves spells unstable and unsafe, rewrites the laws of physics, and turns the universe upside down; toying with it is not reccomended.

Green - Life: Unchecked growth is the consequence of pure Green energy; new forms of life emerge and change at a terrifying rate which, if left unchecked, will result in the rapid consumption of available resources and then itself. Raw Green energy spreads like a cancer; uncontrollable life, inevitably destroying all around it.

What this means for beings that are shaped by the raw Color forces, yet have intelligence (such as Outsiders with alignment subtypes) is that they either embody the color's "distilled" form and espouse the philosiphy (as modified by their secondary colors) or that they embody the philosiphy and are only marginally shaped by the "distilled" form. In the first case, the being's alignment mix isn't affected by their color; that is, their motivations are their own to choose, and they may be any color, or none of them. In the second case, their alignment subtype is also their Primary color.

Regardless of their actual alignment mix, any creature with an alignment subtype is treated as though it included that color in its alignment mix for the purposes of being targeted by spells and abilities.


Enemy Color Conflicts

White vs. Black - Morality vs. Amorality: The core of the conflict between Black and White - even beyond the idea of Individual vs. Society - is the idea of morality. White believes firmly in the idea that there is Right, and then there is Wrong, and that failure to do Right is, by elimination, Wrong. Serving the needs of the whole over your own needs is Right, to White; after all, the whole will protect even its weakest member. Does this mean that all White characters are paragons of their virtues? No. But they either strive to be, or believe they already are.

Black, on the other hand, is amoral. Note the important difference between the terms "amoral" and "immoral"; Black does not believe in the concepts of Good and Evil. Black believes it's a cold, stark universe and that when push comes to shove, you can be damn sure that people are going to prioritize themselves. To Black, the ideas of Right and Wrong are, at best, tools used to manipulate others and at worst justifications for horrid atrocities, and as far as Black's concerned that's just low. If you're going to slaughter thousands of innocent people for power, at least have the courtesy to say so.

What this means is that White sees Black as a threat to the common good - a maverick at best and a foul source of infernal corruption at worst. Black, on the other hand, sees White as foolish, naive, and a threat to its freedom. It's interesting to note that, in a way, Black is less concerned with White than White is with Black; Black doesn't care if you choose to live your life kowtowing to someone else's set of rules, which often makes White the aggressor in their conflicts.

White vs. Red - Conformity vs. Freedom: The core of the conflict between White and Red are the concepts of rules and restrictions. White believes in the rule of law, and that the greatest good can be achieved by following laws. White is quite willing to enforce its laws with dire penalties, and members of White societies who don't conform are ostracized at best and may face much worse.

Red, on the other hand, upholds freedom as a moral ideal. Red hates restricting rules, laws, objects, spells, et cetera. More often than not, a Red character will flout or break a law or rule she doesn't like simply to demonstrate that the law does not rule her - and react savagely to any attempts to make her conform.

This definitely makes Red the aggressor in the relationship; White's laws are reactionary in nature, while Red is pro-active. That said, both sides of the debate hate each other, and a White/Red conflict can turn savage and bloody, especially between two organizations.

Blue vs. Red - Thought vs. Emotion: Blue thinks, Red feels. This basic conflict, much less visceral than that between, say, White and Black, is the reason that Blue and Red drive each other absolutely nuts. Blue prizes logic and learned, tested reasoning, eschewing emotion as unreliable and unsafe. Red, on the other hand, prizes emotion as the truest expression of who a person is; Red trusts its feelings. This only rarely leads to the kind of conflicts found between more viscerally opposed colors, though when it does, it should be pointed out that Red, following its impulsive nature, is usually the aggressor.

Blue vs. Green - Choice vs. Destiny: Blue believes in infinite potential; anything can be improved and anything can be perfected, if one has the will and knowledge to do so. Indeed, many Blue characters feel a sense of obligation - their knowledge can be used for good, so it should be used for good. Blue sees no problem whatsoever in changing and improving its environment into something wholly different if that's what it takes for improvement.

Green, on the other hand, sees Nature as something that as gotten it right; every creature has its own niche that it fills perfectly; to Green, perfect happiness and harmony is achieved when one finds one's own niche and fills it. Blue's "progress" is frightening and threatening to Green, because it endangers the entire system - change one thing out of its niche, and who knows how many others might be affected?

Like most conflicts in which one side is motivated by fear, Green is often the aggressor in these disputes, attacking and destroying that which it feels is threatening to its environment. Occasionally, the sitution reverses, usually because some profit-motivated Blue organization wants to exploit the resources that Green is protecting. Very often, these conflicts turn extremely savage, extremely quickly, with Green lashing out in overwhelming attacks and Blue responding with superior destructive technology/magic.

Black vs. Green - Entropy vs. Growth: The conflict between Black and Green is one of ideological consequences. Green sees Black as pointlessly destructive, consuming without creating and divesting people, places, and the environment of all its resources. Black, on the other hand, sees Green as hopelessly naive, incapable of comprehending that unchecked growth leads to the same kind of overconsumption that Green accuses it of. Like the conflict between Blue and Red, this only rarely leads to open, bloody conflict. However, when it does, one side or the other is usually the underdog; either a Green force is attacking a well-established Black organization (which is consuming/tainting the land around it), or a Black force is desperately trying to hold Green in check as an unrestricted tide of Nature threatens to overwhelm all else.


The Colorless
Colorless creatures, at first glance, seem as though they lack alignment, and in a sense this statement is true, in that any creature incapable of making moral choices (animals and mindless beings) is colorless. However, it is possible for a sentient creature to have an "alignment" of colorless.

A colorless creature suffers from indecision or lack of motivation; general apathy pervades their belief system and methodology. Colorless creatures might resemble hell-in-a-handbasket depression cases, unmotivated slackers, or office drones who labor each day just to get by and get through without really knowing why. Alternately, a creature who has had their ability to make moral choices stripped from them is also treated as colorless; those who suffer from the Soulless template, for example, or creatures under the influence of dominate monster.

Colorless has no allied colors and no enemy colors. A colorless creature has no secondary colors. No creature may have colorless as an alignment subtype. For the purposes of determining the effects of friendly/hostile magics, a colorless creature is treated as a creature who is possessed of both an allied and an enemy color to the caster (meaning, generally, that the caster chooses the effect their spell has upon them).

A lack of color has no effect on any given part of the cosmos.

I'll gladly take any questions, clarify any confusions and, if requested, provide examples of color combinations to create alignments.


Additional Reading


Additional Reading: Basic Reading on The Colour Wheel (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/14)

Good flavor articles for the individual colours: Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr43), White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57), Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr84), Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109), Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr133). Including character examples.

Articles on the colour pair combinations, also with good examples: Green\White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr196), Black\Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr199), Black\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr201), Red\White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr205), Red\Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr213), Blue\Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr217), White\Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr221), White\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr226), Green\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr229), Black\Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr241).

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Someone's been playing Magic: the Gathering lately, hmmm?

That aside, it looks interesting, if a little restrictive. There are, after all, more than five primary allegiances a character can have, and, as of now, your brushstrokes are very broad, making me a little hesitant about categorizing a character as anything in particular.

Color me interested (heh), but not convinced yet. I'll need to see more first.

Also, have a Merry Christmas, my friend!

[Jane_Smith]

Meh, personally I just dump alignments in games I run and adopt the d20 modern system's alliegance system, as you dont even have to devote yourself to an 'alignment' at all - your 3 allegiances could be "God, Country, Family" and to hell with law, chaos, good, or evil. :P

[EnderChant]

Definitely interesting, but why do you need it? (I mean, aside from designing something cool.) The alignment system in DnD, to my (admittedly limited knowledge) only becomes problematic if rigidly interpreted by players and DMs.
There are dozens of interpretations within a single alignment as it is already; what's the reasoning behind these?

I think it's a cool way to express a character's alignment, don't get me wrong. But do you need to replace alignment as it is now? (Unless you aren't trying to replace or fix traditional alignments but just offer another version, in which case disregard this.)

[Lord_Gareth]

That aside, it looks interesting, if a little restrictive. There are, after all, more than five primary allegiances a character can have, and, as of now, your brushstrokes are very broad, making me a little hesitant about categorizing a character as anything in particular.

Color me interested (heh), but not convinced yet. I'll need to see more first.

Keep in mind that color doesn't equal allegience. Someone who believes firmly in rule of law can serve a Black-aligned dictator because they believe that person is the legitimate authority. A Red-aligned barbarian might be motivated by loyalty or love to help a Blue-aligned wizard, or a Black-aligned rogue. Color Alignment is a matter of philosiphy and methodology, not loyalty.

Coming soon - Color Manifestations: Alignment Subtypes in a Color-Aligned World and Color Pairs - the Basic Breakdown

[erikun]

The most obvious question is: what happens to Colorless people? There are bound to be some characters who don't fit any of the five colors, at least not to any meaningful degree, which seems to indicate a Colorless class somewhere.

Secondly, I can see two vastly different characters ending up with the same color scheme, for no apparently logical reason. A ravaging sorcerer wishing to bring about an end to the "evils of society" will be Blue (change) and Red (freedom) while a simple wizard who wants to do nothing more than study his spellcraft would also be Blue (knowledge) and Red (freedom).


Paladins, for example, are required to be Lawful Good because they are expected to produce the most good for the most people whenever possible; this translates easily into a requirement that Paladins have White as their Primary Color.
Here's an example of where the Color Alignment starts to break down. The way you have described the system, a Paladin must have White as their Secondary Color, not their primary. Primary is ideology, Secondary is methodology. If the Paladin's methods are expected to match up to White, then they need to have White secondary.

A Paladin who wishes for nothing more than adoration and martial power would easily be Black/White, producing good (methodology) in the interest of gaining personal power (ideology). On the other hand, a Paladin who believes that society is the best protection for the people (White ideology) but who fights any system which suppresses the rights of their people (Red methodology) would be White/Red, completely the opposite of what you are recommending.

[Gamerlord]

Sounds cool, I can imagine already paladins dedicated to the purging of heretics, with no need of the law (Red/white)

[Lord_Gareth]

The most obvious question is: what happens to Colorless people? There are bound to be some characters who don't fit any of the five colors, at least not to any meaningful degree, which seems to indicate a Colorless class somewhere.

Interesting idea. I'm taking suggestions ^_^


Secondly, I can see two vastly different characters ending up with the same color scheme, for no apparently logical reason. A ravaging sorcerer wishing to bring about an end to the "evils of society" will be Blue (change) and Red (freedom) while a simple wizard who wants to do nothing more than study his spellcraft would also be Blue (knowledge) and Red (freedom).

Not necessarily. The first wizard could clearly be Blue/Red, yes, but the second one doesn't have to be; he could easly be just Blue. Taking on a color suggests an active commitment to that ideal, even if one doesn't acknowledge it consciously.


Here's an example of where the Color Alignment starts to break down. The way you have described the system, a Paladin must have White as their Secondary Color, not their primary. Primary is ideology, Secondary is methodology. If the Paladin's methods are expected to match up to White, then they need to have White secondary.

A Paladin who wishes for nothing more than adoration and martial power would easily be Black/White, producing good (methodology) in the interest of gaining personal power (ideology). On the other hand, a Paladin who believes that society is the best protection for the people (White ideology) but who fights any system which suppresses the rights of their people (Red methodology) would be White/Red, completely the opposite of what you are recommending.

I think you may have missed something - Primary color includes methodology. If a character has Secondary colors, it doesn't represent one's complete methodology, but the Primary methods are still there. However, I do agree with your second example...perhaps a requirement of having White in there somewhere? As mentioned above, Secondary colors can be included to create blended ideologies; they don't have to, but they can. Your second paladin, then, is an example of a White/Red blend; he believes that society is important, but also believes that the ideal society supports the rights of its people.

So, while my reccomendation was bad, I don't think it indicates a flaw in the system just yet.

Thanks for commenting, though - this kind of critique is what I need ^_^

[deuxhero]

Anythings better than alignment. This works quite a bit better than ditching the entire system with all the alignment based effects.

This does however have the effect of making Paladins weaker as except animals and constructs, just about everything the average Paladin fights is evil (same with holy weapons), though I doubt everyone a Paladin fights is black and red. While it's nice to hurt Word of Law and co, the melee guys don't really need the hurt.

[erikun]

I'm glad to hear my comments were taken well. :smallsmile: It's just that, well, I guess the D&D alignment system is pretty vague too. I'm just not sure if this one will clear anything up, or just change the points of vague reference around.

My first example was trying to point out that two very different people could still have the same alignment color, which seems contradictory at first. A power-hungry dictator and demon-enslaving wizard would both be Black, which does make sense, and you can see the connection. However, an independant explorer or protestor wanting "power for the people" would be just as Black, and they don't seem to have any relation to the first two Black-aligned characters.

This is handy for Magic: the Gathering, as when they are developing characters or cards that need to be "Black" they have a lot of source material to draw upon. It's a bit harder for an alignment system, though. If I say that my character is "Good" or "Chaotic", then most people have a vague understanding of what I mean. Well, minus preconceived ideas. However, saying that by character is "Black-aligned" can result in an understanding that is fully within the rules, yet completely off base. :smallannoyed: That makes it difficult for me to see how your alignment system can work itself out.

I hope that at least help you with clarifying your system, or ensuring that your system is doing what you intend it to be doing. :smallwink:

[deuxhero]

Alignment and Color are both vague but in very different ways. Alignment is ill defined (One character is lawful because of their devotion to a cause, another is chaotic because they are devoted to their art :smallconfused:) color is broad,

[Lord_Gareth]

The following will be added to the first post as well:


Two-Color Mixes

The following are general examples of what might happen when you start mixing two colors. It's important to note that these mixes can be done with either color Primary. One's choice of Primary color shifts the focus of the mix a bit, one direction or the other; for example, a White primary character with Black as a secondary color would more often put the agenda of their group as a whole first.

Black/White: Black/White, at first glance, look like they won't mix, but they find common ground in a compromise; a small group which constantly strives to increase its own power, wealth, and comfort. Organized crime is a great example of Black/White in action, but so would a small group of men who constantly pass the mayorship of a village between each other. The biggest self-conflict that occurs with a Black/White character is when the desires/needs of the group conflict with the desires/needs of the individual.

Black/Green: Black's conflict with green is one of individualism vs. predestination; their compromise is found in the idea of fluid destiny. In essence, a Black/Green individual or organization has a different idea of "natural" than a purely Green organization, while still adhering to the idea of conforming to Nature that would be distasteful to a purely Black one. The biggest self-conflict facing a Black/Green character is one of motivation and the definition of "acceptable" - how far can one push the boundries before one has left "nature", however vaguely it is defined. Pushed too hard or too far, Black/Green becomes paralyzed by indecision or else snaps into manic fanatacism.

Black/Blue: Black/Blue combines knowledge with the ruthless will to pursue it. Black's focus on individuality and selfishness gains a serious edge when combined with Blue's trickery and pursuit of knowledge, creating characters and organizations that delve deep into forbidden lore, make extensive use of blackmail, and other, similar maneuvers. Power corrupts, though, and combining knowledge and raw power can very easily lead Black/Blue to showcasing the worst examples of both colors. Black/Blue's biggest weakness is indecision - should it take a direct approach, or try something more subtle?

Black/Red: Anarchy ascendant; Black/Red "organizations" barely qualify as such. Black/Red believes in both selfishness and absolute freedom, and while this can, occasionally, lead to genteel philosiphers espousing the virtues of both, it most often ends up with hedonistic sociopaths gleefully seeking their next thrill without heed to the consequences or the collateral damage. Their unwillingness - or inability - to empathize with others is their biggest weakness; very often, Black/Red fails to understand the concept of consequences to their actions, let alone anticipate them.

Next up - White mixes!

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm glad to hear my comments were taken well. :smallsmile: It's just that, well, I guess the D&D alignment system is pretty vague too. I'm just not sure if this one will clear anything up, or just change the points of vague reference around.

My first example was trying to point out that two very different people could still have the same alignment color, which seems contradictory at first. A power-hungry dictator and demon-enslaving wizard would both be Black, which does make sense, and you can see the connection. However, an independant explorer or protestor wanting "power for the people" would be just as Black, and they don't seem to have any relation to the first two Black-aligned characters.

What those four characters have in common is an ideological commitment to the idea of the individual. If you ask the dictator and the wizard what gives them the right to do as they do, I'm willing to bet that the answer is, "Because I can." The explorer's answer is, "Why not?" and the protestor is the one most likely to give an actual, ideological answer. All of them are devoted to individuality, even if they don't admit or recognize as much.

This system is designed broadly on purpose; the biggest failing of the Nine Alignments is that it attempted to be too specific. While it is starting to dawn on me the sheer amount of material I'll have to reccomend at least minimal edits to (the Planes, the entire magic system...), I think it can be done without too much work.

[Eurus]

So, is it intentional that the color alignments are based on belief, rather than action? That's something that was always a bit confusing about the original alignments; I could never tell whether the deed or the motivation was more important.

[Lord_Gareth]

Very intentional; because the colors do not represent moral absolutes, the intent becomes more important than the deed. Killing does not make one Black, for example, even though a Black character might see killing as expedient. If you, for example, killed a being because you were curious about what killing felt like, the act in question was Blue (done for the sake of knowledge) with slight Red tones.

And here comes another chunk!


Alignment Subtypes and Outsiders

The idea of living beings which represent aspects of philosiphy, ideology, or morality is as old as human myth, and the Color Wheel certainly does not exclude the idea. However, each color shifts somewhat when one is dealing with it as a universal force, rather than purely as a matter of philosiphy. It is important to note that the forces represented by each color are amoral, and thus their creations carry quite a bit of that amorality with them. The colors as forces of reality break down as follows:

White - Order: White distills into pure cosmic order; the force that resists chance and independance. Where purely White forces pass, ironclad patterns and laws are left in the fabric of reality; overexposure to the distilled essence of White can leave local reality in a kind of feedback loop, forever caught in the same predictable chain of events.

Blue - Change: Distinct from the idea of Chaos, Blue distills into pure change; anything that can be changed is in the wake of Blue energy, refining or debasing itself into entirely new forms. Fabulous inventions of magic and technology are the result of the application of raw Blue energy - so are world-shattering catastrophes.

Black - Death: Black's amoral nature distills into the raw force of Death; the ultimate impartiality, as it were. Of all the colors, Black is probably the least devastating to the landscape, though its imprecise applications have been known to leave entire worlds scoured clean.

Red - Chaos: Red's love of freedom distills into pure Chaos; anything that can happen, will happen, and the passing of pure Red energy would often be hilarious if the effects weren't so devastating. Red leaves spells unstable and unsafe, rewrites the laws of physics, and turns the universe upside down; toying with it is not reccomended.

Green - Life: Unchecked growth is the consequence of pure Green energy; new forms of life emerge and change at a terrifying rate which, if left unchecked, will result in the rapid consumption of available resources and then itself. Raw Green energy spreads like a cancer; uncontrollable life, inevitably destroying all around it.

What this means for beings that are shaped by the raw Color forces, yet have intelligence (such as Outsiders with alignment subtypes) is that they either embody the color's "distilled" form and espouse the philosiphy (as modified by their secondary colors) or that they embody the philosiphy and are only marginally shaped by the "distilled" form. In the first case, the being's alignment mix isn't affected by their color; that is, their motivations are their own to choose, and they may be any color, or none of them. In the second case, their alignment subtype is also their Primary color.

Regardless of their actual alignment mix, any creature with an alignment subtype is treated as though it included that color in its alignment mix for the purposes of being targeted by spells and abilities.

[Latronis]

Additional Reading: Basic Reading on The Colour Wheel (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/14)

Good flavor articles for the individual colours: Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr43), White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57), Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr84), Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109), Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr133). Including character examples.

Articles on the colour pair combinations, also with good examples: Green\White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr196), Black\Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr199), Black\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr201), Red\White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr205), Red\Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr213), Blue\Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr217), White\Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr221), White\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr226), Green\Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr229), Black\Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr241).

Personally I think the colours system is the best 'alignment' system I've seen.

[Scarlet Tropix]

Bravo! I'm so glad I bothered to recheck the alignment fear thread to see if this had been done. I'm going to start conversion immediately!

Whee<3

[Athaniar]

Agreed, I've always felt that Magic's system works much better than D&D's.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

My overall consensus is that this is very well done and very well thought out. I approve wholeheartedly. Your more recent sections flow nicely, and solve the issue I had with the vaguely defined alignments. This project receives my seal of approval. :smallbiggrin:

[Devils_Advocate]

What those four characters have in common is an ideological commitment to the idea of the individual.
Being willing to sacrifice power of your own in order to empower other individuals is the opposite of wanting to limit what other individuals can do so that you personally have greater control. It seems a bit problematic if those are both Black. And the second one strikes me as decidedly Black.

My understanding is that in Magic, wanting power for yourself is Black, and wanting to liberate other people is Red.


White/Blue's greatest failing is stagnation; all too often, White/Blue acts as it as always acted, and becomes paralyzed when faced with new experiences or problems.
That seems pretty backwards to me. Wouldn't White/Blue be quintessentially progressive -- continually seeking to improve the welfare of the populace through new rules, based on changes in knowledge, technology, and society? You identified Blue as the Color of Change, for pity's sake!

Green seems like it would be the least flexible. It's the color most devoted to doing things a particular way: the "natural" way, whatever that means. (If "natural" doesn't mean anything in particular, then Green isn't a real ideology so much as a specific variety of spin doctoring.) Really, it strikes me as weird that I should even have to argue that the Luddite Color is the stagnant one.

[erikun]

Taking a look over the material again, my first question is: how true are you trying to stay to the source material? Should I assuming that the colors match up with M:tG, or are you reinterpreting them for this purpose?

One thing in particular is that Black is "Power and Individuality" but an overabundance of Black is "Death". This doesn't quite seem to follow, unless you imply that everyone was so selfish and individualistic that they refused to breed. However, I doubt that's what you're trying to say...

[Leliel]

It's "Death" because simply put, Death is the ultimate power-that which you can cheat, but you will never beat. Also, Undead are usually Death-aligned, which means that they have seen the ultimate power and twisted it to their use.

I like this system, especially for morally grey games like what I want my PC lycanthrope game to be. To put it simply, the entire campaign is due to the actions of two villains, one so sympathetic that I'm making backup plans if the PCs decide to work for him, the other so repulsive that the local Pelorites are perfectly entitled to wonder why their god hasn't revoked his powers. In this system, the morally gray one would be Blue with Black and Green undertones (he knows his schemes will change the world for the better, and he values his followers over abstract moral ideas), and the repulsive one White with Red undertones (his vision of what's right is the only true one dammit, and he gets...twitchy when someone calls him out on this).

[Owrtho]

Being willing to sacrifice power of your own in order to empower other individuals is the opposite of wanting to limit what other individuals can do so that you personally have greater control. It seems a bit problematic if those are both Black. And the second one strikes me as decidedly Black.

My understanding is that in Magic, wanting power for yourself is Black, and wanting to liberate other people is Red.

I think the issue though is that it is assumed the protester has no power to start with. As such they protest that everyone be given power, and in doing so gain power for them self (even if only a little). Very rarely does someone already in power protest that the power should be given to everyone (for one thing the could just share their power). Also I think it is the idea that they want to have their individual say in things.

Also on the death thing, I think in part it is because one of the clearest ways to show your dominance over something is to kill it.

And also:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/jeejeeje/misc/colour.jpg

Owrtho

[erikun]

It's "Death" because simply put, Death is the ultimate power-that which you can cheat, but you will never beat. Also, Undead are usually Death-aligned, which means that they have seen the ultimate power and twisted it to their use.
The problem with that, though, is that any power "which you can cheat, but cannot beat" fits that discription just as well. Time? Chance? Fate? The Gods? Heck, you don't even need to be undead to cheat death - D&D offers lots of ways to avoid dying. And dominating or taking control of another would be more "exerting control over another", yet doing so is more Blue or White.

Plus, it has the problem of tying undead to one specific alignment. Just as undead = evil resulted in unusual and problematic situations with D&D, tying undead = Black will result in all undead characters manditorily changing to Black, or making it impossible for any non-Black undead.

[Leliel]

It's how Magic: The Gathering works.

Don't blame me for it.

[lightningcat]

erikun:
Most undead in D&D are evil, and most methods of becoming undead have an alignment shift to evil inherent in them. (Vampires are the most obvious one here.) So why would instead making undead at least partly black cause any problems. Thats why its a multi-color system, so that you can have more shades as compared to the standard D&D's more single focus alignment setup.

Anyways, if you do become undead in such a way that does not change your alignment, then you would not be forced to change your color in this setup. (This has a M:tG correlation of the various white spirits.)
If this is a huge problem, well thats why they introduced the undying creature type. They're not undead, but they are the dead that are still up and moving around (which is the best defination of undead I've ever heard). So If you wanted to you could have your black aligned creatures become undead, while your not-black creatures become undying.

The biggest problem this system might have with undead is the channel positive/negative energy ability. But you could have white & green clerics get positive, while black clerics get negative. While black/white, black/green, as well as red and blue clerics choose. While leaving undead and undying still effected by the energy types normally.
_______

Now onto another point: What color would animals, and unintelligent constructs be? As well as unintelligent undead, if they are not automatically black?
I can see arguments for animals being green, but the counter to that is the argument that any alignment is based on moral/ethical choices which animals lack the mental capability for (likewise animals appear in all colors in M:tG). So would you also have an unaligned group for those mindless and/or animal mentality creatures?

Unaligned is what I currently use for mindless and animal mentality creatures in my current game, so that they do not suffer from those spells that peripherally affect neutral creatures (such as holy word).

[Owrtho]

They would likely be colourless. I'd expect one who is colourless would be wholly apathetic about such things, and thus most creatures would fir in there.

Also, when it comes down to it, what is it that makes a vampire particularly evil? If one considers it, the main thing they would think of is the drinking of blood, but how is that worse than what humans do? Humans often eat meat, which if considered from a practical standpoint is worse. If you take meat from something you have to cut a portion off, to get a reasonable amount to eat you need to cut off a large portion that will likely never fully heal. Drinking blood on the other hand deals much less damage, it makes small wounds, and only takes out a small portion of the total blood that can all be fairly easily replaced with time (much more so than having a sizable chunk of your body cut off). It is much easier for a vampire to keep what they fed on alive than a human (unless you refer to plants). One could try arguing that the idea of feeding on a sentient species is evil, but I find that idea to be rather flawed, after all, otherwise the meat just goes to the animal (who aren't considered evil for it), or to waste (which can be a waste).

So, there isn't any particular reason undead should be tied to black. A lich or the like could just as easily be blue (due to seeking immortality because there just isn't enough time to learn everything in a mortal lifespan).

As I said before, the best explanation for why black distills to death is because killing something is among the strongest ways of expressing you have (or rather had) power over it.

Owrtho

[Latronis]

The problem is the colours arn't just philosophies, they have distinct powers too (mechanics tied to it)

The flavour and mechanics are fairly intrinsically linked. Black animates the dead because it's a 'dark' flavoured mechanic, and it's counter to it's (green) enemy philosophy of life and the natural way.

[Tim4488]

So, Clerics. Primary Color has to match Deity, Secondary can be Allied Colors only? Or Primary Color need be allied? Can a Cleric of a White deity only be White or White/something, or can they be Green or Blue? How about Green/White or Blue/White, but excluding Green or Blue alone?

My inclination would be the first option, that is, Primary has to match, Secondaries must be allied. So White could be White, White/Green, White/Blue, or White/Blue/Green.

Paladins must be White, or allow for some Green Paladins (e.g. Elven Paladins devoted as much to Life as to Order)? Or maybe White and Green/White are allowed, but not Green alone? Actually I think I like that one best.

I imagine any alignment-based spells (Protection from X, Holy Word/Blasphemy/etc., Cloak of Chaos) would just be retooled to various colors. Not that hard of a change, really. Just follow the rules you put down for Smite.

[erikun]

You know what? I'm sick of the forum eating long posts. :smallmad: Expect a writeup on my views for each of the alignment colors - which does differ a bit from the ones here - but not today. I'd just get angry losing it again.

[Leliel]

Actually I could see Black secondary paladins still being altruistic and kind knights in shining armor.

Think of Renegade Sheppard in Mass Effect-while he is, quite simply, a major in-your-face cowboy cop, he has a strong conscience and is genuinely devoted to the ideal of universal peace and safety for humanity. "I do what I want, and what I want is for humanity to become a Council race."

Thus, I think that beyond having White as a primary alignment, there should be no restrictions on Paladin alignment.

[Kensen]

Although it has been pointed out in the thread a number of times, I think it is fair to mention early on in the first post that the alignment/color wheel isn't your original idea, but rather, you're expanding on ideas from MtG. For those who haven't played MtG, it's very hard to differentiate between your IP and WotC's IP, and you probably want people to comment on your ideas.

Anyway, good work, this might work well in some D&D games, especially those set in the MtG universe.

[Lord_Gareth]

Wow, that's a lotta comments while I was away ^_^

So:

On the Subject of Black: I'd originally included Death as the "Platonic" form because Black is linked to Death in M:tG. Based on the comments here - and the fact that none of the other colors have recieved complaints - I'm going to change that to Entropy, which should fit much better.

I've already been thinking on the subject of the undead, and I do believe I have a way to handle it. Spells and abilities which manipulate negative energy are likely going to be Black (Negative energy is an entropic force), but their products don't necessarily have to be. Thus, the only undead with an alignment subtype are the ones made purely of negative energy, such as Nightstalkers and Shadows.

And the DM Said, "Let there be Clerics," and saw that it was Broken: I'm of two minds on clerics. Y'see, since alignment no longer represents moral absolutes of RIGHT vs. WRONG, the deities as-written.../shift/. As unimaginably powerful beings locked into cosmic roles not of their own choosing, deities are trapped in a form of extremism that probably makes the alignment of their followers irrelevant.

Thus, I have two ideas - 1. Clerics draw power directly from their Color(s), and the gods are just an excuse/explanation.

2. A Cleric's Primary color must match one of his deity's colors; the Cleric may possess any Secondary colors he wishes.

Thoughts? Comments?

Paladins: I thought I'd already answered this question - Paladins are required to have White somewhere in their alignment mix at all times. Though they might believe otherwise (it's certainly a hallmark of White philosiphy), Paladins are no longer pure champions of COSMIC RIGHTEOUSNESS; they're martial characters dedicated to order and the idea of the common good. There's a world of difference.

Coming Up Soon: Alignment Wars - Why Enemy Colors Clash

[Latronis]

So will they no longer directly channel positive\negative energy? But rather WUBRG energy?

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm not certain; it makes little sense for, say, a Blue cleric to do much to the undead just 'cause he's a cleric, but I'm not certain what I'd change things with. So: Until I come up with a better idea, W and/or G clerics channel positive energy, B and/or Red clerics channel negative energy, and U gets to choose.

In the event that there's more than one option (a B/W cleric), primary color takes precedence.


Enemy Color Conflicts

Black vs. White - Amorality vs. Morality: The core of the conflict between Black and White - even beyond the idea of Individual vs. Society - is the idea of morality. White believes firmly in the idea that there is Right, and then there is Wrong, and that failure to do Right is, by elimination, Wrong. Serving the needs of the whole over your own needs is Right, to White; after all, the whole will protect even its weakest member. Does this mean that all White characters are paragons of their virtues? No. But they either strive to be, or believe they already are.

Black, on the other hand, is amoral. Note the important difference between the terms "amoral" and "immoral"; Black does not believe in the concepts of Good and Evil. Black believes it's a cold, stark universe and that when push comes to shove, you can be damn sure that people are going to prioritize themselves. To Black, the ideas of Right and Wrong are, at best, tools used to manipulate others and at worst justifications for horrid atrocities, and as far as Black's concerned that's just low. If you're going to slaughter thousands of innocent people for power, at least have the courtesy to say so.

What this means is that White sees Black as a threat to the common good - a maverick at best and a foul source of infernal corruption at worst. Black, on the other hand, sees White as foolish, naive, and a threat to its freedom. It's interesting to note that, in a way, Black is less concerned with White than White is with Black; Black doesn't care if you choose to live your life kowtowing to someone else's set of rules, which often makes White the aggressor in their conflicts.

More to be edited into the first post!

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Why not simply channel your primary color of energy, hurting those of opposed colors? So a White/Green Paladin could heal White, Green, or Blue, and hurt Black and Red. If a creature has both aspects (the Paladin's Blue/Red wizard buddy, for example), the Paladin can choose whether to heal or hurt.

[Lord_Gareth]

An interesting idea, Djinn - very interesting indeed. Thoughts/feelings on that, everyone?

On the subject of U/W: Blue is the color of change, yes, but it's the color of purposeful, logical change. Both Blue and White are, for the most part, reactionary colors; that's why stagnation is U/W's greatest weakness. Putting oneself out there - ACTING - is dangerous without careful planning and backup, and very often U/W will choose to do nothing rather than take a risk.

[Latronis]

An interesting idea, Djinn - very interesting indeed. Thoughts/feelings on that, everyone?

That's an interesting way of doing it, saves having to think up what each colour would do.

Mind you to such direct colour hosing doesn't really fit all the colours either.


On the subject of U/W: Blue is the color of change, yes, but it's the color of purposeful, logical change. Both Blue and White are, for the most part, reactionary colors; that's why stagnation is U/W's greatest weakness. Putting oneself out there - ACTING - is dangerous without careful planning and backup, and very often U/W will choose to do nothing rather than take a risk.

Stagnation isn't a very good way of putting it. Over-analyzing instead of acting certainly.

[Lord_Gareth]

And the Color Conflicts are UP on the first post! I also added Latronis' "Additional Reading".

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, hey, I totally forgot that Blue is biased towards thought and away from action in Magic! Which is funny, because that's one of the main reasons that I identified Blue as my own Color. (I took an online test, and it gave me a different result. Like, White or somethin'. Pffft! Clearly it was a poorly-designed test. :smalltongue:) Probably because you didn't include that aspect of Blue in your description of it. :smalltongue:

Anyway... Green/White and Blue/White could both be described as "conservative", but Green/White in the traditionalist sense and Blue/White in the risk-adverse sense. Which I guess could lead to stagnation of a sort in both cases, though I think more in the long term for Green and more in the short term for Blue.

[erikun]

White - I think you've got White pretty good here. To be fair, "Order and Community" is something we're all familiar with, and is modeled in D&D fairly well. Lawful alignment and the Inevitable type of outsiders are pretty classic White stereotypes.

Pure White lands are probably one of the deadest, though - unrestrained, crystaline order has no use for the everchanging life cycles of humans, if it can do without them.

Blue - One thing I disagree with is that Blue represents "Change". Yes, Blue is willing to adapt to new ideas, but this isn't really them changing their viewpoint as much as expanding on what they already know. Blue rarely changes, perhaps less so than other colors, because Blue rationalizes its actions against its vast library of knowledge.

If anything, Blue is more Knowledge and Learning than Knowledge and Change. Blue is about knowing, but it's also about knowing something new, discovering something unknown, or exploring another horizon. I suppose you could also call it Knowledge and Discovery.

Pure Blue isn't change. It's difficult for me to say what exactly, but it's more like Apathy. Blue doesn't care about others, it doesn't care about the world, it doesn't even care about itself (beyond being restricted). All it cares about is its own learnings and knowledge. The rest of the world could destroy itself and pure Blue would simply analyze the process. Pure Blue could be the one destroying the world and simply not care.

Black - It is pretty easy for me to see Power and Individuality in Black, and I do agree that it makes sense. On the other hand, pure Black isn't quite Entropy. To use a likely unpopular term, it is Psychopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy). Pure Black is so individualistic that it no longer cares for others, seeing them as little more than tools to be used. (or it does see that they have emotions, and just doesn't care)

Consider Phyrexia, or Demons and Devils. Neither is exactly Entropic - Phyrexia is teeming with life, albeit deadly life ready to be used at a general's whim. Both Baator and the Abyss are full of "life", constantly moving and plotting in their home planes - not something you would an Entropic, dying world.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with changing Black to entropy. And if you wanted to use Psychopathy, you'll probably want to use a less-loaded synonym. On the other hand, it should be a concious change to make Black into entropy. Realize that a number of things most people would consider "Black-aligned" from Magic aren't going to apply anymore.

[EDIT] Now that I think about it, you used the term "Amorality" in the reference between White and Black. That might be a better term for pure Black than Psychopathy.

On Black and Undead: Changing Necromancy into a Black-aligned magic isn't necessarily a problem. It just means that everything based on Necromancy (Cause Wounds spells, Rebuking, undead) is inheritly Black-aligned. It means that mindless undead are going to act "entropic" on their own, without command. It also means that if you want to create something without the Black-aligned taint, you need to do so without Necromancy. For example, a pure White guardian spirit would be one that has chosen to stay after death, or who was bound by a White magic ritual - not by using Necromancy.

As above, you want to make sure that you are designing the system as you want it to be.

Red - I will admit, I have less focus with Red than most other colors. (I'm a White/Blue man myself.) Freedom, emotion, and chaos fit it really well.

Green - My only critique is that pure Green would be Instinct, not "Life". While a pure Green world would certainly contain a lot of life, the most telling thing about a Green creature is that it would live more off impulse than by thought. While a Red character might do whatever came to mind, a Green character would have max ranks in Sense Motive, and have an idea of what is going on around themselves.

Green/White is a hivemind, with the entire community working to raise children who fully participate in the community. Green/Red is the barbarian or instinctual savage. Green/Black is the cancer or plague, a ravenous living beast consuming everything. Green/Blue is the mutant of evolution, reinventing itself with each generation (or even before that) for the most suitable lifeform in its current environment.

[Swordgleam]

Until I come up with a better idea, W and/or G clerics channel positive energy, B and/or Red clerics channel negative energy, and U gets to choose.


Why not have White channel Radiant, Black channel Necrotic, Red channel Fire, Blue channel Cold (or psychic if you'd prefer) and Green channel Poison? Plenty of fire creatures are already weak against cold, and necrotic creatures weak against radiant, etc.

It doesn't fit perfectly with existing; you'd have to tweak some creatures' weaknesses to make sure the enemy color hurts them. Or not - maybe only the most hardcore of each color is hurt by its enemy, since why would a Red/white be hurt by white energy?

It gives each color its own flavor without having to make up any new kind of system. It's similar to Djinn's idea, but working within the existing energy types.

[Lord_Gareth]

You make some very good points, but what I'm trying to do is seperate the colors as philosiphies (your alignment) and colors as universal forces. A creature who was a paragon of Black ideals would probably be amoral to the point of committing idle atrocities, just as a purely Blue creature would be utterly apathetic. However, the "distilled" forms of the Colors are what happens when you have pure "colored" energy floating about. Thus, Blue's drive for perfection becomes Change, White's drive for peace becomes Order, Black's selfish nature bottoms out into Entropy, et cetera.

Creatures that represent the "elemental" form of the color don't necessarily have it as their alignment. Take, for example, a creature with the [Green] subtype, which represents the "elemental" form of Green. Perhaps its an endless fountain of life, forever spouting forth monsters and animals as a veritable tide before it - but the creature itself might forge those monsters into a cohesive society, betraying White tendencies.

Perhaps I should stress that alignment subtypes in this system indicate either the creature acting as a manifestation of the philosiphy OR that the creature is a sentient/semi-sentient incarnation of pure colored energy?

Another part of the reason I chose what I did is that I want to stick to things that can be reasonably be concieved of as universal concepts. Order may not be thought of as an intrinsic part of reality in the real world, but it's not too much of a stretch to define it as such - not the way it was with Good and Evil. It's hard to imagine Apathy as a cosmic force, or Instinct, but it's easy to imagine Change, Entropy, and Life.

Black and the Undead: I'm definitely thinking that Necromancy is going to end up Black, and why shouldn't it? Can you honestly tell me that a pure White creature is going to use it (likely violating all kinds of grave-desecration laws, not to mention holy writ, et cetera et cetera) or that a purely Green creature would? Blue and Red won't have issues, true, but they're Black's allies already.

[Owrtho]

Actually I could see white using necromancy. Especially as it concerns mindless undead. The main reason being that mindless undead follow orders exactly, don't require resources, and last indefinitely (at least until someone shows up and destroys them). As such they would be almost perfect to make up the backbone of a perfectly ordered society (constructs also could work).
I'd also think that the energy being used need not decide the resulting alignment. In the same way that a person might use what seems like black methods for a white cause, a black powered spell might have a white effect.

Owrtho

[Lord_Gareth]

Keep in mind that White believes in Right and Wrong. Tell me, how many people - especially your average dumbass - consider walking corpses to be Right? Especially when they think, "Hey, that could be ME!" White's defining virtue may be charity, but it's defining vice is Pride. Constructs, yes. Shambling, rotting slaves? No.

Besides, White doesn't necessarily believe in mindless order. White doesn't have to be stupid. An army of skeletons is only as smart as its captains, and a lot of White organizations wouldn't want to have to deal with mindless troops who take their commands ultra-literally.

[Owrtho]

But it might not be considered wrong in the culture. Even if our culture considers it to be, a white culture might not. It could be considered as continuing to act for the good of the community even after death. Also the corpse need not be rotting. They could use various methods from also preserving them to just making them skeletons. I also never mentioned them being an army. I said the backbone of the community. They could be used to perform all the simple menial jobs that are ever so necessary to keep the community running. And in a pure white community where the good of the community is completely placed above ones self, I could easily see the members looking at a mindless undead working to accomplish its task that keeps the community functioning smoothly and thinking "I hope that i can be as useful to the community as that when I die."

Owrtho

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Keep in mind that White believes in Right and Wrong. Tell me, how many people - especially your average dumbass - consider walking corpses to be Right? Especially when they think, "Hey, that could be ME!" White's defining virtue may be charity, but it's defining vice is Pride. Constructs, yes. Shambling, rotting slaves? No.

Besides, White doesn't necessarily believe in mindless order. White doesn't have to be stupid. An army of skeletons is only as smart as its captains, and a lot of White organizations wouldn't want to have to deal with mindless troops who take their commands ultra-literally.

I have to disagree. I don't think necromancy should be color-coded, if you will...I can think of White uses for necromancy as surely as I can think of Black uses or even Green uses. If even one person considers a shambling corpse to be Right, then necromancy can be a White spell.

In short, if feels like you're creating an alignment system free of the problems created by a Good/Evil alignment system, and then trying to artificially inject Good and Evil back into it by forcing spells and people into stereotypes. Just remove those thoughts, and don't classify spells by color, nor mention Good/Evil is the color descriptions.

[Shyftir]

Just a note:

If you totally remove the concepts of Good and Evil your game will fall apart in your players heads. Even morally-grey games are designed to make you think about Good vs. Evil. At its core Fantasy and Fantasy gaming is about the struggle between Good and Evil. M:tG represents this through White and Black more than anything, with other colors being more representative of other forces brought into the fray.

Let me put it this way. Does it sould evil, nasty and horrifying? It's probably Black. Does it sound pure, good, and honest? It's probably White. These are things you can count on in M:tG pretty steadily. White is Good with a side of lawful. Black is evil in all its myriad forms.

What you achieve cannot be the removal of the concept of good vs. evil, you'll lose 3/4ths of Fantasy fans that way. What's needed is to remove the mechanic of Good vs. Evil. Magic partially achieves that, WoW mostly achieves that, standard D&D wallows in that mechanic. (I personally don't mind that mechanic, but I'm trying to go with the mood of the discussion.)


BtW DnD annoys me with making healing conjuration. It's still necromancy (or vivomancy.) Just because it uses it to help people makes it no less magic dealing with life force/energy.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you totally remove the concepts of Good and Evil your game will fall apart in your players heads. Even morally-grey games are designed to make you think about Good vs. Evil. At its core Fantasy and Fantasy gaming is about the struggle between Good and Evil. M:tG represents this through White and Black more than anything, with other colors being more representative of other forces brought into the fray.

Again, I must disagree. We're removing the concepts from the rules, not from the game. You can still include good and evil actions and intents, but they don't need to be physically represented in the ruleset itself.

[Krazddndfreek]

But it might not be considered wrong in the culture. Even if our culture considers it to be, a white culture might not. It could be considered as continuing to act for the good of the community even after death. Also the corpse need not be rotting. They could use various methods from also preserving them to just making them skeletons. I also never mentioned them being an army. I said the backbone of the community. They could be used to perform all the simple menial jobs that are ever so necessary to keep the community running. And in a pure white community where the good of the community is completely placed above ones self, I could easily see the members looking at a mindless undead working to accomplish its task that keeps the community functioning smoothly and thinking "I hope that i can be as useful to the community as that when I die."

Owrtho

This would probably be considered white/blue maybe a splash of black in there. White basically means that you believe in things like life after death and taking care of peoples' dead bodies. When they're being used to serve you... it doesn't seem so right. Blue however, would be the philosophy backing "useful to the community after death" and could be twisted into the white philosophy of caring for others as what you suggested, "I hope that i can be as useful to the community as that when I die."

just my two cents.

[Swordgleam]

Again, I must disagree. We're removing the concepts from the rules, not from the game. You can still include good and evil actions and intents, but they don't need to be physically represented in the ruleset itself.

Agreed. I've played in plenty of systems with no alignment mechanic whatsoever, but still strong good and evil themes in the game. Saying "necromancy and selfishness aren't equivalent to evil and healing and order aren't equivalent to good in every game that uses these rules" doesn't remove those elements from the game itself.

[Latronis]

This would probably be considered white/blue maybe a splash of black in there. White basically means that you believe in things like life after death and taking care of peoples' dead bodies. When they're being used to serve you... it doesn't seem so right. Blue however, would be the philosophy backing "useful to the community after death" and could be twisted into the white philosophy of caring for others as what you suggested, "I hope that i can be as useful to the community as that when I die."

just my two cents.

No white believes in a system of morality.. NOT what that system is. Often Dictating it to others though.


If you totally remove the concepts of Good and Evil your game will fall apart in your players heads. Even morally-grey games are designed to make you think about Good vs. Evil. At its core Fantasy and Fantasy gaming is about the struggle between Good and Evil. M:tG represents this through White and Black more than anything, with other colors being more representative of other forces brought into the fray.

Let me put it this way. Does it sould evil, nasty and horrifying? It's probably Black. Does it sound pure, good, and honest? It's probably White. These are things you can count on in M:tG pretty steadily. White is Good with a side of lawful. Black is evil in all its myriad forms.

White =\= Good. Black =\= Evil.

[imp_fireball]

Sounds cool, I can imagine already paladins dedicated to the purging of heretics, with no need of the law (Red/white)

And they can be exceptionally cruel while doing it (tortures victims, brutally slays those that beg for mercy or to be redeemed and then spits on the corpse considering it 'pathetic' that they begged), perhaps justifying them for Neutral Evil or some other alignment (Chaotic Evil?). Thus the paladin is tied to cause and deity rather than 'the rigid definition of whatever the hell good means'. Un-flawed heroes are fake anyway. :smallcool:

And of course it gets rid of the cliches.


At its core Fantasy and Fantasy gaming is about the struggle between Good and Evil

You couldn't be more wrong. Fantasy, at its core, is about escapism, nothing more.

I can't believe people still argue this. We don't live in the 40s of pure comic book heroes any more (ironically, hardly any of us were even born in the 40s, I bet).

The game won't drastically change if you remove alignment and all concepts of black and white. Trust me on this one.

Although personally, I still like to use alignment even if none of the black and white is involved - that way, Good isn't Good and Evil isn't Evil. Instead, good is merely nice (the desire to want to get people to like you, pretty much) and evil can be as petty as cynicism (you don't care if people don't like you; quite often you end up selfish, mean, and so uncaring that people think of you as 'evil'; and that's really all that matters in a story, character perception). Neutral is a little of both. You want people to like you, but at the same time you get involved with the wrong crowd. Or you are a cynic who feels obliged to do what he's told.

The biggest conundrum (at least for me) though, is that alignment is taken in a very human way. Too human, considering its use among those characters that aren't human, and should logically not think in the same way that humans do. The exception of course, applies to creatures like vampires whom may have used to be human.

[Lord_Gareth]

I have to disagree. I don't think necromancy should be color-coded, if you will...I can think of White uses for necromancy as surely as I can think of Black uses or even Green uses. If even one person considers a shambling corpse to be Right, then necromancy can be a White spell.

In short, if feels like you're creating an alignment system free of the problems created by a Good/Evil alignment system, and then trying to artificially inject Good and Evil back into it by forcing spells and people into stereotypes. Just remove those thoughts, and don't classify spells by color, nor mention Good/Evil is the color descriptions.

Alright, alright, you sold me - though I'd love to hear your idea for a pure G use of animate dead, what with it raping the circle of life and all.


The biggest conundrum (at least for me) though, is that alignment is taken in a very human way. Too human, considering its use among those characters that aren't human, and should logically not think in the same way that humans do. The exception of course, applies to creatures like vampires whom may have used to be human.

Oh, I definitely think that you can create an inhuman being using this alignment system. Take, let's say, the Buggers (of Ender's Game fame) - a race of competing hiveminds, each one controlled by a single queen (the only truly intelligent being in the entire hivemind). Buggers communicate solely through a form of racial telepathy, which only they can understand. Killing any individual Bugger is like destroying a camera or smashing a gun to them - just getting rid of a tool - but killing a queen is murder, because it cuts off a genetic line. Totally inhuman, right?

They're G/W.

I'm going with Djinn's idea on cleric channeling. Until I come up with a better idea, clerics can choose between turning and rebuking the undead. Such direct color-hosing may not be in accordance to the mechanics of Magic, but it is in accordance to the idea of clerics, and I am, after all, developing this for D&D.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Alright, alright, you sold me - though I'd love to hear your idea for a pure G use of animate dead, what with it raping the circle of life and all.


Green believes that everything was made perfect as it is. Nature has already given you all the tools and weapons you need to survive, thrive, and excel - all one has to do is find one's place in Nature, accept it, and embrace it. Green opposes artifice and encroachment upon nature; direct, physical solutions, instinct, and enhancing magic are all hallmarks of Green's philosiphy. Important to note is that Green believes in destiny and predestination - but also that these forces can be violated (hence Green's violent opposition of what others might call progress). At its best, Green creates peaceful, group-oriented societies that live in harmony with nature.

Take the humble Sorcerer: a being granted magical power through forces of nature. One such man, finding his powers naturally bend towards necromancy, realizes in a flash of insight that nature has made him part of the next natural cycle: one of complete rebirth in a new (and in his mind, naturally enhanced) form. Nature has given him the means to a new end: a continuation of life after the old natural death.

This could be pure Green, although Green with a touch of either Red, Blue, or Black could also work, depending on how you look at his thoughts.

[Lord_Gareth]

Eh, I see that as G/B personally, but I definitely see the angle you're playin' at. You win :P

Alright, I have some suggested mechanical changes up. I'm also going to have to completely rewrite the standard cosmology, so expect that at some point as well (suggestions appreciated).

Your comments, critique, debate, and questions continue to be GREATLY appreciated. Keep it coming!

@Imp: The following is a nitpick - even PHB paladins don't need gods. Go ahead and read the class entry. Power flows to a Paladin directly from the Code. Gods completely optional.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

For the mechanical changes, you might want to mention that positive and negative energy no longer exist: otherwise it interacts oddly when you try to heal/harm undead of your alignment. Currently a Black Cleric can only trade in spells to case cure spells on allies...if he's working with Black aligned undead, all he can do is damage them.

[lightningcat]

Alright, I have some suggested mechanical changes up. I'm also going to have to completely rewrite the standard cosmology, so expect that at some point as well (suggestions appreciated).
I never liked the standard D&D cosmology myself, so in my game I have 24 planes based on various concepts: Air, Balance, Chaos, Darkness, Death, Dragons, Dreams, Earth, Fire, Hunt, Library, Life, Light, Nightmares, Order, Peace, Roads, Shadow, Storms, Summer, War, Water, Wild, and Winter. And there are both good and evil deities associated with each of them. So the color wheel alignment system would be a nice addition to my game as it would give me a better way to unify my cosmology.

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright, I can go a few ways with the cosmology changes here:

Option One: The Madlands - The cosmology is basically a giant soup. There's the Prime Material/Ethereal/Shadow, floating amidst a great sea of random colored energy that expresses itself, occasionally, as bubbles similar to demiplanes. Outsiders/Elementals/Suchlike are formed in those bubbles. Only the hardiest manage to survive.

Option Two: Reinventing the Wheel - It's the Great Wheel...but different. Planes get re-named, re-vamped, and condensed. Same cliched idea, different expression.

Option Three: Go Nuts - Give alternate ideas! Mirrodin's moons! Eberron's weird circling demi-planes! Ravenloftian interference!

[Devils_Advocate]

Doesn't the fact that, by design, you can go and combine any two colors seem to suggest that they're not so fundamentally incompatible with each other as all that? I mean, sure, each has its own preferred means and ends -- freedom and self-expression, doing things the "natural" way, harmony through law, manipulation through understanding, power however they can get it -- but I don't think that many things are gonna be exclusive to one color or even beyond the reach of one particular color. People of every Color are going to find it useful to form coalitions, order things to their liking, learn things, change things, consolidate power, destroy stuff, disrupt enemies, cultivate resources, and a bunch of other stuff.

The argument that necromancy shouldn't be Black seems like an instance of the broader argument that almost nothing should be any Color. A Color in Magic isn't just a unifying philosophy, but includes a bundle of stuff that meshes well together thematically; a given thingy isn't part of the Color it's part of because other things about the Colors demand that it be in there. The relevant tropes for animating corpses are "immoral" and "unnatural", so it fits best in Black and worst in Green and White. It's the sort of thing that people who favor the "moral" and "natural" will tend to oppose.

There may not be any single thing that all of the thingies associated with a given Color have in common. Rather, they may simply share a family resemblance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance). This is basically politics as usual.

If you want to give each Color a big ol' bag o' goodies but also want to avoid conflating different things with each other, I recommend simply clearly distinguishing between what a Color inherently is and what it merely has an affinity for. Black magic doesn't have to be Black-aligned to be easiest for Black characters.

(Think how much better the D&D alignment system would work if they had explicitly specified what each of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos inherently are.)


Let me put it this way. Does it sould evil, nasty and horrifying? It's probably Black. Does it sound pure, good, and honest? It's probably White.
Exactly; Black is amoral and White is moralistic. White isn't inherently kind and even has the capacity to be horrifyingly cruel. One of the problems with White is a definite tendency care way too much precisely about whether things sound evil, nasty and horrifying or sound pure, good, and honest; and not care nearly enough about whether the things are actually good or bad for people. To borrow from a smarter person than myself: One of the non-obvious potential off-switches for someone's conscience is the concept of "morality" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/rr/the_moral_void/).


These are things you can count on in M:tG pretty steadily. White is Good with a side of lawful. Black is evil in all its myriad forms.
Hahahaha no. Black is selfishness. Selfishness can motivate someone to do evil, but so can many other causes. On the other hand, selfishness can motivate someone to be very nice to you, so long as he expects to get something out of it in return.

"White is not good and Black is not evil" has been repeated in every official description of the Magic Colors that I've read. The official position on this issue has consistently been that each Color is capable of both good and evil. The whole classic Good vs. Evil conflict isn't dismissed as irrelevant; it's embraced as an essential part of fantasy. Too essential to confine it to the conflict between White and Black.

Now, if you want to talk about D&D alignments and Magic Colors in terms of each other...


By their very natures, Law is White and White is Lawful. White also has a propensity for Good if you throw stuff like fondness for fairness and peace into the mix, but not so great a propensity that it's incapable of Evil.
Stereotypical selfish Evil is Black. Non-stereotypical non-selfish Evil isn't Black. Black is the most easily Evil Color because it has no moral compunctions about harming others.
Red is hella Chaotic. Chaos can be Red, but it doesn't have to be unless you have a very narrow view of Chaos.
Law need not be Blue. Some people think that Law means Blue instead of White, but these people are wrong. Blue seems fairly compatible with all of the nine alignments, unless you think that Blue is inherently duplicitous and Law is inherently honest.
Green basically corresponds to druidism in D&D, with the accompanying tendency towards Neutrality because nature is Neutral. Like White, it has some Good stuff thrown in, but nothing so central to it that it can't be Evil (especially considering that Green wants break into your house and smash up your electronics).
Good obviously need not be White because Chaotic Good characters aren't White.



BtW DnD annoys me with making healing conjuration. It's still necromancy (or vivomancy.) Just because it uses it to help people makes it no less magic dealing with life force/energy.
It used to be, but they changed it for 3rd Edition under the theory that necromancy is naughty and healing is nice, so obviously healing can't be necromancy.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure that that was their actual reason. They seem to have decided that they needed to actively make the Necromancy school more dark and sinister (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization).

[Owrtho]

The argument that necromancy shouldn't be Black seems like an instance of the broader argument that almost nothing should be any Color.

I think that is the main argument. At least so far as magic is concerned.

It doesn't seem to make sense that magic should follow any alignment (in my opinion). I feel that magic should just be a tool to accomplish something rather than a signifier of what you accomplish. After all, are guns black because they can be used to kill? If so then what about those used just for protection, or hunting (technically killing but most tend to see it as different from killing people)? Magic should be treated as a tool, and as such should be like any other tool, free from moral ties.

Owrtho

[Lord_Gareth]

Wow, this is a long post to respond to ^_^


Doesn't the fact that, by design, you can go and combine any two colors seem to suggest that they're not so fundamentally incompatible with each other as all that? I mean, sure, each has its own preferred means and ends -- freedom and self-expression, doing things the "natural" way, harmony through law, manipulation through understanding, power however they can get it -- but I don't think that many things are gonna be exclusive to one color or even beyond the reach of one particular color. People of every Color are going to find it useful to form coalitions, order things to their liking, learn things, change things, consolidate power, destroy stuff, disrupt enemies, cultivate resources, and a bunch of other stuff.

Of course. The fundamental differences are shown in terms of what these organizations look like. The strictest Red organization, for example, is either a meritocracy or a democracy. A Black organization is either a meritocracy, or a dictatorship ruled by the strongest.

The other important bit is the goals of such an organization. A Red organization wants universal freedom. White wants universal law, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, they all find it useful to organize, defeat their enemies, and suchlike - the important difference is why they do it, and what they see as acceptable in that pursuit.


The argument that necromancy shouldn't be Black seems like an instance of the broader argument that almost nothing should be any Color. A Color in Magic isn't just a unifying philosophy, but includes a bundle of stuff that meshes well together thematically; a given thingy isn't part of the Color it's part of because other things about the Colors demand that it be in there. The relevant tropes for animating corpses are "immoral" and "unnatural", so it fits best in Black and worst in Green and White. It's the sort of thing that people who favor the "moral" and "natural" will tend to oppose.

There may not be any single thing that all of the thingies associated with a given Color have in common. Rather, they may simply share a family resemblance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance). This is basically politics as usual.

If you want to give each Color a big ol' bag o' goodies but also want to avoid conflating different things with each other, I recommend simply clearly distinguishing between what a Color inherently is and what it merely has an affinity for. Black magic doesn't have to be Black-aligned to be easiest for Black characters.

(Think how much better the D&D alignment system would work if they had explicitly specified what each of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos inherently are.)

This was kinda the plan; nothing is going to be inherantly labelled as part of any color, but each color has a tendency to use certain tactics. Could White start trading, say, the souls of convicted felons to demons in order to gain magical power? Sure. Is White likely to? No.


Exactly; Black is amoral and White is moralistic. White isn't inherently kind and even has the capacity to be horrifyingly cruel. One of the problems with White is a definite tendency care way too much precisely about whether things sound evil, nasty and horrifying or sound pure, good, and honest; and not care nearly enough about whether the things are actually good or bad for people. To borrow from a smarter person than myself: One of the non-obvious potential off-switches for someone's conscience is the concept of "morality" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/rr/the_moral_void/).

Pride goeth before the ass-whuppin', something White forgets all too often ^_^


Hahahaha no. Black is selfishness. Selfishness can motivate someone to do evil, but so can many other causes. On the other hand, selfishness can motivate someone to be very nice to you, so long as he expects to get something out of it in return.

Precisely. The key difference between Black and White is that Black doesn't care. It really doesn't. If you're not interfering with Black's plans or potentially offering Black something it wants, it doesn't give a damn. Unlike White, which rather violently opposes alternate viewpoints, Black doesn't give a damn. Wanna live in harmony with nature? Fine, you're out of the way. Want universal freedom? Good for you. Wanna kowtow to someone else's set of rules for all of your life? Black thinks you're an idiot, but it's not about to go out of its way to stop you. Black isn't Team Evil - it's not concerned with the growth of its ideas. To repeat the theme of the paragraph - Black doesn't care.


"White is not good and Black is not evil" has been repeated in every official description of the Magic Colors that I've read. The official position on this issue has consistently been that each Color is capable of both good and evil. The whole classic Good vs. Evil conflict isn't dismissed as irrelevant; it's embraced as an essential part of fantasy. Too essential to confine it to the conflict between White and Black.

Precisely! Though, personally, I prefer morally gray fantasy - "good" and "evil" are, nowadays, terms that only serve to irritate me.


Now, if you want to talk about D&D alignments and Magic Colors in terms of each other...


By their very natures, Law is White and White is Lawful. White also has a propensity for Good if you throw stuff like fondness for fairness and peace into the mix, but not so great a propensity that it's incapable of Evil.
Stereotypical selfish Evil is Black. Non-stereotypical non-selfish Evil isn't Black. Black is the most easily Evil Color because it has no moral compunctions about harming others.
Red is hella Chaotic. Chaos can be Red, but it doesn't have to be unless you have a very narrow view of Chaos.
Law need not be Blue. Some people think that Law means Blue instead of White, but these people are wrong. Blue seems fairly compatible with all of the nine alignments, unless you think that Blue is inherently duplicitous and Law is inherently honest.
Green basically corresponds to druidism in D&D, with the accompanying tendency towards Neutrality because nature is Neutral. Like White, it has some Good stuff thrown in, but nothing so central to it that it can't be Evil (especially considering that Green wants break into your house and smash up your electronics).
Good obviously need not be White because Chaotic Good characters aren't White.


I approve of this list.


Seriously, I'm pretty sure that that was their actual reason. They seem to have decided that they needed to actively make the Necromancy school more dark and sinister (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization).

WotC dropped the ball on many things. Necromancy is one of them.

[Tim4488]

Alright, I can go a few ways with the cosmology changes here:

Option One: The Madlands - The cosmology is basically a giant soup. There's the Prime Material/Ethereal/Shadow, floating amidst a great sea of random colored energy that expresses itself, occasionally, as bubbles similar to demiplanes. Outsiders/Elementals/Suchlike are formed in those bubbles. Only the hardiest manage to survive.

Option Two: Reinventing the Wheel - It's the Great Wheel...but different. Planes get re-named, re-vamped, and condensed. Same cliched idea, different expression.

Option Three: Go Nuts - Give alternate ideas! Mirrodin's moons! Eberron's weird circling demi-planes! Ravenloftian interference!

I realize I'm the boring one, but I think the Great Wheel could be a lot of fun with this. A ring of planes going White, White/Green, Green/White, Green, Green/Red, Red/Green, Red, Red/Black, Black/Red, Black... and so on. Or even, to cut down just to White, White/Green (equal proportions), Green, Green/Red (=), Red, etc.

My inclination. Like I said, maybe not the most exciting option, but I'd have fun with it.

EDIT: That said, would you want a Red/Blue plane, or a Green/Black one, or a Black/White, or so on? Those could be interesting, if in some cases harder to figure out.

[Owrtho]

That said, would you want a Red/Blue plane, or a Green/Black one, or a Black/White, or so on? Those could be interesting, if in some cases harder to figure out.

I'd expect those to be the spokes of the wheel. Then you could place the material plane at the center and say that depending on the direction you travel the planes start to be dominated by one colour or another.

Owrtho

[Latronis]

If you want a great wheel The Shards of Alara set had a nice idea for it. the 3 allied coloured pairings with the middle colour being strongest.

Green-White-Blue

White-Blue-Black

Blue-Black-Red

Black-Red-Green

Red-Green-White

[Nai_Calus]

I think what bugs me in all of this is that the only one that even implies any sort of goodness is White, which is heavily lawful, and almost all of my characters are Chaotic Good. I have one character, CG unsurprisingly, I know like the back of my hand. I have no idea where he'd fall on this, since his sense of morality is so absolutely central to him. Red I guess somewhere since he's very much about personal freedom and feeling that laws mostly just get in the way of doing good, and the ones that don't get in the way are unnecessary. But he's very much a good person, almost disgustingly so, who strongly believes that there's right and wrong in the multiverse, which seems to be White, but he doesn't match a single other thing there at all.

It's the same problem I have with 4e's ridiculous Lawful being only Good and Chaotic being only Evil, I guess.

I get that this is trying to be morally grey or whatever(I hate morally grey but that's another matter), but if it is it really should lose all notion of anything being 'good' or 'moral'.

[Sequinox]

This is fascinating. It's great to see alignment not just be BLACK and WHITE anymore!
(Ba-dum-bump! Crash!)

Anyway, I want to use this some day. Great stuff.

[Swordgleam]

I have one character, CG unsurprisingly, I know like the back of my hand. I have no idea where he'd fall on this

I don't know your character, but I've always seen Green in magic as being CG. It's all about growth and life, but you're free to take that in whatever direction you please.

As has been said before, white != good and black != evil. You could have a CG black character if you wanted to - someone who believes that the right of an individual (specifically, themself) to pursue their goals is paramount.


4e's ridiculous Lawful being only Good and Chaotic being only Evil

This is slightly off topic, but I'm pretty sure it explicitly says somewhere in the 4e books that what was Chaotic Good is now just Good. So you can be anywhere on the spectrum from almost-Lawful to Chaotic and still call yourself "Good," just like LE characters now just calls themselves Evil. It doesn't mean you can't be CG or LE, it means you don't have to think as hard about it - if you're evil and not chaotic, you're Evil, and if you're good and not lawful, you're Good.

[imp_fireball]

Could White start trading, say, the souls of convicted felons to demons in order to gain magical power? Sure. Is White likely to? No.

Depends how long white was in the service of demons for. If it was for centuries, then the culture could change and the demons could be considered 'good'. Or perhaps the only person aware of the actual nature of the demons is the only non-white person (the leader, communicator/ie. Gul'dan from warcraft).

As for clerics turning or rebuking undead - they could choose to channel divine energy for 'light' or 'dark'. Light and dark aren't intrinsically evil or good (they're merely forms of energy; say, in some settings light creates and dark destroys or causes decay in the passage of time or whatever; Warcraft series has the concepts of light and dark down pretty well in magic where light is the channeled energy from a powerful race of ancient aliens and the 'ultimate' magic (theoretically, that of the titans) is pretty much lost, with dark energy (the magic of warlocks) in its place, originally spawned by the presence of demons and brought full circle by Sargeras and STILL not intrinsically evil, just more yucky) although clerics could easily hold those beliefs.


I think what bugs me in all of this is that the only one that even implies any sort of goodness is White, which is heavily lawful, and almost all of my characters are Chaotic Good. I have one character, CG unsurprisingly, I know like the back of my hand. I have no idea where he'd fall on this, since his sense of morality is so absolutely central to him. Red I guess somewhere since he's very much about personal freedom and feeling that laws mostly just get in the way of doing good, and the ones that don't get in the way are unnecessary. But he's very much a good person, almost disgustingly so, who strongly believes that there's right and wrong in the multiverse, which seems to be White, but he doesn't match a single other thing there at all.

I'd probably put that character as Black/Green. Black/Green is a little confusing to interpret (it implies you're a freak of nature at first glance), but for your character it could work - Black, meaning he values individualism (what he considers 'freedom'... individualism and freedom are very close together) and the right to pursue HIS goals, not others. His belief that there is right and wrong in the universe (stemming from some deeper philosophy no doubt) is green, since it involves his desire to serve the universe (and nature) rather than the immediate sapient power structure. Not all greens are hippies after all. They just decide to serve by their own definitions, usually based on some higher power that is always very subtle (if it was anything more than subtle then said person would shift over to white... maybe).

Similarly, the die hard servant of an evil demon lord, might be white/black. He believes in absolute service and the advancement of the organization (in this case, his master's intentions). If he cares nothing for his own personal success in life (merely, to please his master) he could be a pure white example.


(Think how much better the D&D alignment system would work if they had explicitly specified what each of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos inherently are.)

We already know what they are though. Unfortunately, WotC didn't major in philosophy (I'd say, they threw philosophy text books into the crapper with great force, actually), so they'll never be able to explain it any better than us (really, they'll keep remaining in their 'cutesy small time hobby state', ultimately getting manipulated by bigger commercial media like Blizzard Entertainment and World of Warcraft... which is fine for them to remain so, it's just, I mean, c'mon! End rant.).

Anyway, it's quite clear that all of those things you pointed out are human defined. Colors present a different angle, yes, but in effect they are instead soul states.

Magic, being an intrinsic force in the universe (going with that common setting), should instead be presented in shades, since you can't label magic as inherently good or evil.

What comes to mind (as defined by warcraft) - Light (positive energy; not necessarily raw creation since that's more the titan's thing, but it heals and... yah), dark (destruction... or at least the energy that requires souls, or what have you; dark is much more universal than light; perhaps the energy of pure causality and the great dark beyond (outer space)), yellow (time; sand is yellow in cartoons after all), deep blue (arcane magic).

And if you wanna get a little more specific - Eery Green (necromancy), foul purple (the energy of shadows! Warlocks shoot this stuff in-game), Red (the color of rage! Ruh-ruh-ruh-ruh! *blood lust*), Smooth purple/emerald (green again; the magic of nature or at least dreams; even night elves don't fully understand nature, and they're one of the oldest species short of dragons), brown (the color of the mundane; peasants are brown 'Yes me'lord!').

[Nai_Calus]

I don't know your character, but I've always seen Green in magic as being CG. It's all about growth and life, but you're free to take that in whatever direction you please.

As has been said before, white != good and black != evil. You could have a CG black character if you wanted to - someone who believes that the right of an individual (specifically, themself) to pursue their goals is paramount.



This is slightly off topic, but I'm pretty sure it explicitly says somewhere in the 4e books that what was Chaotic Good is now just Good. So you can be anywhere on the spectrum from almost-Lawful to Chaotic and still call yourself "Good," just like LE characters now just calls themselves Evil. It doesn't mean you can't be CG or LE, it means you don't have to think as hard about it - if you're evil and not chaotic, you're Evil, and if you're good and not lawful, you're Good.

Green doesn't sound like him at all, he doesn't believe in destiny or predestination, or that anything is inherently the way it needs to be from birth.

I suppose part of my problem is that I really don't get the point of this thing, it doesn't even seem to *apply* to most of my characters, and I don't have a problem with D&D's alignment system in the first place. I need someone to explain it to me like I'm three, apparently. XD It just seems too... Broad. There's like one thing in nearly every colour my character would fit, and then the rest is completely inapplicable. It seems even more confusing and meaningless to me than people say the 9-point alignment thing is. Like... OK, Red fits him best, but he's still not matching even remotely *most* of it and if I told someone he was 'Red' and nothing else, they'd form entirely the wrong idea of him from that, whereas if I say 'Chaotic Good', you'd get in the right ballpark immediately.

Continuing the off-topic, no, it doesn't say anywhere that CG was folded into Good, at least not in the PHB. If it says it anywhere it's in the DMG, I'd guess, which... Is a spectacularly bad place to put it. The closest it comes that I know of is in Manual of the Planes when it suggests 4e alignments for the planes of the Great Wheel, where it suggests Good for Arborea. ...Which is still a spectacularly bad place to put 'CG is Good now'. And Good's description reads like it's not even that good. 4e Alignment is terrible though and the PHB Alignment section reads like it was written by 14 year olds for 5 year olds, but that's another topic altogether.



I'd probably put that character as Black/Green. Black/Green is a little confusing to interpret (it implies you're a freak of nature at first glance), but for your character it could work - Black, meaning he values individualism (what he considers 'freedom'... individualism and freedom are very close together) and the right to pursue HIS goals, not others. His belief that there is right and wrong in the universe (stemming from some deeper philosophy no doubt) is green, since it involves his desire to serve the universe (and nature) rather than the immediate sapient power structure. Not all greens are hippies after all. They just decide to serve by their own definitions, usually based on some higher power that is always very subtle (if it was anything more than subtle then said person would shift over to white... maybe).


He's very much wiccan rede in his outlook. An it harm none, do as ye will. He believes very strongly in the right of everyone to find and follow their own path and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same. He does his best to protect others and their rights, regardless of whether he gets anything out of it or not. He believes that good allows the most freedom for everyone, as people who are truly living up to the ideals of good aren't hurting each other and will help each other if needed, possible and (generally) asked for. He likes nature well enough, he's a half-elf who was raised largely around elves, but he's a lot more worried about people than trees. He's also deeply religious and worships Corellon Larethian, god of the elves. He doesn't view his actions as any sort of service, though. He does things that his god would approve of because he and his god happen to have similar views in most areas. He chose his god based on his own beliefs, he's not following him because it's what he was taught and he's trying to live up to the ideals of the faith. He doesn't preach either his ideals or his god, he prefers that any 'preaching' is done through his actions. People can see what he is and what he does, and if they like what they see, they can try to live up to that idea if they want. If not, well, that's their choice to make. He's very much not the selfish 'my way or the highway' sort.

[Swordgleam]

He's very much wiccan rede in his outlook. An it harm none, do as ye will. He believes very strongly in the right of everyone to find and follow their own path and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same. He does his best to protect others and their rights, regardless of whether he gets anything out of it or not.

That sounds White to me. While White seems lawful-y, not all white things are. Protection and harmony are very much White ideals.

[Latronis]

CG


While on the surface red's goals might seem similar to black's there are some important differences. Black's desire to do what it wants is driven by a quest for power. Black doesn't care if others are restricted. As long as it as an individual can do what it wants, black is happy. Red, on the other hand, believes that everyone has the right to do what it wants. Red will act to break down barriers that don't necessarily affect it personally merely because it doesn't like their existence.

In addition, while black is very solitary, red can be very social. Red follows its emotions. These emotions include love, lust, camaraderie, and friendship. Red cares about others. At least the ones to which it has some emotional ties. And red will go to great lengths to help or protect its loved ones. This doesn't mean that red isn't somewhat selfish. Emotions, by their very nature, do put one's own needs first, but it does mean that red at times will think about others.

In the end, red's ultimate goal is freedom. Red wants everyone free to act however they wish. And red is more than willing to take action to ensure that this happens.

Yeah a benevolent red character fits Chaotic Good to a tee

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright, I appear to have said something wrong at some point, so let me clarify here:

Each color presented here is a moral philosiphy - White's just the preachiest (and Black is, by extension, the least preachy, as it believes that it knows how the world is and doesn't need to go around convincing anyone else). To Red, freedom is its moral imperative. Likewise, learning is Blue's moral imperative, growth is Green's, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't know your character, but most CG characters, in my experience, equate to either Red (but not extremist red) or R/W. The major difference is in how your character interacts with society. If he still values social groups and societies in general - hell, if he believes that SOME laws need to be in place - he's probably R/W (see the aforementioned idea of a paladin who believes that societies should be organized to protect the rights of the people). If he's more indifferent/opposed to society and artificial social groupings, then he's probably straight-up R.

I do hope that helped ^_^

[Latronis]

And if he's more of a tribal traditionalist he may have a green leaning

[Owrtho]

What comes to mind (as defined by warcraft) - Light (positive energy; not necessarily raw creation since that's more the titan's thing, but it heals and... yah), dark (destruction... or at least the energy that requires souls, or what have you; dark is much more universal than light; perhaps the energy of pure causality and the great dark beyond (outer space)), yellow (time; sand is yellow in cartoons after all), deep blue (arcane magic).

And if you wanna get a little more specific - Eery Green (necromancy), foul purple (the energy of shadows! Warlocks shoot this stuff in-game), Red (the color of rage! Ruh-ruh-ruh-ruh! *blood lust*), Smooth purple/emerald (green again; the magic of nature or at least dreams; even night elves don't fully understand nature, and they're one of the oldest species short of dragons), brown (the color of the mundane; peasants are brown 'Yes me'lord!').

Well, I think the idea is to not have the colour wheel be a part of magic at all (aside from spells like detect alignment). The idea of light and dark can be good though, but dark shouldn't be inherently more lucky. It could be something more like light requires creating the energy, but causes dark energy as a byproduct, while dark just utilizes the byproduct energy of the light (with the idea that both are around in abundance outside antimagic zones). They could also just be two unrelated but equal types of energy with no particular difference outside of the colour they give off, and the reason why they can be used to harm each other is that only one can occupy a space at a given time (and the spells that power things can only utilize a single type).


That sounds White to me. While White seems lawful-y, not all white things are. Protection and harmony are very much White ideals.

I think that your confusing white in other sources and the white of this colour wheel. Mainly as I'm fairly certain that white is simply order (often shown through law). As such an organized group that systematically destroys and brings harm could easily be pure white. White doesn't have to be protecting or good, they can just as easily be ordered evil (thus it wouldn't be odd for a white group to make a contact with demons to give them the souls of criminals in exchange for something, provided that the group in question didn't mind making contracts (a particularly white thing) with demons).
That said, while white doesn't need to believe in the laws, they do need to believe in some type of order.

Owrtho

[imp_fireball]

He's very much wiccan rede in his outlook. An it harm none, do as ye will. He believes very strongly in the right of everyone to find and follow their own path and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same. He does his best to protect others and their rights, regardless of whether he gets anything out of it or not. He believes that good allows the most freedom for everyone, as people who are truly living up to the ideals of good aren't hurting each other and will help each other if needed, possible and (generally) asked for. He likes nature well enough, he's a half-elf who was raised largely around elves, but he's a lot more worried about people than trees. He's also deeply religious and worships Corellon Larethian, god of the elves. He doesn't view his actions as any sort of service, though. He does things that his god would approve of because he and his god happen to have similar views in most areas. He chose his god based on his own beliefs, he's not following him because it's what he was taught and he's trying to live up to the ideals of the faith. He doesn't preach either his ideals or his god, he prefers that any 'preaching' is done through his actions. People can see what he is and what he does, and if they like what they see, they can try to live up to that idea if they want. If not, well, that's their choice to make. He's very much not the selfish 'my way or the highway' sort.

That's still pretty black. Selfish isn't always black (black is supposedly the least preach-y as has been mentioned). Remember that alignments don't need to be taken to the extreme.

Also, you don't need to be a tree hugger to be green, as I've already explained.


The idea of light and dark can be good though, but dark shouldn't be inherently more lucky. It could be something more like light requires creating the energy, but causes dark energy as a byproduct, while dark just utilizes the byproduct energy of the light (with the idea that both are around in abundance outside antimagic zones).

I was actually looking at it more in the angle that dark has always existed, since before the dawn of time, since it represents the Great Dark Beyond - possibly all chaos, causality, that sorta thing. Light is a force that some intelligence chose to begin wielding to perhaps... create things? Who knows. Leaving it up to player presumption is also a good idea, since who can hope to leave mere mortals to understand the true workings and origins of magic?


the only one that even implies any sort of goodness is White,

That's because white's the one that likes to preach things. :smallamused:

White - The preacher.
Black - The 'mind your own business and I'll do my thing' guy. Persistence is hard when I have to listen to what you're saying, so please.
Green - Mr. Conservative.
Blue - Change is good! It's interesting. As is everything else. But of course, everything is change, as I assume you are aware.
Red - You pretty much know what I am. I'm what's left! :smallfurious:

[Devils_Advocate]

The strictest Red organization, for example, is either a meritocracy or a democracy.
I seriously burst out laughing after I read this.

Strictly organized Red... Hee hee hee. HA HA HA! :smallbiggrin:


I don't know your character, but I've always seen Green in magic as being CG. It's all about growth and life, but you're free to take that in whatever direction you please.
My understanding of pure Green is that it's basically radical Luddism and wanting humans to live like wild animals. It's actually sort of at odds with wanting sapient beings to be given the fullest possible opportunity to express the boundless potential they hold within them.

'Cuz it's harder to express your potential when the only tools you have to work with are sticks and rocks. :smalltongue:


That's still pretty black. Selfish isn't always black (black is supposedly the least preach-y as has been mentioned). Remember that alignments don't need to be taken to the extreme.
I'm pretty sure that selfishness is Black's defining trait. A non-selfish character probably shouldn't have Black as his primary Color.

Supporting individualism amongst other people is pretty much Red, I think.

[imp_fireball]

Supporting individualism amongst other people is pretty much Red, I think.

Well, I always took Red to be about emotional freedom more than individualism (so, Red would be happy if they were allowed to break into wild dances every so often (tarantism), even if there privacy was being violated every hour of the day and they had curfews, or whatever). Red is the least grounded of the colors, at least that's the impression I got from it.

As for Black, Black cares about its own individualism, so it seems only sensible that it'd expect individualism in others if it were to define a society off of it.

Again, you don't need to lean in a particularly extreme direction to be defined as part of a color.

[munchlord]

That mystery character there sounds like Primary Red to me (valuing freedom to do as you please is Red Hallmark as far as I understand). So basically, that's benevolent Red, possibly with a splash of some other color, depending on methology and other details. I could see black for the "don't care what you do as long as you don't get in my way" attitude, just applied to everyone. White for applying it to anyone.... I might go call primary Red with White and Black as secondary colors.


As for the Green application for Raise Dead, I have a suggestion in the more simple end:

Here is a battlefield. A large amount of vegetation was destroyed and the area is strewn with corpses. In comes the Green aligned dude and thinks: this sucks. Then he goes to animate a solid amount of zombies from the corpses and makes them cultivate the earth and replant vegetation, trees ETC. then bury the other corpses and themselves and self-decomission, thus fertilizing the land effectively. Nature is helped recover where it has been damaged.


Also, I like this system.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, I always took Red to be about emotional freedom more than individualism (so, Red would be happy if they were allowed to break into wild dances every so often (tarantism), even if there privacy was being violated every hour of the day and they had curfews, or whatever).
No, Red is definitely about freedom of action, not just freedom of expression. Red is big on action. Or, alternately, Red might say that you're only fully free to express yourself when you can do whatever you want. Anyway, Red hates rules. RED SMASH STUPID RULES!


Red is the least grounded of the colors, at least that's the impression I got from it.
I get the impression that Red's hat is opposition to restraint, be it external or internal.

[Lord_Gareth]

An almighty bump, along with:

The Colorless
Colorless creatures, at first glance, seem as though they lack alignment, and in a sense this statement is true, in that any creature incapable of making moral choices (animals and mindless beings) is colorless. However, it is possible for a sentient creature to have an "alignment" of colorless.

A colorless creature suffers from indecision or lack of motivation; general apathy pervades their belief system and methodology. Colorless creatures might resemble hell-in-a-handbasket depression cases, unmotivated slackers, or office drones who labor each day just to get by and get through without really knowing why. Alternately, a creature who has had their ability to make moral choices stripped from them is also treated as colorless; those who suffer from the Soulless template, for example, or creatures under the influence of dominate monster.

Colorless has no allied colors and no enemy colors. A colorless creature has no secondary colors. No creature may have colorless as an alignment subtype. For the purposes of determining the effects of friendly/hostile magics, a colorless creature is treated as a creature who is possessed of both an allied and an enemy color to the caster (meaning, generally, that the caster chooses the effect their spell has upon them).

A lack of color has no effect on any given part of the cosmos.

[imp_fireball]

An almighty bump, along with:

The Colorless
Colorless creatures, at first glance, seem as though they lack alignment, and in a sense this statement is true, in that any creature incapable of making moral choices (animals and mindless beings) is colorless. However, it is possible for a sentient creature to have an "alignment" of colorless.

A colorless creature suffers from indecision or lack of motivation; general apathy pervades their belief system and methodology. Colorless creatures might resemble hell-in-a-handbasket depression cases, unmotivated slackers, or office drones who labor each day just to get by and get through without really knowing why. Alternately, a creature who has had their ability to make moral choices stripped from them is also treated as colorless; those who suffer from the Soulless template, for example, or creatures under the influence of dominate monster.

Colorless has no allied colors and no enemy colors. A colorless creature has no secondary colors. No creature may have colorless as an alignment subtype. For the purposes of determining the effects of friendly/hostile magics, a colorless creature is treated as a creature who is possessed of both an allied and an enemy color to the caster (meaning, generally, that the caster chooses the effect their spell has upon them).

A lack of color has no effect on any given part of the cosmos.

It could be that some colorless people are just extremist pacifists too (like budhist monks). Or hermits or whatever.

'Don't create violence hence nobody hates you. Except they might think you are annoying, if they have time to give notice to you.'

In other words, all the colors pretty much condone violence except for the colorless. The colorless only end up creating violence if they are a. Insane or b. Non-sapient/sentient animals (including viruses, etc.).


No, Red is definitely about freedom of action, not just freedom of expression. Red is big on action. Or, alternately, Red might say that you're only fully free to express yourself when you can do whatever you want. Anyway, Red hates rules. RED SMASH STUPID RULES!


Here's a difficult question for Red: Say, red lived in a society where their species was the most respected and had all the freedom one could dream of - including the freedom to kill without retribution.

However, when one species is on top, there's always another species below. Hence, the species that was being killed off, raped etc., would be the repressed in this fascist state. But if your the top species, you're having a lot of fun, moral guilt aside.

Which color would be happier in this state, Red or Black? What about Green or White? Blue would be pretty neutral I think (although it might advocate racial superiority as a form of change).

IMO, white would advocate wielding its position in this society for what it considered the 'benefit of insert species here' (AKA what's 'right'), so that could include listening to government propaganda and upholding its values not to mention taking initiative to bring it just a step further. Green, depending on their upbringing (and whether or not it's 'conservative' to like or hate government), would pretty much go with the flow. Red might be happy as a clam if they were on top. Black, being selfish - wouldn't be swayed either way - more or less, relieved that they're of the 'superior race', but may or may not try to benefit its ego by furthering its position in the government (whether or not they actually believe in the state's values is irrelevant). Finally, blue might seem like a fanatic, backing up the government's claims with 'scientific evidence' as to why what the government is doing is 'logical'.

All in all, black seems like the good guy here (or the loner, unaffected by propaganda). To make white the good guy however, place them in the proletariat class and they'll be up in arms over what the government is doing and how wrong it is (this is due simply to the shift in perspective; how their own life sucks, and how other people's lives suck... may as well satisfy the higher moral power by sticking it to the man; seems quite unlike white, but plausible nonetheless). Green on the other hand would merely accept the fact that it belongs in the lower class - apathetic and conservative as usual. The only time Green would attack the government would be if they spontaneously invaded Green's home or set fire to some religious icon that proles obsess over. Red would be very unhappy as a proletariat, unless of course they lived in an area that is so down ridden, that they are actually permitted absolute freedom - so long as they can work hard enough to survive. Black, of all the colors, would be the most bummed out - they'd probably ally with white to oppose the government and then cash in later. Finally, it's difficult to speculate about Blue - if the life of a proletariat didn't reflect much external change, then Blue would obviously be quite unhappy. As a human, blue would naturally lean towards progress and the life of the impoverished is essentially the opposite of that.

[Owrtho]

It could be that some colorless people are just extremist pacifists too (like budhist monks). Or hermits or whatever.

'Don't create violence hence nobody hates you. Except they might think you are annoying, if they have time to give notice to you.'

In other words, all the colors pretty much condone violence except for the colorless. The colorless only end up creating violence if they are a. Insane or b. Non-sapient/sentient animals (including viruses, etc.).


I'm not sure that would be true, as one would have to have a strong reason for acting in such a manner most likely. As such they would likely have a colour. I'd expect that colourless could best be represented by apathy.

Owrtho

[JessGulbranson]

Well, it's hard for me to disagree with anyone's comments here. It's fascinating, and there are limitless viewpoints. That may be an important bit there- I think characters shouldn't be limited by their color choices, but enhanced by them in ways that aren't necessarily causal. Like, I live in America, and was born there, but don't necessarily have a jingoist attitude about it. My family is originally from Norway, and though I wasn't raised with that culture or directly in it, I still have a personal affinity for it. So an orphaned wood elf raised by mad tinkering dwarves could easily be Red/blue. That provides a lot more RP opportunities and some very unique flavor, based on how the player/character interpret their color alignments.

Where you'd need to be much more careful with is in the area of magic/mana. I like the idea of spells being somewhat flexible. Say, your druid develops a spell that reanimates the corpses of trespassers with magic vines or some nonsense, and uses them as guardians of the forest. It's a green spell, sure, but will always have some component of black, in that the caster is defying a fundamental law of death, and it requires a certain amorality to do that. Perhaps even trickier would be what types of mana are available from certain areas... is a legendary monolithic magical prison white or black? A forested battlefield?

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread necromancy.