MtG: What's the Good Side of Black Magic?

[Amaril]

So, this was bothering me last night...

One of my favorite things to do with deck-building in Magic is to first think of a color or combination for the deck, then think about what kind of motivations and values a Planeswalker who uses those colors might have, and build a deck around those. This got me thinking about possible variations in values and styles within each color, and it occurred to me--all the other four colors have both good and bad sides to their creeds and motivations, but Black seems to be universally evil.

Think about it:

Red can represent freedom and self-expression at its best, but at worst, it's about destruction and anarchy.

Green's virtue is apparent in its focus on life and growth, but it can also stand for predation and savageness.

Blue's positive side embodies truth and enlightenment, while its negative aspects include lies and secrets.

Even White magic, the most stereotypically "good" color, only represents peace and harmony at its best--at worst, it's all about dogma and bureaucracy.

But then I tried to think of positive motivations and values for Black magic-users, and I just couldn't find anything I liked. Every example of Black magic in any of the lore I'm familiar with for the game is pretty much universally evil--the closest I can think of to "good" Black magic is the Golgari guild from Ravnica, with their focus on not wasting and on preserving the cycle of life, but the sinister means they resort to in upholding this kind of makes me hesitant to think of that as positive.

So, have any of you ever encountered any Black magic-users in Magic lore who are righteous, morally upstanding individuals with a code that supports their choice of color? And if not, can you think of any way this might work?

[Scowling Dragon]

Yup. They are pure evil. Even at best it represents dangerous and often selfish concepts.

[Lea Plath]

Actually no.

Black is not evil. It is selfish but not evil. Black will do heroic and good things. For selfish reasons. Look at Kamigawa. Toshiro Umezawa is black aligned, but still saved the plane.

[Amaril]

You'll have to fill me in on that--I'm not familiar with Kamigawa's lore beyond "humans and kami are at war with each other".

[Eldariel]

Actually no.

Black is not evil. It is selfish but not evil. Black will do heroic and good things. For selfish reasons. Look at Kamigawa. Toshiro Umezawa is black aligned, but still saved the plane.

She might've saved the plane but for no reason other than she happened to live there; if one has no motivation beyond self-interest, can one really be anything but evil?

Well, Mark Rosewater (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109) talks the matter here and brings up capitalism as an "example" of a good Black-aligned thing. Then again, your mileage may vary. It's still worth a read though, as is probably the rest of his color wheel analysis, if you're interested.

While I haven't read the site in years (I feel the quality dropped), I still remember few of the older articles about concepts such as "fun", color identities and design. MaRo's in particular are quite insightful much of the time even if I don't always find myself agreeing with him.


You'll have to fill me in on that--I'm not familiar with Kamigawa's lore beyond "humans and kami are at war with each other".

I suggest you read up here (http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Kamigawa).

[Squark]

At it's core, Black represents self interest. While in theory that's darker than any other color, remember that it represents all ambition and self-interest. Seeking to maintain your health through medical treatment is defined as a black action, as is seeking power for any reason; Even if that power is intended to be used for goals aligned with other colors.

[The Glyphstone]

Interesting article on MTG Salvation about this:
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Black


Attributes

A Black individual is focused on self. He is not a proper person, unless he finds that personally useful, in which case he is the most proper person you will ever know. He is not a kind person, unless he finds that personally useful, in which case he makes the average White individual look like a moneygrubbing miser. Black is all about the self. This gives Charles a curious sort of freedom, perhaps the ultimate freedom- Charles does not care how he acquires power, so long as he does. This is why Black is so excellent at infiltration- Black has no personal predilections except for power, and that is a goal broad enough to include almost any philosophy or idea that Charles wants to have.

Black is also the most unashamed color. Whereas White has a long list of what is "proper", Charles is free, open, and honest about what he does. Perhaps this is the great virtue of Black that no one really looks at- Black is honest. Charles is about power and the self, but he's extremely truthful about its pursuit of these goals. Just look at any handful of Black cards- one sees horror, teeth, blood, fangs. Black never once even pretends to lie about what it is that it seeks nor cover it up behind any other facade. No other color is this open. As an example, many of White's creatures hide their bigotry and zealotry behind the mask of righteousness, that what they do is good, but Charles, no matter what he does, will freely admit that he seeks his own goals. (A good example of White's duplicity are the Kithkin.)

Misconceptions and Controversies

Perhaps the most common misconception is that Black represents Evil. Put bluntly, Black is the most likely color to do open, honest evil. It is the element of Sauron, of Dark Lords everywhere, the blunt and the open and the honest. If Charles decides to go evil, he will be the most noticeable evil in the world.

However, this also means that, in a way, Black is the least effective color to go evil. Yes, it's open and honest about it. Yes, it's often got the raw power and lack of morality to back up its evil. But Charles is so open and honest about his evil that every single creature on the planet interested in preserving its own life will direct their attentions towards him- and that includes other Black characters, as they would see his gathered power as a major threat to their own attempts to gain power and try to bring him down. Against such odds, even Charles' open use of horrible magics cannot stand. A villain of a different color, Blue in particular but White and Green as well, who was more subtle, would avoid bringing all this firepower down on their head- and thus do more damage in the long run.

Instead, Black represents concern for the self above anyone else. Keeping in mind that any person is going to be less a "perfect" version of their color's ideas and more someone who leans towards them, it's easy to see a Black-aligned character being a great hero. Charles may be self-centered in the end, focused on himself, but that doesn't mean he never feels sympathy and that he lacks all kindness- he simply leans towards himself and a certain honesty. If he believes that by helping you he can help himself, then you've gained a powerful ally who will stop at nothing to get the job done and who will not be caught up with silly rules and regulations that could tie up a more hide-bound person.

Black is selfish, but it is also unashamed, which can lead to an unabashed honesty in its evil acts. That is not to say that Black espouses honesty, but rather that Black will not deny any immoral or evil motives behind its own actions.

Even by these means, heroic Black characters have emerged in the lore of Magic: The Gathering, counting among them the likes of Chainer, Sorin Markov, and Toshiro Umezawa.

[Winterwind]

I always figured "ambition" was supposed to be Black's positive quality - ambition, after all, also implies willpower, drive and focus.

I've not really been following the fluff much for the last few years, so I could have it completely backwards, but isn't Sorin Markov arguably a positive character that's purely black aligned? Fighting the Eldrasi instead of just running the hell away has got to count for something, at least...

EDIT: You want to replace your attackers with your ninjas then, Squark and Glyphstone? :smalltongue:

[Amaril]

She might've saved the plane but for no reason other than she happened to live there; if one has no motivation beyond self-interest, can one really be anything but evil?

Well, Mark Rosewater (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109) talks the matter here and brings up capitalism as an "example" of a good Black-aligned thing. Then again, your mileage may vary. It's still worth a read though, as is probably the rest of his color wheel analysis, if you're interested.

While I haven't read the site in years (I feel the quality dropped), I still remember few of the older articles about concepts such as "fun", color identities and design. MaRo's in particular are quite insightful much of the time even if I don't always find myself agreeing with him.


So, what I'm getting from this article is that Black magic is good in the same way that, to compare, the Way of the Closed Fist from Jade Empire can be seen as good. Black magicians with the best possible intentions believe that the natural way of the world is for the strong to survive by taking what they want from the weak, and that by this process of selection, a stronger society will emerge that ultimately benefits the status quo.

This makes sense, but it doesn't entirely tally with my understanding of the color system. This code of "the strong survive, the weak perish" is pretty much exactly like natural selection, which is very much a Green concept--but Black and Green are opposed colors, so their philosophies should be pretty radically different, shouldn't they?

Another core tenet of Black, based on this article, is personal freedom. To quote, "if someone else is keeping you from your wants and desires, then you aren't properly meeting your number one goal." I guess since Black is aligned with Red, that could work with the system, but it's also connected to Blue, which is all about controlling everything you can in every possible way...but, then again, Black is only in favor of freedom for those who can secure it for themselves through their own personal power, so I guess it's still pretty much balanced between its two aligned colors in that respect.

Thanks for the replies, everybody--this is giving me all kinds of new deck ideas :smallbiggrin:

[Squark]

All of the colors, at their most abstract, are relatively frightening concepts; White is the pursuit of perfect order (Which requires eliminating all those pesky things like free will or even movement, at it's extreme); Blue, the pursuit of complete and total understanding (Irregardless of the methods used to achieve it); Black, Complete and total focus on the individual; Red, Pure chaos; and Green, A return to nature at it's most primal state (Actually, this is the one I have the most trouble with. I have trouble seeing civilization as something unnatural. Stare at an anthill for an hour, and then tell me cities are unnatural).

Black doesn't really care about other people at it's most basic level, but then again, it doesn't dislike them either (Hatred is red, bigotry is white). And remember, no person is a pure exemplar of their color. Black mages are perfectly willing to work within the rules if it suits them (or if the risk of working outside them is too great). People are defined by how they serve the Black Mage's desires, yes, but there's nothing that says that desire can't be as simple as seeing someone else happy.

[Amaril]

I think a little more clarification of what I mean by my original question is in order, by means of an example.

My current deck--the one I've invested considerable sums of time and money to optimize--is a Blue/White Merfolk Tribal deck. One thing I do with pretty much every deck I build is come up with a fictional Planeswalker who uses the deck's type of magic--party because I like to inject elements of RP into pretty much every game I play, but also because putting myself in the role of a Planeswalker in the MtG multiverse helps me keep my preferred playstyle in mind and make effective gameplay decisions.

Now, the Planeswalker I've imagined for this deck is intended to embody everything good about the combination of Blue/White. He's motivated by curiosity and the desire for knowledge, but also by the drive to make the multiverse a better place for everyone in it. He believes the best way to achieve peace and co-operation among people (consistent with White morals) is by spreading knowledge and understanding of the world and of other cultures (spreading knowledge in a manner consistent with Blue). He wants order and control because he genuinely feels that people will be happier if they are protected by laws, but he knows that law can easily evolve into tyranny, and believes in constant self-evaluation to ensure that his motivations and means remain benevolent.

Now this, I believe, this the most moral interpretation of Blue/White. However, it's equally possible to make this color combination incredibly sinister, as evidenced by the Azorius guild of Ravnica, who believe in law and order to the extent of never wanting anything to happen or change, ever. They believe a perfect world is one of complete stasis--a terrifying prospect, as I hope others will agree.

Now, think of everything that separates these two ideals, based on the same combination of colors. This is the kind of diversity that all the other colors and combinations in the game allow, but I don't think Black allows for the same kind of interpretation. If you're Black, you're out for yourself, and everyone else is expendable, and that's the only way to do things. I'd hate to think, though, that the folks at Wizards committed such a glaring oversight in designing their color system, and I'm hoping someone here can provide some other way to interpret the morals and values of Black. Thanks for all the replies :smallsmile:

[Squark]

Not exactly; Black doesn't place any restrictions on caring for someone else. Black doesn't do, "Dignity and rights of all sapient beings" at it's most purest, no. But it does do personal interests. And if that personal interest is making sure the people you love are happy, healthy, and safe, that's what black is going to work for.

Black isn't really about the end or motivation, it's about the means and the drive to achieve those things.

[Xefas]

As a disclaimer, I don't know much about the Magic the Gathering lore, and don't play the game all that regularly.

But, when I've played Black Decks before, I seem to recall a theme of self-sacrifice. A lot of cards required me to suffer in some way to achieve my goals; paying health, discarding cards, milling my deck, etc.

Just think about somebody who wants to do good in the world (for whatever value of 'good' they hold), but fate would have it that their only real knack for magic is with Black magic. Their choices are either to do nothing, or to do something, but in the process inflict great personal suffering, as well as spiritual and possibly physical and mental dismemberment to themselves.

I could be way off base here, but I feel like Black is willing to make the necessary, but horrible, choices. They're willing to value themselves less than the greater good. Not just in sacrificing their lives for it, but in sacrificing their morality, their soul, and their identity. And that 'greater good' could be anything, including "saving my family", "freeing the slaves", or "mass ethnic cleansing".

Characters I can think of that might be "Good" Black mages, if this analysis is correct: Bensozia from D&D lore - an angel without sin who consigned herself to an eternity in Hell out of pure and untainted love for a devil, twisting herself into a dark monstrosity so that she could be damned. Harry Dresden from the Dresden Files - a wizard who isn't afraid to sell chunks of his own soul, abuse the innocent, cause massive collateral destruction, parley with demons, murder people in cold blood, fuel himself with senseless rage, and torture himself nearly to death in order to protect those he cares about. Riku from Kingdom Hearts - a boy whose destiny was stolen from him, and the only recourse he had to save his childhood friend was to plunge his soul into the ultimate darkness and become less than human, for the chance that, maybe, he won't turn into an irredeemable monster before he's able to save his friend. After? That's an acceptable loss.

[Amaril]

As a disclaimer, I don't know much about the Magic the Gathering lore, and don't play the game all that regularly.

But, when I've played Black Decks before, I seem to recall a theme of self-sacrifice. A lot of cards required me to suffer in some way to achieve my goals; paying health, discarding cards, milling my deck, etc.

Just think about somebody who wants to do good in the world (for whatever value of 'good' they hold), but fate would have it that their only real knack for magic is with Black magic. Their choices are either to do nothing, or to do something, but in the process inflict great personal suffering, as well as spiritual and possibly physical and mental dismemberment to themselves.

I could be way off base here, but I feel like Black is willing to make the necessary, but horrible, choices. They're willing to value themselves less than the greater good. Not just in sacrificing their lives for it, but in sacrificing their morality, their soul, and their identity. And that 'greater good' could be anything, including "saving my family", "freeing the slaves", or "mass ethnic cleansing".

Characters I can think of that might be "Good" Black mages, if this analysis is correct: Bensozia from D&D lore - an angel without sin who consigned herself to an eternity in Hell out of pure and untainted love for a devil, twisting herself into a dark monstrosity so that she could be damned. Harry Dresden from the Dresden Files - a wizard who isn't afraid to sell chunks of his own soul, abuse the innocent, cause massive collateral destruction, parley with demons, murder people in cold blood, fuel himself with senseless rage, and torture himself nearly to death in order to protect those he cares about. Riku from Kingdom Hearts - a boy whose destiny was stolen from him, and the only recourse he had to save his childhood friend was to plunge his soul into the ultimate darkness and become less than human, for the chance that, maybe, he won't turn into an irredeemable monster before he's able to save his friend. After? That's an acceptable loss.

So you think the classic Black willingness to go to any lengths to get what you want can be a good thing if what you want is to help others. I guess that makes sense--a Black magician would probably be more than willing to sell his soul to a demon to save someone he loved, while a White magician would never do anything like this.

[The_Jackal]

It's BLACK MAGIC. It doesn't have a good side. Not everything in life is nuanced or has a hidden duality. Black isn't 'end justifies the means', because the means are all terrible! And saying it's honest about its approach is tantamount to saying, 'Well, you're a murderous, plague ridden menace to all that's decent and good, but at least you're not a hypocrite!'

If you can bag on white for being sanctimonious, inflexible and sometimes hypocritical, that's an expression of the failings of the people trying to live up to better ideals in imperfect circumstances, not an excuse to set up a false equivalence between Good and Evil.

Look, the colours presented in MtG reflect cultural tropes and some interesting game mechanics. The fluff came a lot later, like several editions later, when all the obvious stuff (I summon a minotaur, I shoot you with lightning) had been done. But that's the way (good) games work: Game first, fluff second.

PS: Self Sacrfice? No, more like 'this **** is dangerous, and will kill you if you're unprepared'.

[Amaril]

It's BLACK MAGIC. It doesn't have a good side. Not everything in life is nuanced or has a hidden duality. Black isn't 'end justifies the means', because the means are all terrible! And saying it's honest about its approach is tantamount to saying, 'Well, you're a murderous, plague ridden menace to all that's decent and good, but at least you're not a hypocrite!'

If you can bag on white for being sanctimonious, inflexible and sometimes hypocritical, that's an expression of the failings of the people trying to live up to better ideals in imperfect circumstances, not an excuse to set up a false equivalence between Good and Evil.

Look, the colours presented in MtG reflect cultural tropes and some interesting game mechanics. The fluff came a lot later, like several editions later, when all the obvious stuff (I summon a minotaur, I shoot you with lightning) had been done. But that's the way (good) games work: Game first, fluff second.

PS: Self Sacrfice? No, more like 'this **** is dangerous, and will kill you if you're unprepared'.

Hey man, chill out. As far as I'm concerned, if Black magic was used in real life, it would be unequivocally evil. But Magic isn't real life--it's a game, and if every other element of the game was designed to be nuanced, but this one wasn't, that's unbalanced game design. In any case, I'd appreciate it if this discussion could remain calm and reasonable, and we could all respect the comments of the other posters.

Also, that anti-Black magic tirade was a little ironic coming from someone whose signature proudly proclaims that they are Black-aligned :smallwink:

[Surrealistik]

Also, that anti-Black magic tirade was a little ironic coming from someone whose signature proudly proclaims that they are Black-aligned :smallwink:

Lol, this.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So, what I'm getting from this article is that Black magic is good in the same way that, to compare, the Way of the Closed Fist from Jade Empire can be seen as good. Black magicians with the best possible intentions believe that the natural way of the world is for the strong to survive by taking what they want from the weak, and that by this process of selection, a stronger society will emerge that ultimately benefits the status quo.

That's not what the Closed Fist is. Closed Fist is all about challenging the status quo, helping yourself and encouraging others to do the same (Closed Fist is the man that teaches the guy to fish). Whatever the game's choices for Closed Fist are are just wrong. Selling an escaped slave back to her slavers? Drugging/poisoning an opponent before a match? The only option that was conceivably Closed Fist was giving the escaped slave a knife and telling her to kill them, in which case she turns into a psychotic murderer.

Anyway, Black is the assassin for the White king. Black is the necromancer who can raise a few corpses and drain life force. Black is less a personality type than the others, and more a questionable skillset that requires a certain willingness to use.

[The Glyphstone]

It's BLACK MAGIC. It doesn't have a good side. Not everything in life is nuanced or has a hidden duality. Black isn't 'end justifies the means', because the means are all terrible! And saying it's honest about its approach is tantamount to saying, 'Well, you're a murderous, plague ridden menace to all that's decent and good, but at least you're not a hypocrite!'

If you can bag on white for being sanctimonious, inflexible and sometimes hypocritical, that's an expression of the failings of the people trying to live up to better ideals in imperfect circumstances, not an excuse to set up a false equivalence between Good and Evil.

Look, the colours presented in MtG reflect cultural tropes and some interesting game mechanics. The fluff came a lot later, like several editions later, when all the obvious stuff (I summon a minotaur, I shoot you with lightning) had been done. But that's the way (good) games work: Game first, fluff second.

PS: Self Sacrfice? No, more like 'this **** is dangerous, and will kill you if you're unprepared'.

You're making the false equivalence of Black = Evil and White = Good based on the binary real-world divide of 'black magic/white magic'. Magic in MtG is not binary, it's quinary. The 'bad side' of White isn't hypocrisy and inflexibility, it's bigotry, racism, and 1984-style oppressiveness, the ideals of White taken to their negative extremes.

Though I do disagree that black is about 'self-sacrifice'...Black is, as said, about doing whatever it takes. If self-sacrifice is necessary, Black will self-sacrifice. If sacrificing others is necessary, Black will sacrifice others.


And on a different note, this is an awkward conversation to have without sounding really racist out of context.

[hamishspence]

Rand's John Galt seemed like a pretty fair exemplar of MtG's "Black" philosophy- though he tended to rationalize all his sacrifices as "in his own long-term best interests".

[Xefas]

The 'bad side' of White isn't hypocrisy and inflexibility, it's bigotry, racism, and 1984-style oppressiveness, the ideals of White taken to their negative extremes.

Though I do disagree that black is about 'self-sacrifice'...Black is, as said, about doing whatever it takes. If self-sacrifice is necessary, Black will self-sacrifice. If sacrificing others is necessary, Black will sacrifice others.

I might be misinterpreting you (internet and everything), but I feel like there's a double standard being espoused here. If there are multiple facets of White (altruism, healing, teamwork, oppression, bigotry, tyranny), but there are creatures that only embody one, or a few, of these facets, then why couldn't a Black creature embody just one or a few facets of Black? Say, just the relentless ambition and self-sacrifice parts, without the sacrificing others, entropy, sociopathy, and so on?

I bet you could build a deck like that.

If I misunderstood, I'm sorry!

[Tebryn]

I might be misinterpreting you (internet and everything), but I feel like there's a double standard being espoused here. If there are multiple facets of White (altruism, healing, teamwork, oppression, bigotry, tyranny), but there are creatures that only embody one, or a few, of these facets, then why couldn't a Black creature embody just one or a few facets of Black? Say, just the relentless ambition and self-sacrifice parts, without the sacrificing others, entropy, sociopathy, and so on?

I bet you could build a deck like that.

If I misunderstood, I'm sorry!

He's not saying that. He's saying Black as a whole just as White as a whole and not breaking it down to each Black Creature or White Creature.

[Squark]

Frankly, all the colors at their purests are kind of terrifying. But then, human beings (or elves, or goblins, or Merfolk, or any of Magic's more obscure tribes), are, well, human. They're not tied to a sole color ideology. Blue Mages are quite capable of love (Despite Love being most closely associated with red, with green and black touches for more lust-related elements). Green mages are quite capable of planning (Despite green being the most primal and simplistic color). White Mages are capable of spontaneity and ambition (Red and Black traits, respecitively). Black Mages are just as capable of loving others or working for the good of society as anyone else. Actually, I'd argue that the notion that "when the community benefits, everyone benefits" is actually a white-black hybridization (at its most positive). Or, at a more basic level, blue mages are still driven to eat, despite that being an instinctual behavior (Green) that serves the self (black).


Remember, magic is a game about two mighty wizards trying to beat each other in a duel. The cards don't show us the softer side of red and black simply because they don't really work in game.

[Amaril]

Frankly, all the colors at their purests are kind of terrifying. But then, human beings (or elves, or goblins, or Merfolk, or any of Magic's more obscure tribes), are, well, human. They're not tied to a sole color ideology. Blue Mages are quite capable of love (Despite Love being most closely associated with red, with green and black touches for more lust-related elements). Green mages are quite capable of planning (Despite green being the most primal and simplistic color). White Mages are capable of spontaneity and ambition (Red and Black traits, respecitively). Black Mages are just as capable of loving others or working for the good of society as anyone else. Actually, I'd argue that the notion that "when the community benefits, everyone benefits" is actually a white-black hybridization (at its most positive). Or, at a more basic level, blue mages are still driven to eat, despite that being an instinctual behavior (Green) that serves the self (black).


Remember, magic is a game about two mighty wizards trying to beat each other in a duel. The cards don't show us the softer side of red and black simply because they don't really work in game.

Huh...interesting to see an idea for a White/Black hybridization that isn't Orzhov guild. Maybe I'll make something out of that...

And Glyphstone--yeah, I thought of that quite a few times when I was writing my previous posts. I just hope my OP makes it clear enough to anyone who joins the thread without being familiar with MtG that it's actually not a racist issue. But yeah, otherwise, awkward :smalltongue:

Edit: Wait, I quoted the wrong person :smallannoyed: Sorry--I'm not sure who mentioned the thing I thought Squark said.

[Androgeus]

Small list of good black character from the head designer of Magic (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/21550985703/can-you-give-me-example-of-any-good-black-mana-align)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Huh...interesting to see an idea for a White/Black hybridization that isn't Orzhov guild. Maybe I'll make something out of that...

White/Black hybridization is a tactician willing to use every tool at his disposal, and likely realizes that a hidden dagger or poisoned wine can be as or more influential and much less destructive than open warfare.

[Squark]

If I were to try and create heroic occasions for a character of each of the black+other color pairings...


White/Black is probably a far-reaching, ambitious politician with noble goals, but who's willing to deal with the dirty side of politicking. Some of the descriptions of Abe Lincoln's approach to politics make sense here, actually. Teysa from the original Ravnica novels is another example- She's driven mostly by her own self interest, but in her case, that self interest is to improve the economy of the struggling frontier area she's been assigned to manage. Pilvic the imp was also Orzhov aligned- Always on the lookout for a profit, but he did genuinely care about Agrus Kos.

Blue/Black is the scientist who's willing to break all the rules in the pursuit of knowledge. While this can easily be an amoral character, it also applies to the scientists who've been gutsy enough to use themselves as test subjects- For instance, Barry Marshall who proved ulcers were caused by bacterial infection by consuming a culture of the bacteria in question. Or John Paul Stapp, who expanded our knowledge of how the human body is affected by sudden deceleration- Using himself as a test subject.

Black/Red is, at its heart, about individual freedom. While it certainly can be self-centered, hedonistic, and destructive as the Rakdos guild is, there's nothing stopping the character (Not red/black as a concept, mind you, but the character) from taking a principled stand for freedom for all, if only because the character and the people he cares about are part of "everyone," after all.

Black/Green is the color pairing most intimately tied with life and death. This is a pairing associated with death and rebirth, hence the Golgari's ties to funguses (Remember, these farms provide an awful lot of Ravnica's food supply). This pairing actually has a canon example of a hero- Jarad, the current Golgari guildmaster, was one of the protagonists of the original Ravnica novels.

[Istari]

I think one of the easier ways to make a good black character (especially if you go white/black) is to make them a freedom fighter, while most of the rebel creatures in magic are white, its also easy to picture a character opposed to a corrupt government (that is oppressing them) and fights against them. V (V for Vendetta) go probably be considered a black character. Lelouch from Code Geass is probably Black/White (Depending on point in the series).

[The Glyphstone]

I might be misinterpreting you (internet and everything), but I feel like there's a double standard being espoused here. If there are multiple facets of White (altruism, healing, teamwork, oppression, bigotry, tyranny), but there are creatures that only embody one, or a few, of these facets, then why couldn't a Black creature embody just one or a few facets of Black? Say, just the relentless ambition and self-sacrifice parts, without the sacrificing others, entropy, sociopathy, and so on?

I bet you could build a deck like that.

If I misunderstood, I'm sorry!

Absolutely...that's actually what I'm trying to argue for, so the only misunderstanding is that you think I'm on the other side.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Black is an interesting challenge to make a "Good Guy" from, and it often has to be tempered with other colours.
Of course, *most* characters have to be tempered with other colours to be more "realistic" and not thin colour-cliches.

For the Set I'm making for funsies, Im building it top-down - lore first, then cards. I decided to make the protagonist of the story blue/black because that's my personal favourite colour combination and often lends itself to supervillians best, and I came up with the following:

Saalas Nemoth, the Mnemophage.
Saalas is a vampire planeswalker that subsists entirely on the psychic energies people's memories give off. He posseses the unique ability to remove a memory from his victim and implant it into his own conciousness, removing it from the victim.
Saalas has spent the uncounted centuries of his life flitting from Plane to Plane, never setting down roots, until, eventually, he was drawnt o the psychic energy of Kirmen - a plane wherein every living creature had a lasting, eidetic memory, stretching on into forever.

It was also a plane trying desperately to forget. The plane's populace had been ravaged by a widespread war of succession which tore their lands apart, breaking up families, igniting race riots, and all the general, bloody havoc that war brings with it. Fathers saw their daughter slain, and brother killed brother and, more than ever, people wished they could forget.
At last, Saalas offers them that rare ability. He is visited by willing souls, who long for nothing more than to give up their memories of war, toil, and heartbreak, and the Mnemophage couldn't be happier to oblige...

(Then plot-stuff happens when he eats a B/U general's memories, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Tvtyrant]

I think personal motives are a perfectly fine reason to do good. In fact Kant believed that someone who was naturally incline to do good was in fact an immoral creature, because they were not doing it out of choice but out of inclination.

Voting for environmentalism and green standards because of a personal desire to not live in smog is a black concept, but a wholesome one. Paying street cleaners to keep the streets free of garbage because you don't want to live in filth, social services as a means to keep public order, etc.

Vetinari from Diskworld is a pretty good example IMO, although some people disagree.

[The_Jackal]

Hey man, chill out. As far as I'm concerned, if Black magic was used in real life, it would be unequivocally evil. But Magic isn't real life--it's a game, and if every other element of the game was designed to be nuanced, but this one wasn't, that's unbalanced game design. In any case, I'd appreciate it if this discussion could remain calm and reasonable, and we could all respect the comments of the other posters.

Respectfully, I disagree with you, and if you took my tone for angry or aggrieved, you've mistaken my intention. I just find the notion that black magic is ridiculous, and I have answered that ridiculousness with an emphatic rebuttal.


Also, that anti-Black magic tirade was a little ironic coming from someone whose signature proudly proclaims that they are Black-aligned :smallwink:

I'm not anti-black magic at all, as you've noticed is implicit with my sig. I just vehemently disagree that it's anything but what it is: The pursuit of power through the most selfish, destructive, corrupting means possible.

As for whether you need nuanced fluff to have balanced design, I feel these qualities are completely orthogonal to one another. Balance is measured by the power and flexibility of the spells in their arsenal, not to the ulterior motivations and ideological foibles of the wizards using them. If your play experience is improved by rationalizing your use of Black magic by some entertaining backstory, that's great, but the spells don't care: Plague rats spread plague, Vampires suck blood, etc., etc.


You're making the false equivalence of Black = Evil and White = Good based on the binary real-world divide of 'black magic/white magic'. Magic in MtG is not binary, it's quinary.

Eh, I think this is a somewhat forced misrepresentation of my statement. What I'm saying is this: While white magic can be used to accomplish evil ends, black magic is inherently evil, and the ends never justify the means. When you infect someone with the horrid eye-rotting disease, you can claim it's for the greater good, but it's an inherently evil act. There's no innate hidden upside of the horrid eye-rotting disease, there's only what you can salvage from the remains of your face.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In the book 'The Tyrant' by David Drake and S.M. Sterling, the title character had this to say, which is a powerful Black-color statement:

"Depravity is wasted on the wicked. Only the virtuous may truly plumb the depths of depravity, for only they have the strength of conviction to follow an undertaking to its completion, regardless of how much depravity results."

I can't seem to find my book, so my quote may be slightly off. Still, the message is the same...

The character realized that the nation he was a part of was totally and completely corrupt, and needed to be brought down in order for civilization to continue. He was deliberating on a term to coin for himself. Reformer didn't fit. He wasn't trying to reform anything, he was going to tear it all down and rebuild from scratch. So he settled on the book's title, The Tyrant, as perfectly descriptive of what he would have to do in order to see it through to the end.

Another quote which is very much from the same mindset: "To prevent needing to spill an ocean's worth of blood, you must show your willingness and capability to instantly spill a lake's worth on a moment's notice".

Or, to quote the latest Avengers movie..."You see how this works? Ant... boot."

The black-color archetype is the one most willing to sacrifice anything, say anything, do anything, be anything... to get their appointed task done. If it requires self-sacrifice? Done. Does it require sacrificing a thousand virgins under a blood moon? No problem. Does it require donating to charity? Sure thing, cash or check? Anything and everything necessary to get the job done... gets done. No matter how much that person might otherwise feel about that action.

It is not a matter of finding certain actions right or wrong, it is not caring about right or wrong, only the completion of the mission or task at hand. Cry about it later, if you need to, but for now... get the job done.

It doesn't even have to be for 'a greater good'. That's more of a White/Black concept. Just something that he feels simply has to be accomplished.

It is not passion, that is Red. In fact, it's very dispassionate nature is what gives people chills about it. A Black caster can, and will, clinically and dispassionately, perform an autopsy on a living being without benefit of anesthetic, if that is what is necessary. It's not a matter of enjoying it, or getting a thrill from it... it's just another thing on the list to do. You know... take out the trash, go grocery shopping, determine the regeneration factor of new species by performing conscious autopsy, clean up after with appropriate cleaning solution and bleach, make dinner...

[The_Jackal]

In the book 'The Tyrant' by David Drake and S.M. Sterling, the title character had this to say, which is a powerful Black-color statement:

"Depravity is wasted on the wicked. Only the virtuous may truly plumb the depths of depravity, for only they have the strength of conviction to follow an undertaking to its completion, regardless of how much depravity results."

That is a fantastic quote, but I think it's really a critique of perceived moral relativism, ie: in our real, messy world, what's good and bad largely depends on whose shoes you are wearing. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), there's little doubt that the Nazis honestly believed that they were were doing 'good', at least for the people about which they cared. It's only that many other people, including the people they were murdering, had problems with their ideological framework.

[Istari]

Respectfully, I disagree with you, and if you took my tone for angry or aggrieved, you've mistaken my intention. I just find the notion that black magic is ridiculous, and I have answered that ridiculousness with an emphatic rebuttal.



I'm not anti-black magic at all, as you've noticed is implicit with my sig. I just vehemently disagree that it's anything but what it is: The pursuit of power through the most selfish, destructive, corrupting means possible.

As for whether you need nuanced fluff to have balanced design, I feel these qualities are completely orthogonal to one another. Balance is measured by the power and flexibility of the spells in their arsenal, not to the ulterior motivations and ideological foibles of the wizards using them. If your play experience is improved by rationalizing your use of Black magic by some entertaining backstory, that's great, but the spells don't care: Plague rats spread plague, Vampires suck blood, etc., etc.



Eh, I think this is a somewhat forced misrepresentation of my statement. What I'm saying is this: While white magic can be used to accomplish evil ends, black magic is inherently evil, and the ends never justify the means. When you infect someone with the horrid eye-rotting disease, you can claim it's for the greater good, but it's an inherently evil act. There's no innate hidden upside of the horrid eye-rotting disease, there's only what you can salvage from the remains of your face.

To provide a couple examples of non evil black magic cards

Giant Scorpion (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=260986)
Cremate (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=96936)
Lost Hours (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=130332)

Though I will say, it was much harder than I expected to come up with cards that were not evil without going into possibly questionable examples.

[Amaril]

That is a fantastic quote, but I think it's really a critique of perceived moral relativism, ie: in our real, messy world, what's good and bad largely depends on whose shoes you are wearing. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), there's little doubt that the Nazis honestly believed that they were were doing 'good', at least for the people about which they cared. It's only that many other people, including the people they were murdering, had problems with their ideological framework.

I completely agree. While I believe that, IRL, some actions are universally evil (e.g. killing someone--even if it's necessary, it's never right), I think the vast majority of morality is defined by us. Magic definitely seems to get this right--everyone in the lore believes themselves to be doing the right thing by some justification, or at least that there is no such thing as right and wrong. And I apologize for coming down on your post earlier--I meant no offense.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That is a fantastic quote, but I think it's really a critique of perceived moral relativism, ie: in our real, messy world, what's good and bad largely depends on whose shoes you are wearing. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), there's little doubt that the Nazis honestly believed that they were were doing 'good', at least for the people about which they cared. It's only that many other people, including the people they were murdering, had problems with their ideological framework.

Mmm... more along the lines of "Good? Bad? Who gives a crap, I've got a job to do, and I'm going to do it." It is tangential to moral relativism.

Remember, Black is at least honest enough to admit that not everything they do is going to be rainbows and sunshine. They don't try to claim to be either moral or immoral, they simply consider either concept to be immaterial to the problem at hand.

As far as the invocation of Godwin's Law? That's skirting rather dangerously close to 'real world politics', so I'd prefer to not pursue that discussion.

A better trope would be The Unfettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered), although if they have a specific code to which they adhere to instead of a driving goal, they could be listed as The Fettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered). Either way, expect him to be a Determinator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator).

[The Glyphstone]

Eh, I think this is a somewhat forced misrepresentation of my statement. What I'm saying is this: While white magic can be used to accomplish evil ends, black magic is inherently evil, and the ends never justify the means. When you infect someone with the horrid eye-rotting disease, you can claim it's for the greater good, but it's an inherently evil act. There's no innate hidden upside of the horrid eye-rotting disease, there's only what you can salvage from the remains of your face.

Except that Black Magic (cards) are not all black magic, so you're still making a false equivalency, if not a deliberate strawman. Istari linked a few morally neutral cards, but consider the entire tribes of Bats, Rats, Scorpions, Mercenaries, or other spells. Yes, the horrid eye-rotting disease is inherently evil, and it would definitely be a black card. But Cremation is a Black card, and it is neither 'black magic' nor evil in any discernable way. Greed (http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Greed) is a Black enchantment, and it is not 'black magic'...greediness is literally selfishness, and while it's not altruistic, being greedy is not guaranteed to be harmful or evil.

[endoperez]

Granny Weatherwax could be black. Competitive, selfish, ambitious. She will not give, and demands anything and everything.

To take control of a creature's mind, her body seemingly "dies".

A woman is in childbirth, but something is going wrong. One will die - the mother, or the child. Granny Weatherwax will choose which one.

When she puts her hand into fire, the voodoo doll burns.

She can catch the sword with her bare hand. The wound is delayed, but not prevented.



Of course that all could be explained by other colors as well, maybe as blue (mind control, retargeting of effects, causing effects to happen at a later time).


I'm also reminded of Tiffany Aching's little "spell" from Wintersmith:

“This I choose to do. If there is a price, this I choose to pay. If it is my death, then I choose to die. Where this takes me, there I choose to go. I choose. This I choose to do.”

[Squark]

@The_Jackal: Oh, sure, black's spells are pretty much all amoral at best. Pretty hard to deny that. But then again, Red's the color of inspiration and art, and those barely show up at all either. The color pie doesn't show all the colors are in the fluff.

Hrrm... elements of black in the game that aren't inherently morally wrong

-Animating Undead: Depends heavily on the nature of the setting. Graverobbing is wrong, obviously, as is desecrating corpses. But if the corpse is acquired through legitimate means, and the process of animating it harms neither the soul, nor anyone else, there's nothing ethically wrong going on here.

-Summoning Spells: Kind of universal, but a lot of black creatures like rats, insects, and mercenaries are not really any more evil than the summoned creatures of other colors.

-The Fear ability: Fear generally represents a monster that's terrifying, but there's nothing objectively wrong with it. Just because Arachnaphobes are terrified of spiders doesn't make spiders evil.

That's just off the top of my head, but you get my point.

[Amaril]

@The_Jackal: Oh, sure, black's spells are pretty much all amoral at best. Pretty hard to deny that. But then again, Red's the color of inspiration and art, and those barely show up at all either. The color pie doesn't show all the colors are in the fluff.

Hrrm... elements of black in the game that aren't inherently morally wrong

-Animating Undead: Depends heavily on the nature of the setting. Graverobbing is wrong, obviously, as is desecrating corpses. But if the corpse is acquired through legitimate means, and the process of animating it harms neither the soul, nor anyone else, there's nothing ethically wrong going on here.

-Summoning Spells: Kind of universal, but a lot of black creatures like rats, insects, and mercenaries are not really any more evil than the summoned creatures of other colors.

-The Fear ability: Fear generally represents a monster that's terrifying, but there's nothing objectively wrong with it. Just because Arachnaphobes are terrified of spiders doesn't make spiders evil.

That's just off the top of my head, but you get my point.

I've actually had a lot of ideas for cultures in game settings I've come up with where people routinely leave their corpses to others in their wills to be animated as undead. Aside from the macabre nature of having a dead body get back up and start walking around, I don't think there has to be anything bad about undeath, as long as the person has expressed a wish for that to be what happens to their corpse (and their soul, if that's how the process works). However, I'm pretty sure Magic interprets undeath and necromancy as inherently evil, so that kinda rules out the possibility of neutral undeath, unless they create a plane where the laws of magic work differently in that regard (which is entirely possible, I guess).

[Xiander]

I think it would be better to think about this without bringing up Evil (With a capital E).

All the colors in Magic the gathering have aspects which are positive, aspects which are negative and aspects which are neither. Black cards tend to be gruesome and a bit icky in the way they present themselves. This speaks about the ruthlessness and cruelty that is a part of the color, but also about its honesty. Calling it Evil really simplifies it and makes it two dimensional and boring to me.

Take a magic the gathering example: Sorin Markov

He has been portrayed as a black card and as a black/white card.
The specific example i am thinking about is his role in the history of Inistradt. He is one of the first vampires on that plane, and he watches as his kind starts hunting humankind almost to extinction. In the end he gets enough of vampires acting like spoiled children, so he creates the arcangel Avacyn to keep them in check and protect the entire plane from falling into permanent darkness.

Good or Evil? Who cares, he does what he think is necessary, even though it means the death of many of his own kind, and himself being labelled a traitor. I cannot see any nonblack character taking such action.

Heroic? It certainly can be cast that way.

[hamishspence]

Granny Weatherwax could be black. Competitive, selfish, ambitious. She will not give, and demands anything and everything.

To take control of a creature's mind, her body seemingly "dies".

A woman is in childbirth, but something is going wrong. One will die - the mother, or the child. Granny Weatherwax will choose which one.

When she puts her hand into fire, the voodoo doll burns.

She can catch the sword with her bare hand. The wound is delayed, but not prevented.



Of course that all could be explained by other colors as well, maybe as blue (mind control, retargeting of effects, causing effects to happen at a later time).


I'm also reminded of Tiffany Aching's little "spell" from Wintersmith:

“This I choose to do. If there is a price, this I choose to pay. If it is my death, then I choose to die. Where this takes me, there I choose to go. I choose. This I choose to do.”

This. "Make selfishness your weapon" is what her Third Thoughts tell Tiffany- "How dare you harm these people- because they are mine!"

[Hylleddin]

However, I'm pretty sure Magic interprets undeath and necromancy as inherently evil, so that kinda rules out the possibility of neutral undeath, unless they create a plane where the laws of magic work differently in that regard (which is entirely possible, I guess).

I don't think sure it does. The Golgari and their reanimation and recycling are portrayed as an important, if icky, part of the Ravnica's functioning. And, of course, there are a lot of good white undead spirits (and some bad ones).

[The_Jackal]

Except that Black Magic (cards) are not all black magic, so you're still making a false equivalency, if not a deliberate strawman. Istari linked a few morally neutral cards, but consider the entire tribes of Bats, Rats, Scorpions, Mercenaries, or other spells. Yes, the horrid eye-rotting disease is inherently evil, and it would definitely be a black card. But Cremation is a Black card, and it is neither 'black magic' nor evil in any discernable way. Greed (http://magiccards.info/query?q=!Greed) is a Black enchantment, and it is not 'black magic'...greediness is literally selfishness, and while it's not altruistic, being greedy is not guaranteed to be harmful or evil.

I don't think it's much of a strawman to suggest that black magic is innately evil. Yes, you can find some exceptions, but I find this to be largely a function of being part of a game whose spell classification criteria is driven by game balance, not by fluff, a point I referred to earlier. But that doesn't change the predominant theme of Black within that fluff: Zombies, Plague Rats, Vampires, Curses. Generally ostentatiously nasty evil stuff.

You're also treading on some pretty patchy ideological ground when you say that greed isn't necessarily evil. It's one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Now while you may not subscribe to that particular ideological framework, I don't think I'm doing anyone much injustice by suggesting that an equivalence between greed and evil is a commonly held moral trope. I should also point out that there's a difference of degree between not acting altruistically, and acting out of greed. Getting paid a fair price for your work: Perfectly legitimate self-interest. Gouging people because they have no alternative but to pay you? Greed.

At the end of the day, the game is designed by game designers, not philosophers or theologians, so not every card is going to land squarely within the truly evil zone, but that doesn't make arguments like 'Well, he's shooting me in the face, but at least he's not being hypocritical about it' any more convincing to me.


I've actually had a lot of ideas for cultures in game settings I've come up with where people routinely leave their corpses to others in their wills to be animated as undead. Aside from the macabre nature of having a dead body get back up and start walking around, I don't think there has to be anything bad about undeath, as long as the person has expressed a wish for that to be what happens to their corpse (and their soul, if that's how the process works). However, I'm pretty sure Magic interprets undeath and necromancy as inherently evil, so that kinda rules out the possibility of neutral undeath, unless they create a plane where the laws of magic work differently in that regard (which is entirely possible, I guess).

In the real world, that's a pretty enlightened and calm approach to death and undeath, to be sure. But fantasy worlds are not coloured by modern ideas. Stop what you're doing, and go play Left 4 Dead 2. That's what you're getting when you ask for zombies. Not some benign programmed servitor who just happens to run on formerly human hardware. Ravenous, horrifying shambling hordes of the restless dead, tortured souls ripped from the nether realm to infest their shattered bodies and forced to do someone's will. Eyes with out life... sundered heads... piles of carcasses... these words are pleasing (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m649yxtwPe1rsdqwto1_1280.jpg) to me...

Sorry, sorry. Started to enjoy myself. :xykon:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't think it's much of a strawman to suggest that black magic is innately evil. Yes, you can find some exceptions, but I find this to be largely a function of being part of a game whose spell classification criteria is driven by game balance, not by fluff, a point I referred to earlier. But that doesn't change the predominant theme of Black within that fluff: Zombies, Plague Rats, Vampires, Curses. Generally ostentatiously nasty evil stuff.

Zombies: It's an alternative to still-living troops. Doubles your numbers and halves your KIAs.

Plague rats: You think humanity needs magic to engage in biological warfare?

Vampires: This is the only thing that really strikes me as having no potential non-evil uses. It's immortality that requires you to kill others. Even if you set up some personal blood bank, it's still taking away blood from people who need it for transfusions and such. Only possibly non-evil use is to keep a brilliant general in command.

Curses: It's a curse. What's evil about that?

[Squark]

I think I see where we're getting the disconnect here. "Getting paid a fair price for your work: Perfectly legitimate self-interest." All self-interest is black. That's black's core value. Just like red's is chaos, Blue's is knowledge, Green's is nature, and White's is order. Black and its philosophy is dominated by the individual. That doesn't mean it's bad by any means; I'd argue existentialism is most closely tied to black's concepts, for instance. Any act of self-preservation or self-improvement is motivated by black.

On the zombie thing: Counter Example: The Golgari aren't really any worse than any of the other guilds (Dimir is the only purely villianous guild of the original block, although Rakdos's only contribution is manpower. On the flip side, the closest to a purely heroic guild is Boros, and even then they could be misled by impersonators*), and the zombies they use are used for, well, all sorts of things. Then again, Ravnica is basically, "Coruscant with Magic and feuding guilds!"


*I'm not counting Selesnya, as they have very strong "Cult" vibes in parts of the fluff.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Also, expanding on the "Curses are not evil" thing; For a good example, see the Mark of Justice. Used correctly, you could use it as a sort of self-monitoring probation for convicted criminals as they were reintegrated into society, for instance.

[Amaril]

I think I see where we're getting the disconnect here. "Getting paid a fair price for your work: Perfectly legitimate self-interest." All self-interest is black. That's black's core value. Just like red's is chaos, Blue's is knowledge, Green's is nature, and White's is order. Black and its philosophy is dominated by the individual. That doesn't mean it's bad by any means; I'd argue existentialism is most closely tied to black's concepts, for instance. Any act of self-preservation or self-improvement is motivated by black.

On the zombie thing: Counter Example: The Golgari aren't really any worse than any of the other guilds (Dimir is the only purely villianous guild of the original block, although Rakdos's only contribution is manpower. On the flip side, the closest to a purely heroic guild is Boros, and even then they could be misled by impersonators*), and the zombies they use are used for, well, all sorts of things. Then again, Ravnica is basically, "Coruscant with Magic and feuding guilds!"


*I'm not counting Selesnya, as they have very strong "Cult" vibes in parts of the fluff.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Also, expanding on the "Curses are not evil" thing; For a good example, see the Mark of Justice. Used correctly, you could use it as a sort of self-monitoring probation for convicted criminals as they were reintegrated into society, for instance.

One thing I like immensely about Ravnica's fluff is the excellent job they did of showing that no matter how typically benevolent the color combination--even the normally super-healy, life-giving Green/White--it can have sinister elements if interpreted a certain way. The Selesnya may fight to preserve life on Ravnica, but they're still a brainwashing, manically xenophobic cult. That's why I like the Simic better :smallbiggrin:

[Giggling Ghast]

I'm more of an Orzhov man myself.

[The_Jackal]

Zombies: It's an alternative to still-living troops. Doubles your numbers and halves your KIAs.

Yeah, and I'm sure G.I. Joe will enjoy fighting along side the rotting carcass of what used to be his best buddy, Duke.


Plague rats: You think humanity needs magic to engage in biological warfare?

No, but I don't think it's a stretch to call both fantasy and real bio-weapons evil.


Vampires: This is the only thing that really strikes me as having no potential non-evil uses. It's immortality that requires you to kill others. Even if you set up some personal blood bank, it's still taking away blood from people who need it for transfusions and such. Only possibly non-evil use is to keep a brilliant general in command.

Well, whether a Vampire is supernatural evil beyond the grave or just a weird parasite is largely dependent on background fluff which isn't made readily available through the source material.


Curses: It's a curse. What's evil about that?

Ask the guy you lay it on. Look, the means presented by black are evil, and no amount of equivocating or wheedling is going to change that. Here's a wizard using white magic:

I summon a strong and noble Kjeldoran Skyknight to fight on my behalf.

And here's one using black magic:

I summon a vile and relentless Ashen Ghoul to fight on my behalf.

Is that really so insupportable to simply call one good and the other evil? They're both summons, until they actually attack, they haven't done anything, and yet I think you're going to be hard pressed to suggest that the ghoul is just 'misunderstood'.

[Happy Gravity]

Yeah, and I'm sure G.I. Joe will enjoy fighting along side the rotting carcass of what used to be his best buddy, Duke
And I'm sure the children will understand when we sent their parents off to die because our generals are too squeamish to use the undead. :S

Quite frankly, for me, simply calling White 'Good' and Black 'Evil' is more boring than possibly having that extra depth we can explore.

[The Glyphstone]

White summons a manipulative, fearmongering, ruthless Kithkin Zealot.

Black summons an armored, poisonous Giant Scorpion.

They're both summons, until they actually attack, they haven't done anything, and yet I think you're going to be hard pressed to suggest that the intelligent kithkin is good and the non-sentient scorpion is evil.

It's easy to cherry-pick cards that support one's opinion of a color, but the designers specifically go out of their way to keep all five colors morally ambiguous.
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/141
Fun article about Return To Phyrexia - point #6 is about a White card with an Evil feel to it, and how they got that feel while using White-appropriate mechanics.

[The_Jackal]

And I'm sure the children will understand when we sent their parents off to die because our generals are too squeamish to use the undead. :S

Quite frankly, for me, simply calling White 'Good' and Black 'Evil' is more boring than possibly having that extra depth we can explore.

Ah, but this is a matter of you would LIKE to perceive the material, rather than its innate nature. If that's what's in question, then I'd counter with Buffy the Vampire slayer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0533469/quotes?qt=qt0359502).

PS: Your comment about squeamishness delightfully villainous in tone. You make me proud.

PPS: In all seriousness, the notion of lack of sanctity of the bodies of the dead is a decidedly modern concept, and might not so comfortably to apply to a universe where ghosts and angels are real.

[The_Jackal]

White summons a manipulative, fearmongering, ruthless Kithkin Zealot.

Black summons an armored, poisonous Giant Scorpion.

They're both summons, until they actually attack, they haven't done anything, and yet I think you're going to be hard pressed to suggest that the intelligent kithkin is good and the non-sentient scorpion is evil.

It's easy to cherry-pick cards that support one's opinion of a color, but the designers specifically go out of their way to keep all five colors morally ambiguous.

I agree that one can cherry pick cards to support one's viewpoint, it's just my assertion that the persons doing the cherry-picking are those trying to make Black seem less bad than it is, and my stance that the predominant majority of Black spells are, I reuse the phrase, ostentatiously evil, is more indicative of the norm.

As to the designers' intentions, at best it's an assumption of facts not in evidence, and at worst it's an assignment of individual agency to what is, in effect, a committee of rotating employees. Each expansion tends to have its own thematic thrust, and phyrexia, to me, seems to be much along the lines of D&D's Ravenloft, where everything goes extra-double gritty-dark, and even the good guys start to look a little bad. But I could be totally wrong, I haven't laid hands on some of the more recent releases.

[The Glyphstone]

I agree that one can cherry pick cards to support one's viewpoint, it's just my assertion that the persons doing the cherry-picking are those trying to make Black seem less bad than it is, and my stance that the predominant majority of Black spells are, I reuse the phrase, ostentatiously evil, is more indicative of the norm.


That's what we're trying to tell you through this whole thing. Most printed Black cards are evil, yes, just as most printed White cards are good. But not all cards with Black mana are black magic, nor evil, and the 'emotions' embodied by the Black philosophy are more diverse than the ones that get turned into playing cards. Similarly, not all White cards are white magic or good, and the White philosophy can and often is (Ravnica, Phyrexia, Shadowmoor) twisted to an end result as evil as the worst demon-worshipping black wizard.

Black never does good for the sake of good, the way white does. If Black does good, it's a side effect of something that directly benefits Black personally. But that still results in good being done, so Black is not forced to eat puppies and kick babies all day.

[Grim Portent]

Black never does good for the sake of good, the way white does. If Black does good, it's a side effect of something that directly benefits Black personally. But that still results in good being done, so Black is not forced to eat puppies and kick babies all day.

It might be easier to phrase it in D&D alignment terms. All colours can be any alignment that does not directly oppose their prime directive. White cannot be chaotic but may be neutral, Red can't be Lawful but may be neutral, under this concept Black may be any combination of alignment that is non-good, this means lawful neutral, true neutral and chaotic neutral are all up for grabs.

Doesn't work for Green or Blue much though. Their prime directives aren't really compatible with an alignment system.

[The Glyphstone]

Green could fit as 'Ethically neutral', from 'benevolent protector/lifegiver' of Neutral Good to 'Law of the Jungle predator' of Neutral Evil. Green cannot be Lawful or Chaotic. That happens to match up close to the alignment requirements of Druids, who are traditionally a Green tribe, so it works extra well.

Blue is more difficult.

[Grim Portent]

Blue is more difficult.

Which oddly fits with the Blue aspect of secrecy.

[The Glyphstone]

Which oddly fits with the Blue aspect of secrecy.

Whatever Blue does, it does it to the exclusion of anything else - Blue never seems to do anything half-heartedly. Maybe Blue would be any non-Neutral?

[Eldariel]

Whatever Blue does, it does it to the exclusion of anything else - Blue never seems to do anything half-heartedly. Maybe Blue would be any non-Neutral?

Teferi is 100% blue and the very archetype of "True Neutral".

[Hiro Protagonest]

Whatever Blue does, it does it to the exclusion of anything else - Blue never seems to do anything half-heartedly. Maybe Blue would be any non-Neutral?

Lack of conviction or focus =/= neutral.

Maybe non-chaotic? But there could be that absent-minded scientist who never quite got why stealing whatever he needed for his latest experiment from the natural history museum was wrong...

[The Glyphstone]

Teferi is 100% blue and the very archetype of "True Neutral".

True. Okay, that's out of the question then.

Blue really does span the entire alignment spectrum, so I guess it has no requirements.

[Grim Portent]

True. Okay, that's out of the question then.

Blue really does span the entire alignment spectrum, so I guess it has no requirements.

It strikes me that this actually fits Blue and it's methods very well. A Blue caster/creature can work with almost anyone and can use nearly any method.
Spies, lies and trickery, why it must be Blue.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ah, but this is a matter of you would LIKE to perceive the material, rather than its innate nature. If that's what's in question, then I'd counter with Buffy the Vampire slayer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0533469/quotes?qt=qt0359502).

PS: Your comment about squeamishness delightfully villainous in tone. You make me proud.

PPS: In all seriousness, the notion of lack of sanctity of the bodies of the dead is a decidedly modern concept, and might not so comfortably to apply to a universe where ghosts and angels are real.

Unfortunately, you are falling victim to the same logic of fallacy, going the other way.

Just because Black can do horribly and unspeakablly evil things does not mean it must.

I'm not even sure Black has the most capacity for evil of any of the colors. White can be truly and completely evil. You want to Godwin? White does it. Burn the unclean, purge the heretic... that's White. Think WH40k. Blue... all hail Friend Computer. Thought Crime. Sense Offense. All Blue.

A weapon is neither good nor evil. A blade cares not if it is used to protect the innocent or to slaughter them.

You have a lot of interpretations on what various aspects of the Black magic is, but they are merely that... your interpretations, with absolutely zero basis in anything other than 'this is what I think'. You are entirely welcome to your opinions, but please do not mistake them for facts.

Black, at its roots, is the conviction to do what is necessary. Sometimes that can be truly horrible and despicably evil things. Sometimes not.

Sure, Black has a lot of truly evil things in its repertoire, because Black is the only color which can make the decision to not shrink from using them. However, their presence does not make the color itself irredeemably evil.

[The_Jackal]

Black never does good for the sake of good, the way white does. If Black does good, it's a side effect of something that directly benefits Black personally. But that still results in good being done, so Black is not forced to eat puppies and kick babies all day.

And I'm not arguing that, I'm saying that the qualities of black magic that aren't 100% composed of pure puppy-eating evil doesn't fabricate a 'silver lining' or 'good side'. That's not nuance, it's just a brief relenting in the otherwise unabated tide of darkness, treachery and despair.


It might be easier to phrase it in D&D alignment terms.

I'll just bow out of that discussion, only lodging that I think the D&D alignment system is not my idea of a well-designed morality system.


Unfortunately, you are falling victim to the same logic of fallacy, going the other way.

Just because Black can do horribly and unspeakablly evil things does not mean it must.

We're not talking about people here, we're talking about spells. They're means, not ends. I'm sure any colour of magic can be used to accomplish either good or evil ends. My stipulation is that, for the overwhelming majority of black spells, as means, they conform to any reasonably cogent definition of evil. In a world where people's spirits really persist beyond the grave, binding that spirit to their corpse, and enslaving them to your will is an evil act. Whatever you order that minion to do beyond that point is another matter entirely, but you have committed evil to achieve whatever ends you want, and in the context of the game, that end is, you know, winning.

[QUOTE]You have a lot of interpretations on what various aspects of the Black magic is, but they are merely that... your interpretations, with absolutely zero basis in anything other than 'this is what I think'. You are entirely welcome to your opinions, but please do not mistake them for facts.

That is an attempt to render a moral argument into a semantic one. All anyone is talking about is interpretations. Morality is always subjective to one's ideological framework, I'm just positioning mine alongside what I can best interpret as a common moral framework, as much any such thing exists. Bottom line, black magic is founded on capital E evil's greatest hits: Undead, Darkness, Curses, Blight and demonic pacts. Any wavering in tone isn't congruent with some hidden good side.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

And I feel you are attempting to polarize the argument into a binary response which simply does not exist outside of theoretical and artificial philosophical design.

Black magic, in M:TG, is based on the founding principles of drive and motivation. That way can lead to the dark side. But it does not have to. You are making the same logical fallacy that the Jedi Council did by denouncing 'love', by assuming that it will, inevitably, lead to the Dark Side. And in so doing, created a self-fulfilling prophecy and created their own downfall.

Also, I would challenge your statement. There's nothing more inherently evil about Thrulls, for example, than say Orcs or goblins, which are primarily Red. I don't know about these days, but Thrull decks used to be pretty nasty back in the day. Breeding pits, Bad Moons, Thrull Champions... pretty nasty swarm deck.

Fear is not inherently evil, it is an emotion and part of the fight or flight response. It is a necessary survival trait. The use of fear to discourage conflict can even be seen as a humane method of removing opponents without bloodshed.

Undead do not necessarily have to be either good or evil. Most mindless undead aren't capable of an alignment, as they do not have the sapience necessary to make that kind of decision. They run on even more basic instinct than an animal, in fact. For most of them, it is simple hunger.

Sapient undead, of course, can make the choice to do good or evil with their powers, and should be handled on a case by case basis. True, an inordinate number of them do tend to lean to Evil, but not all by any means.

As far as demon summoning and controlling, are you familiar with that guy by the name of Aladdin? Not the stupid Disney crap, I'm talking the original tales from the Arabian Nights. Djinns are demonds, sealed away generally with the Seal of Solomon. They are evil, devious, cruel beings who will twist your wishes any way they can. Yet Aladdin controlled not one but several of them... and was not being particularly evil about it. It was simply a tool to get the job done.

As far as Curses... who says that Evil has a monopoly on those? Go back and read the bible. Start where some guy says "Let my people go!". I think several of those cover Blight as well.

Darkness is merely the absence of light. Darkness and Light are neither inherently good or evil. They are tools, and can be put to many uses. Using the cover of darkness has been a deciding factor in many a war. I seem to recall a General Washington using the cover of darkness to cross a river and make a rather decisive victory. Meanwhile, blinding light can be just as cruel.

Evil is a subjective term, you cannot state that Black is definitively evil, because you are attempting to apply a subjective term to an objective one. Does not compute.

Can it be used for evil? Oh, certainly. Not going to argue that one bit. And, being Black, they would have absolutely zero compunctions about it, no excuses. As you say, 'Evil Ultra'. They won't try and sugar-coat it, like White with their tyrrany or Blue with their mind control. You call them a Monster, and they ask if you are going to state that water is wet next. Because Black doesn't mince words, doesn't play games, and doesn't beat around the bush.

But is the entire school of magic inherently evil? Absolutely not. It is a tool, like any other, which can be employed for various ethical ideologies.

[Kish]

snip
So...dude...does your sig amount to, "Bwahaha, I'm evil!" :xykon:?

[Thanatos 51-50]

Black always struck me as The Unfettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered), first and foremost, and bluntly honest about it.
There are plenty of "Good" Unfettered characters.

(Fair warning, link leads to TVTropes)

[The Extinguisher]

Forget Black heroes, are we ever going to get any Green villains. It's like the one colour that is always good in every set. Come on Wizards.

[Xiander]

Forget Black heroes, are we ever going to get any Green villains. It's like the one colour that is always good in every set. Come on Wizards.

Does this green leader of the phyrexians count? (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=218002)

The thing that gets me about calling black evil is that the way the game is designed, explicitly tries to prevent the colors from falling into a good-evil spectrum that is clearly discernible.

Is black nice? No. Does that automatically equate capital E Evil? No.

[Giggling Ghast]

Aren't half of the werewolves in Innistrad green?

[Winterwind]

Here's a funny consideration that just occurred to me. Modern democratic concepts concerned with protecting the individual, human rights, and so forth - there's a strong case for those being White, but I think a very good argument can be made to consider them Black instead.

I mean, on one hand, the rights of the individual being protected against violation by the state, even if it would be convenient for the society as a whole could be argued to be justice, and as such, falling into the domain of White. But on the other hand, it could also be argued that White is all about self-sacrifice, conformity and lack of individualism, and that White would demand for an individual to sacrifice itself for the community without question - and then, recognizing that, no, every single human life is valuable, every single human life and its dignity must be protected, and the rights of the individual must not be compromised for the sake of many - why, that could very well be argued to be Black, then.

[Science Officer]

Forget Black heroes, are we ever going to get any Green villains. It's like the one colour that is always good in every set. Come on Wizards.

Elves in Lorwyn were a nasty bunch.

I think MaRo has said that Green things are more likely to be obstacles to the heroes than villains. A rampaging wurm might eat lots of innocent people, but it's hard to call the wurm evil or a vaillain.

[hamishspence]

recognizing that, no, every single human life is valuable, every single human life and its dignity must be protected, and the rights of the individual must not be compromised for the sake of many - why, that could very well be argued to be Black, then.

Which is one of the reasons I felt that ultra-individualist, "rights of the individual must never be compromised" perspectives, like that of Rand or Heinlein, typify Black fairly well.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Thalids. Do we really need to go any further?

[The Glyphstone]

Thalids. Do we really need to go any further?

Yeah, how can anyone say black is evil after they see Thalids? They're really fun guys to hang around with.

[Surrealistik]

Which is one of the reasons I felt that ultra-individualist, "rights of the individual must never be compromised" perspectives, like that of Rand or Heinlein, typify Black fairly well.

Whether that can be considered 'good' is debatable at best. That aside, Rand was essentially a sociopath IMHO.

Black as a whole rarely if ever seems to truly conform with most definitions of 'good' because of its inherently and wholly selfish nature, its actions and adherents ranging from evil/destructive self-interest to neutrality/constructive self-interest. Alternately, most remaining examples of black (such as mindless undead/scorpions/ferals) are non-sentient and thus totally incapable of being ethical or moral.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah, how can anyone say black is evil after they see Thalids? They're really fun guys to hang around with.

Thalids are Green... you know, fungus? Plants? Growing stuff?

[Androgeus]

Thalids are Green... you know, fungus? Plants? Growing stuff?

I think he was making a fungi/fun guy joke.

[Xiander]

Whether that can be considered 'good' is debatable at best. That aside, Rand was essentially a sociopath IMHO.

Black as a whole rarely if ever seems to truly conform with most definitions of 'good' because of its inherently and wholly selfish nature, its actions and adherents ranging from evil/destructive self-interest to neutrality/constructive self-interest. Alternately, most remaining examples of black (such as mindless undead/scorpions/ferals) are non-sentient and thus totally incapable of being ethical or moral.

I tend to agree that a capital G good mono-black character is unlikely (Not impossible mind you). But that should not mean that every charater with black in them is necessarily nongood.

Take any of the values of the other colors and add Black's willingness to go all the way, and you get a character who can play a heroic if sometimes morally questionable role in whatever narrative you are making.

[hamishspence]

Whether that can be considered 'good' is debatable at best. That aside, Rand was essentially a sociopath IMHO.


I wouldn't know- but "respect for life- particular the innocent" does seem to be a recurring theme- with "compassion toward the guilty", however, being deemed a Bad Thing.

The morality of Rand-type characters (and those in Rand-inspired fantasy fiction like Terry Goodkind) - rarely seems to drop below Neutral though.

[Surrealistik]

I wouldn't know- but "respect for life- particular the innocent" does seem to be a recurring theme- with "compassion toward the guilty", however, being deemed a Bad Thing.

The morality of Rand-type characters (and those in Rand-inspired fantasy fiction like Terry Goodkind) - rarely seems to drop below Neutral though.

I was more speaking to the notion of the rights of the individual never being compromised, no matter the cost.

As for Rand's characters, again, I'm not so sure. I think I can tentatively agree though that while they may not often drop below Neutral, their rising above to Good is even rarer. That said, it's important to keep in mind that her writings were largely propaganda pieces for her 'philosophy' of Objectivism; effectively rationalized greed/self-interest and Black personified, though perhaps with more pretense than it's normally accustomed to. In otherwords, these characters are less organic literary figures and more contrivances or vehicles meant to promote/sell an idea, thus they are examples of her philosophy (Black) at perhaps its most tenable/heroic (which is not very to be frank).


I tend to agree that a capital G good mono-black character is unlikely (Not impossible mind you). But that should not mean that every charater with black in them is necessarily nongood.

Take any of the values of the other colors and add Black's willingness to go all the way, and you get a character who can play a heroic if sometimes morally questionable role in whatever narrative you are making.

Sure. I can perhaps see a mono-Black character who is heavily weighted towards Machiavellian philosophies, rather than Randian ones, assuming the latter is separable from the Black ethos/mentality, with constructive or even specifically altruistic/communal ends in mind (though would this more make him Black-White?) being a capital G character.

Of course, depending on how far he goes, and what the sum total of his actions is, he could just as easily be a capital E character.

[Fjolnir]

We see "evil White" in MTG MUCH more than we see "good Black". Black has at its core a "me first and the gimme gimmes" attitude; black characters want what they want and pursue that goal almost single-mindedly. A Black character is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve what they want, Chainer sacrificed his sanity and life for an attempt at vengence, Toshiro wanted to live and sacrifices everything he can for his own survival (including his safety), Crovax wants the love of his angel and eventually (accidentally) sacrifices that to gain her back when he finally dies. The goals of a black character are what can make a hero.


White villains on the other hand tend to be fascist and/or bigoted, a good example of this is the Order in the odyssey and onslaught blocks.

A good thing to remember is this as a 5 way example in wubrg order as far as concepts Law, Knowledge, Self, Freedom, Order. I understand order sounds strange as the concept for green but it really makes sense, referring to the natural order of things.

[hamishspence]

That said, it's important to keep in mind that her writings were largely propaganda pieces for her 'philosophy' of Objectivism; effectively rationalized greed/self-interest and Black personified, though perhaps with more pretense than it's normally accustomed to.

There was a lot of "never violate another person's rights" in, it must be said- which was where the "respect for life" came in.

Still a bit mixed, but a character that focusses very firmly on respecting life, even for self-centred reasons "seeing people die prematurely hurts me emotionally, so I'm not going to let it happen if I can stop it", might be a lot more heroic than the average.

[Surrealistik]

There was a lot of "never violate another person's rights" in, it must be said- which was where the "respect for life" came in.

Still a bit mixed, but a character that focusses very firmly on respecting life, even for self-centred reasons "seeing people die prematurely hurts me emotionally, so I'm not going to let it happen if I can stop it", might be a lot more heroic than the average.

All reasons and motives are _ultimately_ self-centred (whether or not the outcome ends up being consistent with the motive is another matter entirely) to be fair I would argue, even if it's as simple as avoiding guilt and emotional pain or feeling good about oneself; it's really a question of how directly and bluntly self-serving the goal is.

That said, I recognize the point you're trying to make, how good facets about that position can be argued, but in truth, they're really asides and pale in comparison to the ugly, underlying absolute that individual rights reign supreme over all other considerations and costs and are completely and always inviolable, which can be just as dangerous and destructive as Machiavellian and collectivist extremes/absolutes left unchecked.

[hamishspence]

True. in D&D Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Neutral exemplars are both scary- one's the slaadi, the other's creatures like the formians, the modrons, and the inevitables.

Neither are all save for mortals of the Material Plane to be around for long.

[Komatik]

One thing I like immensely about Ravnica's fluff is the excellent job they did of showing that no matter how typically benevolent the color combination--even the normally super-healy, life-giving Green/White--it can have sinister elements if interpreted a certain way. The Selesnya may fight to preserve life on Ravnica, but they're still a brainwashing, manically xenophobic cult. That's why I like the Simic better :smallbiggrin:

TBH, Simic fluff sucks. The new one a lot less so, but the old one is just very thoroughly Blue, the only green thing in the guild are the subjects of the experiments. No green mentality as such anywhere to be seen.


Having recently read some of MaRo's color pie articles recently, I grew rather annoyed. The depictions of the colors were stupidly simplistic coupled with an extreme dose of black-and-white thinking.

There's few places where it's more evident than in the writings about green in relation to blue and black: Whenever green-blue interaction is brought up, green is always depicted as unchanging and blue as some goon that tries to change everything (nevermind the wheel listing inaction as one of blue's traits, and nature being one huge engine of change). It feels like a contrived excuse. Green, of all the colors, is very much capable of being friends with everyone, it's just a matter of emphasis. Blue desires perfection and to know as much as possible. Isn't nature a self-perfecting system and an endless source of study? Viewed that way, it feels very blue. See Vedalken Heretic and Lorescale Coatl as a better, more natural representation of blue-green than Simic will ever be.

And green-black? Sure, if you again take the green = treehugger angle and purposefully bring out the most anti-green things in black you can think about. Or you could start emphasizing survival of the fittest, the natural cycle of life and death and the interdependence of growth and decay, it all starts looking like a harmonious understanding.

Similarily, I very much doubt green would approve white's obsession with artificial order and building cities, or red's desire for destruction. Yet these are always handwaved away to emphasize green's similarities with white and red. It's frustrating.

I feel green is much more flexible than Maro's stuff gives it credit for. The enmity is largely fabricated for reasons of symmetry, while shuffling the color pie around is relatively difficult (white's orderly community is somewhat too opposed to red's and black's individualism for it to be harmonious, in my opinion. The blue-red conflict is lesser, but far more severe than green's with either of it's enemies, and even in blue-red, the Izzet Guild's joy of learning and experimentation brings a happy Vedalken Heretic-esque vibe to the fore.)



Which articles are you referring to? Links?

Do you mean the ones where personifications of the colors chat via Twitter or whatever, with Red wondering whether to date Black or Green and deciding to go with both on alternating nights and so on...

No, not the Twitter stuff. I didn't read it because it was so inane. I mean the shard "interviews", the guild color analyses and even the original color articles (It's Not Easy Being Green, etc.). They take an annoyingly simplistic view on things to enforce the color wheel. In some cases, it doesn't produce too ridiculous results - for example, orderly community is so core to white and individuality so core to black and red that the conflict is difficult to reconcile. I don't believe, though, that artificial progress is core to blue. Knowledge is. And the pursuit of knowledge and nature aren't at odds with each other at all.

Black's core is being your own lord and master, and the survival of the fittest. Very green ideas, the latter especially so. The imagery of life and death are just two sides of the natural cycle. Yet these things are barely given any thought at all, and the conflicts focused on to a stupidly great degree. In the green-blue case, blue's desire for improvement is always played up ridiculously much and forced towards artificiality so that green has no choice but to hate it, when the core of blue is easily reconcilable with green. Likewise with black. It just feels wrong and annoying (Simic guild, the articles), when really nice flavour could and does come out of it (the Golgari guild, Jund, Vedalken Heretic).

[Duck999]

As far as I know, black is completely and totally evil. There was one time Sorin was good locking up the eldrazi. So basically, black is completely evil and there is almost no way black will come to good.

[Arbitrarity]

Black is ambition, self-interest, and drive. That does not make it purely evil.

Black means finding how to get what you want, the only limit being how much you're willing to sacrifice to get it, whether that be time, effort, souls, blood, or the power of love. In purest form, this is a desire to reach omnipotence, or at least being more powerful than anything else.

Black, like every other color in pureness, is excess. It means going to any lengths to acquire power. It doesn't denote pursuing some trivial goal to the exclusion of all else, or slaughtering villages for a trinket. Those are things a Black mage can do, should they think it useful or worthwhile.

Given a motivation (Black or Red or White or Green or Blue) Black mages will go to great and terrible lengths to achieve their ends. They might find it in their interest to be forthright about their goals, or to be subtle. They might find it necessary to cut off an arm, or kill a child. The only important thing is that the result be worth the sacrifice.

For the most obvious Black mages, sacrifices of anonymous others are of essentially no personal value, so even minor gains are often worth the lives of many. Once you have been outed as a Black mage, no one is going to trust you, or usually work with you, unless you sacrifice to cultivate a positive reputation, or they believe that your goals are aligned with theirs. The effort usually isn't worth it.

The more subtle Black mages find it not in their interest to go under the title Black. They measure human sacrifice or experimentation in terms of how it may affect their reputation, how likely that it might be traced back to them. They might break their word only when absolutely necessary, because being known as honest is a powerful tool. They might not even identify as Black (usually they would identify as Blue, or White), or recognize their ruthlessness, until something that they truly desire or treasure is on the line. Then, they will do what it takes to get what they want.

Many of those are content with what they have, or judge the slow accumulation or power and repute to be more worthwhile and safer than short term gains. They may genuinely like their friends, or want to protect their charges. They accumulate power out of pragmatism, so that should a time come when they are threatened, they will be prepared. Or when the opportunity arises, they will strike. Whatever they think is important.

Outside of MtG, I would identify Doctor Doom, Ender Wiggin, kinda the Animorphs, the Practical Incarnation of the Nameless One(PS:T), Baron Wulfenbach(Girl Genius), Kiritsugu(Fate/Zero), Kore (Goblins), Redcloak, Petey (Schlock Mercenary), most of the Watchmen, and pretty much any Sith.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Outside of MtG, I would identify Doctor Doom, Ender Wiggin, kinda the Animorphs, the Practical Incarnation of the Nameless One(PS:T), Baron Wulfenbach(Girl Genius), Kiritsugu(Fate/Zero), Kore (Goblins), Redcloak, Petey (Schlock Mercenary), most of the Watchmen, and pretty much any Sith.

I'd agree with all of these, except the Sith.

Jedi are Blue... pure logic. Sith are pure Red... pure emotion. They harness emotion to drive themselves forward. Successful ones use emotions to their advantage. Look at Palatine and his temptation of young Anakin Skywalker. Less successful ones become slaves to their passions... see also Darth Maul.

Think of them as Ying and Yang. Luke, in this example, would then be their version of Buddha... finding the middle way.

Also, I'd put Malcolm Reynolds on that list as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also, I'd put Malcolm Reynolds on that list as well.

Black? Eh, maybe. Pure black? Nooooo. Mal doesn't fit any color well.

Jayne is black.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Black? Eh, maybe. Pure black? Nooooo. Mal doesn't fit any color well.

Jayne is black.

Again, no. Jayne is Red. He runs on pure emotion. Whatever feels good, do it.

Mal, on the other hand? He will do anything, and everything, to keep his ship running and his crew safe. Blow the guy's head off? No problem. Lie, cheat, steal, plunder? No sweat. Leave people to the cannabilistic Reavers... alive? Did that too. Paint his own ship up as a reaver ship just so he can give the Alliance a big middle finger? Yep. Or, as Zoe called it 'desecrating our home'.

Yea, that's the pure essence of Black there.

But if it makes you feel any better, so was the Operative.

[Amaril]

Again, no. Jayne is Red. He runs on pure emotion. Whatever feels good, do it.

Mal, on the other hand? He will do anything, and everything, to keep his ship running and his crew safe. Blow the guy's head off? No problem. Lie, cheat, steal, plunder? No sweat. Leave people to the cannabilistic Reavers... alive? Did that too. Paint his own ship up as a reaver ship just so he can give the Alliance a big middle finger? Yep. Or, as Zoe called it 'desecrating our home'.

Yea, that's the pure essence of Black there.

But as much as he tells himself and everyone else otherwise, he does a significant portion of what he does to fight a regime that he perceives as tyrannical and oppressive, so that the people living under it can be free. That's definitely not White-lawful, but it's not pure Black self-interest either...probably more like Black/Red.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'd agree with all of these, except the Sith.

Jedi are Blue... pure logic. Sith are pure Red... pure emotion. They harness emotion to drive themselves forward. Successful ones use emotions to their advantage. Look at Palatine and his temptation of young Anakin Skywalker. Less successful ones become slaves to their passions... see also Darth Maul.

Think of them as Ying and Yang. Luke, in this example, would then be their version of Buddha... finding the middle way.

Also, I'd put Malcolm Reynolds on that list as well.

In my own personal unsupported head-canon, I disagree regarding the jedi/sith thing. See, in my own interpretation of things, the whole problem is that Jedi VS Sith isn't a true fight between opposite and equal viewpoints/philosophies/parts of the force. The Jedi are neutral, logical, calm and so on but not necessarily innately good or non-violent or anything. The opposite to that would be a side of the force ruled by passion and emotion and the self, but the dark side of the force isn't red, it's red/black or black or something like that. The dark side of the force is evil, it does register on the good/evil scale innately and of itself.

So bringing balance to the force would be about destroying the corrupting factor, letting that side of the force go back into it's natural alignment again without that innately corrupt ickyness at it's heart.

Also, Mal is Red/White, surely? He's civilised, orderly in his own way, with a hint of frontiersman rebelliousness.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Again, no. Jayne is Red. He runs on pure emotion. Whatever feels good, do it.
Of course Jayne's red. But he's black first, red second. He's greedy, doesn't care about anyone other than the captain as long as the money's good enough (he might even sell out the captain, but that would mean enough money to live a luxurious life until he grows old), and has very little scruples. He's also fiercely independent and prefers to indulge the simpler human desires (sex, alchohol, good food).

Mal, on the other hand? He will do anything, and everything, to keep his ship running and his crew safe. Blow the guy's head off? No problem. Lie, cheat, steal, plunder? No sweat. Leave people to the cannabilistic Reavers... alive? Did that too. Paint his own ship up as a reaver ship just so he can give the Alliance a big middle finger? Yep. Or, as Zoe called it 'desecrating our home'.

Yea, that's the pure essence of Black there.

Please. That town was the only successful mass surviving of a Reaver attack because Mal told them to get everyone possible into the vault. There's a difference between "self-centered" and "I ain't fightin' Reavers". If his actions in the show and the movie didn't tell you this, Inara's words should've. He shoots people, yes, and he does his job just because he refuses to work for the Alliance, but he's willing to take a job with no pay because he feels it's the right thing to do. You could make the argument that his morals aren't necessarily right, but that still doesn't make him self-centered. It may make him ambitious, but in that case, anyone who's ever strived to do something, succeed or fail, is black.

[Xiander]

As far as I know, black is completely and totally evil. There was one time Sorin was good locking up the eldrazi. So basically, black is completely evil and there is almost no way black will come to good.

I bolded the part I want to discuss.

Why does the creation of the archangel Avacyn not count?
It is an act that makes him an enemy of his own kind (Vampires), while saving an other race (Humanity on Innistradt) from either extinction or slavery.
As far as I understand Sorin created Avacyn because he was tired of the irresponsible behavior of the vampires and did not wish to see his home-plane destroyed.

This action is to me somewhere between black and white in nature. White because it imposes order and enforces some moral rules of Sorins device. Black because it was done mostly out of anoyance at a state of affairs that did not please Sorin. Sort of a "I want things to be orderly and neat, so suck on it if you disagree." attitude is implied.

My point is that while black is always willing to take drastic measures and do rather wild things to reach their goal, that does not equate evil. Even if black does have some of the nastiest and most horrible tools in their arsenal, that does not mean that every black mage use them.

In fact, i find that branding black as Evil takes away from the possible stories and themes you can make with the color system. God does not equal nice and by the same token "not nice" does not equal evil.

[Lea Plath]

Hmm, lets examine black in some characters then.

Nico Bolas is Black, Red and Blue, mostly red. His current goal is to gain back his old levels of power and more so. To this end he set up the Conflux, had the Eldrazi released and I'm sure is up to more evil plots. His black is his ruthlessness and willing to do anything to achive power. His blue is his desire for knowledge, power and his control over the mind. His red is the fact he is a big ole dragon. He can still kill you with his fire breath and burn powers. Red also falls under the taking control aspect a bit too, if only temporary.

Nico Bolas is evil, we can all agree, but if he was UR he wouldn't be good. He is greater than the sum of his parts.


Now, lets look at GWB and the Treefolk of Lorwyn.

They are skilled in all kinds of magic. Poison, pain absorbing, shamanism, healing and growth. They protect the Kithkin, and they helped agaisnt the villian of Lorywn, Oona.

Pain absorbtion is black. Poison would be GB (As it is the domain of Yew trees, and yew trees are GB), Shamanism is green, healing is GW. Black is not evil. In this case, black is used for good.

Another example of mono-black is Maralen. She was a mono black creature. An avatar of Oona who rebelled. She had done ruthless things, for example, stealing power from a ritual to retain herself and memories when the world changed. She protected a kithkin village and helped a young Kithkin called Jack for her own purpose. She then stopped the villian Oona taking Ashling's power so she could take it. Finally, she finnished off Oona, and become the new queen of the fae, planning to restore the normal day and night cycle.

So she helped people, for her own reasons, stoppped the villian, for her own reason, and defeated Oona, so she could take her place and fix the world. None of her actions were selfless, they all served her, but what she did was good and she was on the side of good.

Black is not evil. Black is selfish. Black is the anti-hero at its best, or the tyrant at its worse.

[Surrealistik]

So as previously stated, Black ranges from neutral to evil given its inherently selfish and ruthlessly Machiavellian nature, unless you entirely dismiss the salience of motive. It seems that in order for Black to ever really and truly branch out into 'good' it has to ally with some other colour on the wheel.

[Xiander]

So as previously stated, Black ranges from neutral to evil given its inherently selfish and ruthlessly Machiavellian nature, unless you entirely dismiss the salience of motive. It seems that in order for Black to ever really and truly branch out into 'good' it has to ally with some other colour on the wheel.

If we absolutely have to apply D&D terms to it, this is probably right.