MTG Magic in D&D

[Falcos]

(Alternative Thread Title: "Why am I making things so hard for myself as a DM")

Hi all.

So I'm insane.

As I was building the world which is based on the Plane Shift books, which are a series of books for D&D 5e designed to facilitate play in the MTG worlds, I got an idea.

An awful idea.

I got a wonderful, awful idea.

~
For context: In Magic the Gathering, there are five colours of mana, which are used to cast magic. All magic requires this mana. A spell that uses one colour is the norm. A spell that uses two or three is unusual. A spell that uses four is absurdly strong. A spell that uses five is indicative of amazing power. (A spell that uses zero is usually indicative of some form of Eldritch Abomination.)

The type of mana required for a spell is dictated by what type of spell it is. A Fireball spell costs Red mana. A spell to bolster your allies costs White mana. A spell to read a mind costs Blue mana. So on.

While I'm well aware that these colours don't exist in D&D, and I'm not trying to come up with any kind of mechanical system for them, what I have to wonder is:

Might particular classes, schools of magic, races, spells, etc be classifiable under what colours of mana they draw from? For an example that seems fairly obvious to me, a Druid would draw upon Green mana. The reason I want to do this is because in the MTG-verse, characters who are powerful enough can sense the mana usage of other people, and may have their opinions influenced accordingly.

So if I lay out the basic concept keywords of the five colours like so:

White: Peace, law, structured, selflessness, equality
Blue: Knowledge, deceit, cautious, deliberate, perfecting
Black: Power, self-interest, death, sacrifice, uninhibited
Red: Freedom, emotion, active, impulsive, destructive
Green: Nature, wildlife, connected, spiritual, tradition

My question is: What classes, races, abilities, archetypes, spells, etc jump out at people as obvious fits for ones who would channel mana of each of these colours? I am mainly looking for thoughts on classes.

Sorry in advance for the very odd question. Thanks in advance for anybody who helps.

[DeTess]

Welp, let's give this a go.

Druid: Green, White and depending on the sub-class they might add red or black (that UA spore druid)
Ranger: Green and White.
Paladin: White.
Fighter (eldritch knight): White and red.
Sorcerer: Any color, depending on build.
Cleric: White and adds either Blue(Knowledge, Trickery), red(Light, Tempest), black (Grave) or green(Nature)
Wizard: Any or all colors, depending on build
Bard: Blue
Warlock: Black, blue or red, depending on sub-class and build.
Rogue (arcane trickster): Blue
Barbarian: barbarian costs 1-2 Red and a couple of colorless for someone with actual magic to play :P (storms barbarian has a bit of red though, and ancestor barbarian a bit of white).
Monk(Four elements): red.

[SirGraystone]

Remember that MtG also came with basic lands, plain, island, swamp, mountain and forest. From that most human would be white, but pirates or islanders would be blue,... For magic it depend more of the spell used then the class, with:

White: healing, protection, celestial
Black: necromancy, abyssal
Red: fire, earth
Blue: water, counter
Green: animal, plant

[MrStabby]

I think we had this a year or so ago. I think a search might throw it up.

[123me4]

The last few pages of Planeshift: Ixalan do just this. It links color to alignment, gives suggested race's and classes for a colored character, and even has personality traits and ideals for that color. It sounds like what your looking for.

[zinycor]

My 2 cents:

Bards: red/blue, the color of creativity with passion and imagination
Barbarians: green/red, because they value strength and emotions above all
Clerics: white/any other, the second color would depend on the domain, but white because clerics value organizations and teamwork.
Druid: green, nature is cool
Fighters: any color could fit them depending on the kind of fighter, white could be the default.
Monk: probably white/blue to show their discipline and lateral thinking.
Paladin: white, all the way
Ranger: green/white they control and work with nature.
Rogue: depends on the character, red/black could be the default, since they tend to be selfish and passionate.
Sorcerer: red/any other. They feed their power from passion.
Warlock: black/any, their power comes from their willingness to accept deals in exchange from power.
Wizards:blue/any, their power comes from study.

[Falcos]

Responses, huzzah!


Welp, let's give this a go.

Druid: Green, White and depending on the sub-class they might add red or black (that UA spore druid)
Ranger: Green and White.
Paladin: White.
Fighter (eldritch knight): White and red.
Sorcerer: Any color, depending on build.
Cleric: White and adds either Blue(Knowledge, Trickery), red(Light, Tempest), black (Grave) or green(Nature)
Wizard: Any or all colors, depending on build
Bard: Blue
Warlock: Black, blue or red, depending on sub-class and build.
Rogue (arcane trickster): Blue
Barbarian: barbarian costs 1-2 Red and a couple of colorless for someone with actual magic to play :P (storms barbarian has a bit of red though, and ancestor barbarian a bit of white).
Monk(Four elements): red.

I find myself agreeing with this for the most part, although I personally think Paladin could be White/Red, rather than just White. I also wonder why Monk, the class of inner balance and clear thought, didn't get White or Blue in your estimation. Care to elaborate? :)


Remember that MtG also came with basic lands, plain, island, swamp, mountain and forest. From that most human would be white, but pirates or islanders would be blue,... For magic it depend more of the spell used then the class, with:

White: healing, protection, celestial
Black: necromancy, abyssal
Red: fire, earth
Blue: water, counter
Green: animal, plant

This is true in general, but remember that coming from a terrain that generates a certain type of mana doesn't mean that you yourself are aligned with it. Merfolk in Ixalan live in rivers, but about half of them are Green. The spells are indeed something I intend to tackle after the classes, though.


I think we had this a year or so ago. I think a search might throw it up.

I did a quick Google search and found a thread discussing the spells that I like, but find myself wanting to differ from - in MTG, multi-coloured spells exist, and the author of the thread in question was attempting to make every single one mono-colour castable. Wish, for example, appeared individually in all five colours.


The last few pages of Planeshift: Ixalan do just this. It links color to alignment, gives suggested race's and classes for a colored character, and even has personality traits and ideals for that color. It sounds like what your looking for.

I found Plane Shift: Ixalan after posting this thread, read it, and while I think it's a handy reference for most things pertaining to colour, it doesn't even mention specific spells and I disagree with some of the colour choices (like Bards being Green, for example). So I'd still like outside opinions.


My 2 cents:

Bards: red/blue, the color of creativity with passion and imagination
Barbarians: green/red, because they value strength and emotions above all
Clerics: white/any other, the second color would depend on the domain, but white because clerics value organizations and teamwork.
Druid: green, nature is cool
Fighters: any color could fit them depending on the kind of fighter, white could be the default.
Monk: probably white/blue to show their discipline and lateral thinking.
Paladin: white, all the way
Ranger: green/white they control and work with nature.
Rogue: depends on the character, red/black could be the default, since they tend to be selfish and passionate.
Sorcerer: red/any other. They feed their power from passion.
Warlock: black/any, their power comes from their willingness to accept deals in exchange from power.
Wizards:blue/any, their power comes from study.

I like this, the reasoning is also very helpful to my thought processes. I would again argue for the inclusion of Red in Paladin's set, though. Perhaps Blue in Rogue's, too.

Please all keep the responses coming, this is very helpful to my thought processes and workings out. I will be working on a document of spells later, as well, and asking for input on that in addition. Thank you all.

[Tiadoppler]

I've got a crazy and horribly unbalanced idea:

What if stats grant mana.

STR produces Green (muscle and growth)
DEX doesn't produce mana at all (DEX is already awesome, but maybe colorless mana)
CON produces Black (literally drained life energy or blood)
INT produces Blue (durrrr)
WIS produces White (the good of the whole, responsibility)
CHA produces Red (forceful willpower and passion)

You can store different types of mana up to your ability score modifier in that stat. Your mana stores recover on a short or long rest. You can then use M:tG cards during D&D combat (with some sort of M:tG > D&D stat conversion ratio. Maybe a 2/3 monster would do 10 damage on an attack, and have 15 hp.). Summoned items, creatures, and spells can only last a number of rounds equal to your character level. To play cards that cost more mana than you have, multiple characters can pool their mana stores (using their Reaction).

A character starts out with no usable "cards" and must find them in the world as random loot, or by giving the DM real money to receive a random selection of 10 cards.

[Falcos]

I've got a crazy and horribly unbalanced idea:

What if stats grant mana.

STR produces Green (muscle and growth)
DEX doesn't produce mana at all (DEX is already awesome, but maybe colorless mana)
CON produces Black (literally drained life energy or blood)
INT produces Blue (durrrr)
WIS produces White (the good of the whole, responsibility)
CHA produces Red (forceful willpower and passion)

You can store different types of mana up to your ability score modifier in that stat. Your mana stores recover on a short or long rest. You can then use M:tG cards during D&D combat (with some sort of M:tG > D&D stat conversion ratio. Maybe a 2/3 monster would do 10 damage on an attack, and have 15 hp.). Summoned items, creatures, and spells can only last a number of rounds equal to your character level. To play cards that cost more mana than you have, multiple characters can pool their mana stores (using their Reaction).

A character starts out with no usable "cards" and must find them in the world as random loot, or by giving the DM real money to receive a random selection of 10 cards.


Oh dear Bolas why would you suggest this.

Okay.

So.

A character with a stat spread that has a net seven positive modifier across all their stats.

And a second character with a net six positive.

(Add more to lower the net positives the first two need)

Can decide "Eh, sod it, I'm bored. I'm going to summon CENSORED EMRAKUL."

(I'm poking fun, but this sounds like a hilarious idea. Horribly unbalanced, as I've just outlined, but hilarious.)

[zinycor]

Well red on the Paladin could work fine, since they are very passionate. Rogues and fighters are harder to group because of how different a character can be to the other based on their style and personality.

For example: a Mafioso with many connections and plans every step on their next hit on a bank will probably be black/blue. Meanwhile robin hood character who steals from rich to give it to the poor will probably be more of a red/white.

Both would be rogues but different to the core.

[Falcos]

Well red on the Paladin could work fine, since they are very passionate. Rogues and fighters are harder to group because of how different a character can be to the other based on their style and personality.

For example: a Mafioso with many connections and plans every step on their next hit on a bank will probably be black/blue. Meanwhile robin hood character who steals from rich to give it to the poor will probably be more of a red/white.

Both would be rogues but different to the core.

That's a pretty good point. Well thought. :)

[Tiadoppler]

Oh dear Bolas why would you suggest this.

To get hilarious responses.



"Eh, sod it, I'm bored. I'm going to summon CENSORED EMRAKUL."

(I'm poking fun, but this sounds like a hilarious idea. Horribly unbalanced, as I've just outlined, but hilarious.)

If you are able to bind this creature to your will so that you can summon an illusory duplicate of it, then spending 2-3 characters' full short rests of resources to summon it for < 2 minutes doesn't sound that crazy.


Emrakul's a powerful creature, no doubt (damage per turn is ~75, or CR 12, hp is ~75, or CR 1 +magic resistance?, so that makes it a glass cannon CR 7 creature. Much more work is needed to get actual balanced stats from M:tG to D&D), but is it really better than anything that can come through a Gate?

If you're DMing a D&D campaign, and you want to let your party play Planeswalkers, having things be crazy-awesome is kind of the goal, right?

[DeTess]

I find myself agreeing with this for the most part, although I personally think Paladin could be White/Red, rather than just White. I also wonder why Monk, the class of inner balance and clear thought, didn't get White or Blue in your estimation. Care to elaborate? :)


I'll be honest, I had initially misread the OP, and was basing the color on the kind of magic they where using, rather than the character-class outlook. Four-elements monk is the only one that seems to be obviously magical (though most other monk abilities are probably a flavor of White), and the four elements abilities are all pretty much elemental destruction style stuff, so red.

[Falcos]

To get hilarious responses.




If you are able to bind this creature to your will so that you can summon an illusory duplicate of it, then spending 2-3 characters' full short rests of resources to summon it for < 2 minutes doesn't sound that crazy.


Emrakul's a powerful creature, no doubt (damage per turn is ~75, or CR 12, hp is ~75, or CR 1 +magic resistance?, so that makes it a glass cannon CR 7 creature. Much more work is needed to get actual balanced stats from M:tG to D&D), but is it really better than anything that can come through a Gate?

If you're DMing a D&D campaign, and you want to let your party play Planeswalkers, having things be crazy-awesome is kind of the goal, right?

You never clarified that any part of the process "bound them to your will"

For a minimum of six seconds, you've just unleashed Emrakul on your setting. Re-reading the first six seconds of Emrakul's existence of Innistrad, you've just permanently ROYALLY MESSED UP that setting.

That does sound like fun, though. Shame that the summoners probably aren't in any fit state to continue being playable - I can't imagine anybody who could make the save to survive that kind of insanity unscathed would have a low enough WIS score to actually do it.

EDIT:

I'll be honest, I had initially misread the OP, and was basing the color on the kind of magic they where using, rather than the character-class outlook. Four-elements monk is the only one that seems to be obviously magical (though most other monk abilities are probably a flavor of White), and the four elements abilities are all pretty much elemental destruction style stuff, so red.

That's a fair enough assessment, although even then, water and air magic fall quite often into Blue rather than Red.

[Tiadoppler]

You never clarified that any part of the process "bound them to your will"

For a minimum of six seconds, you've just unleashed Emrakul on your setting. Re-reading the first six seconds of Emrakul's existence of Innistrad, you've just permanently ROYALLY MESSED UP that setting.

That does sound like fun, though. Shame that the summoners probably aren't in any fit state to continue being playable - I can't imagine anybody who could make the save to survive that kind of insanity unscathed would have a low enough WIS score to actually do it.

Oh right. When I was saying you have to collect the cards as loot, I got distracted by sarcasm and forgot to finish my thought. To create a creature 'card' you must bind a part of a creature's soul to a scroll (a ritual; the participant must be either willing or incapacitated for the duration of the ritual). Otherwise, the 'cards' might appear as pre-existing scrolls in loot tables.

It's been over a decade since I last looked at M:tG. Fluffwise that sounds terrifying, but the card mechanics don't really match that description.

[Falcos]

Oh right. When I was saying you have to collect the cards as loot, I got distracted by sarcasm and forgot to finish my thought. To create a creature 'card' you must bind a part of a creature's soul to a scroll (a ritual; the participant must be either willing or incapacitated for the duration of the ritual). Otherwise, the 'cards' might appear as pre-existing scrolls in loot tables.

It's been over a decade since I last looked at M:tG. Fluffwise that sounds terrifying, but the card mechanics don't really match that description.

That card description sounds a lot more fair, now.

In the name of giving context, I shall point out that in Plane Shift: Zendikar, the three Eldrazi Titans (Ulamog, Emrakul, Kozilek) are described, and the stat blocks that it recommends you use are the empyrean, kraken, and the tarrasque.

[Lombra]

It's complicated because you always run into exceptions... sometimes the color is decided by the context and not by the action itself, much like alignment does.

[Tiadoppler]

In the name of giving context, I shall point out that in Plane Shift: Zendikar, the three Eldrazi Titans (Ulamog, Emrakul, Kozilek) are described, and the stat blocks that it recommends you use are the empyrean, kraken, and the tarrasque.

So the Titans are roughly kinda sorta maybe-but-not-really equivalent to a CR 23, CR 23, and a CR 30. Maybe a general rule could be that to get the rough CR of a M:tG creature, you add the attack and defense scores together.

A M:tG 4/5 creature would have
a total CR of (4+5=) 9
an Offensive CR of (4x2=) 8
a Defensive CR of (5x2=) 10

[GreyBlack]

You do know that WOTC publishes D&D write ups on all their new block settings, right?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-amonkhet-2017-07-05

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-ixalan-2018-01-09

There's one for Zendikar and Ravnica too, I think, but that's neither here nor there.

[Falcos]

It's complicated because you always run into exceptions... sometimes the color is decided by the context and not by the action itself, much like alignment does.

While this is true in a broad sense, in MTG, some things are still always the colour that they are. A Fireball, in MTG, is always Red, regardless of context.


So the Titans are roughly kinda sorta maybe-but-not-really equivalent to a CR 23, CR 23, and a CR 30. Maybe a general rule could be that to get the rough CR of a M:tG creature, you add the attack and defense scores together.

A M:tG 4/5 creature would have
a total CR of (4+5=) 9
an Offensive CR of (4x2=) 8
a Defensive CR of (5x2=) 10

Yeah, unfortunately there really isn't a neat translation across. Looking at the comparisons to some other creatures in Plane Shift books, there's nothing really neat anywhere.

And that isn't even touching keywords, like "Indestructible".


You do know that WOTC publishes D&D write ups on all their new block settings, right?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-amonkhet-2017-07-05

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-ixalan-2018-01-09

There's one for Zendikar and Ravnica too, I think, but that's neither here nor there.

Yep! Mentioned them a few times in the above thread. However, they rarely mention the MTG colours in them. They're more interested in bringing the basic facts of the setting (cities, races, etc) across rather than the system's magic.

There's a Ravnica? Can you provide any kind of link? I can't find it.

[GreyBlack]

While this is true in a broad sense, in MTG, some things are still always the colour that they are. A Fireball, in MTG, is always Red, regardless of context.



Yeah, unfortunately there really isn't a neat translation across. Looking at the comparisons to some other creatures in Plane Shift books, there's nothing really neat anywhere.

And that isn't even touching keywords, like "Indestructible".



Yep! Mentioned them a few times in the above thread. However, they rarely mention the MTG colours in them. They're more interested in bringing the basic facts of the setting (cities, races, etc) across rather than the system's magic.

There's a Ravnica? Can you provide any kind of link? I can't find it.

I thought there was but I may be wrong. The reason I'm saying this is because in Ixilan, they do have a section on the colors. They go into what backgrounds, alignments, classes, and races are most appropriate to each given color.

[Falcos]

I thought there was but I may be wrong. The reason I'm saying this is because in Ixilan, they do have a section on the colors. They go into what backgrounds, alignments, classes, and races are most appropriate to each given color.

You are correct again! However...




I found Plane Shift: Ixalan after posting this thread, read it, and while I think it's a handy reference for most things pertaining to colour, it doesn't even mention specific spells and I disagree with some of the colour choices (like Bards being Green, for example). So I'd still like outside opinions.

[GreyBlack]

I dunno, I can dig bards being green. The original bards were fighters who became thieves who then hung out with the druids after all.

The entire point of the Magic color pie, as I understand it, relates more to how the energy is generated and by what energy the Magic is generated than it is about classes. A Paladin of Ancients could easily be a G/W character for example, as could a Fey Warlock. However, going beyond the broadest strokes of that just leads you down the rabbit hole of chicken and egg; as such I would argue that it's better to map the damage types to the Magic colors than it is to map classes.

For example:
White: Radiant
Blue: Psychic
Black: Necrotic
Red: Fire
Green: Poison

From there, any damage typing you deal could be said to be dealt by channeling magic from one of the Magic sources.

... excuse me, I have to go homebrew a system where your damage typings are affected by your environment.

[Falcos]

I dunno, I can dig bards being green. The original bards were fighters who became thieves who then hung out with the druids after all.

The entire point of the Magic color pie, as I understand it, relates more to how the energy is generated and by what energy the Magic is generated than it is about classes. A Paladin of Ancients could easily be a G/W character for example, as could a Fey Warlock. However, going beyond the broadest strokes of that just leads you down the rabbit hole of chicken and egg; as such I would argue that it's better to map the damage types to the Magic colors than it is to map classes.

For example:
White: Radiant
Blue: Psychic
Black: Necrotic
Red: Fire
Green: Poison

From there, any damage typing you deal could be said to be dealt by channeling magic from one of the Magic sources.

... excuse me, I have to go homebrew a system where your damage typings are affected by your environment.

Does that... Really work well, though?

To use MTG examples, Poison would often fall into Black, Blue often uses Water and Wind to attack, and Green isn't opposed to just rotting something from the inside out.

Also, please let me know when that system is done. I volunteer my players as victi- I mean, playtesters.

EDIT: Although really, wouldn't it change your expenditure rate, not your damage? Having a mountain in MTG doesn't make your Red spells better, it makes them easier to cast.

[GreyBlack]

Does that... Really work well, though?

To use MTG examples, Poison would often fall into Black, Blue often uses Water and Wind to attack, and Green isn't opposed to just rotting something from the inside out.

Also, please let me know when that system is done. I volunteer my players as victi- I mean, playtesters.

As to damage typings, I argue that green is poison because it is natural. Beasts and fey and druids tend to use that damage typing from what I've seen and it mimics the natural world. Their "rot" tends to be more natural than, as you put it, "rotting something from the inside out." That alteration of the natural life cycle is more Necrotic in nature than the more natural poison.

As to water and wind... yeah but it didn't map as well and may make Blue a little too powerful. I mean, I loved the Urza block but....

[Falcos]

As to damage typings, I argue that green is poison because it is natural. Beasts and fey and druids tend to use that damage typing from what I've seen and it mimics the natural world. Their "rot" tends to be more natural than, as you put it, "rotting something from the inside out." That alteration of the natural life cycle is more Necrotic in nature than the more natural poison.

As to water and wind... yeah but it didn't map as well and may make Blue a little too powerful. I mean, I loved the Urza block but....

While we're on the topic, I'll point out that Fey are traditionally Blue, and "beasts" is a very wide category that, just pulling recent examples from my memory, can be in all five colours.

[zinycor]

While we're on the topic, I'll point out that Fey are traditionally Blue, and "beasts" is a very wide category that, just pulling recent examples from my memory, can be in all five colours.

Beast isn't really a wide category, is just animals or variation of animal (like giant toad). They would absolutely be Green.

[Anonymouswizard]

The last few pages of Planeshift: Ixalan do just this. It links color to alignment, gives suggested race's and classes for a colored character, and even has personality traits and ideals for that color. It sounds like what your looking for.

Honestly, colour to D&D alignment is a really bad match. Because while you can roughly match the colours to the alignments (the broadest reading would be white=good, blue=law, black=evil, red=chaos, and green=neutral, although that's flanderising the colours even more than most people already do), with the magic colours apparently contradictory combinations are relatively in normal.

For example, if we're going with the very inaccurate matching proposed above a neutral character could be green, or white/black, or blue/red, or even white/black/green/blue (yes, having four colours or even all five is rare, but it's known). A lawful good character could be white, blue, white/blue, or even white/blue/red without any actual contradictions. A Lawful Evil character who's colour is white is also totally plausible if we start giving characters D&D alignments and magic colours which are separate.


For class to colour, most classes will have adherents of most of the five philosophies. In general most Wizards will have some Blue, most Druids some Green, most Clerics some White, and most Barbarians some Red, but even that isn't completely certain.

[Falcos]

Beast isn't really a wide category, is just animals or variation of animal (like giant toad). They would absolutely be Green.

While there are more covert examples that are less flashy cards, I would be remiss as a MTG player who won a tournament because of these latest cards to not use the following examples.

https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/30.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/45.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/86.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/100.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/130.jpg

(I'm fairly certain all five of those are Beasts)


Honestly, colour to D&D alignment is a really bad match. Because while you can roughly match the colours to the alignments (the broadest reading would be white=good, blue=law, black=evil, red=chaos, and green=neutral, although that's flanderising the colours even more than most people already do), with the magic colours apparently contradictory combinations are relatively in normal.

For example, if we're going with the very inaccurate matching proposed above a neutral character could be green, or white/black, or blue/red, or even white/black/green/blue (yes, having four colours or even all five is rare, but it's known). A lawful good character could be white, blue, white/blue, or even white/blue/red without any actual contradictions. A Lawful Evil character who's colour is white is also totally plausible if we start giving characters D&D alignments and magic colours which are separate.


For class to colour, most classes will have adherents of most of the five philosophies. In general most Wizards will have some Blue, most Druids some Green, most Clerics some White, and most Barbarians some Red, but even that isn't completely certain.

You've got a really good overall point, and you are correct, in that categorizing exactly is really hard to do and I'm being overly general in a lot of ways.

However, I honestly can't focus on that because you put what I consider to be the most EVIL Colour ("We're going to lock you up because you're individual and free and we don't like that" White) as GOOD in your "usual" assessment. That's what Law is for!

Sidenote I legitimately have a problem with the idea of Lawful Good and it's bugged me for years and this is a tangent for another thread.

[zinycor]

While there are more covert examples that are less flashy cards, I would be remiss as a MTG player who won a tournament because of these latest cards to not use the following examples.

https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/30.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/45.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/86.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/100.jpg https://magiccards.info/scans/en/rix/130.jpg

(I'm fairly certain all five of those are Beasts)



You've got a really good overall point, and you are correct, in that categorizing exactly is really hard to do and I'm being overly general in a lot of ways.

However, I honestly can't focus on that because you put what I consider to be the most EVIL Colour ("We're going to lock you up because you're individual and free and we don't like that" White) as GOOD in your "usual" assessment. That's what Law is for!

Sidenote I legitimately have a problem with the idea of Lawful Good and it's bugged me for years and this is a tangent for another thread.

When I said that I thought that you meant the actual Beast category on DnD 5e. Many times Magic focuses their colors merely on aestetics or mechanics, such is the case for rats and bats who are black, even though they are just animals.

The problem with alignment is that it places inherent value on certain alignments, For example, an evil alignment PC would be looked at funny and may be forbiden on certain tables.

Having Magic colors be the alignment could be better, since blue isn't better than green or red. They are just descriptors and things that would give a guide to your behaviour.

[Falcos]

When I said that I thought that you meant the actual Beast category on DnD 5e. Many times Magic focuses their colors merely on aestetics or mechanics, such is the case for rats and bats who are black, even though they are just animals.

The problem with alignment is that it places inherent value on certain alignments, For example, an evil alignment PC would be looked at funny and may be forbiden on certain tables.

Having Magic colors be the alignment could be better, since blue isn't better than green or red. They are just descriptors and things that would give a guide to your behaviour.

If we're talking the MTG categorization of "Beast", I'll point out that they've been every colour but Blue.

The problem with classing them as alignments to me is that three of them are almost always an alignment (White Law, Red Chaos, Green Neutral) and the other two are basically available equally to all alignments. Again, in my viewpoint and opinion.

[Vogie]

I think you're trying to shoehorn it in too much.

All of the classes have subclasses that are "off-color". Celestial Warlocks would be white, Oathbreaker Paladins would be black, Mastermind Rogues could be blue-white, Arcane Archers and Scout Rogues would be Green.

If you wanted to tie certain spells to their colored counterparts, that'd be a thing that makes sense. Then each spellcasting player could decide on a color or colors they play, then choose spells of the appropriate color (Commander-style). For martials, use the color pairs, shards & wedges as a sort of faux-alignment that defines what they care about, and motivations.


If we're talking the MTG categorization of "Beast", I'll point out that they've been every colour but Blue.

There are 39 Blue beasts (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?type=+[beast]||subtype=+[beast]&color=+@([U])&output=spoiler&method=visual)

[Falcos]

I think you're trying to shoehorn it in too much.

All of the classes have subclasses that are "off-color". Celestial Warlocks would be white, Oathbreaker Paladins would be black, Mastermind Rogues could be blue-white, Arcane Archers and Scout Rogues would be Green.

If you wanted to tie certain spells to their colored counterparts, that'd be a thing that makes sense. Then each spellcasting player could decide on a color or colors they play, then choose spells of the appropriate color (Commander-style). For martials, use the color pairs, shards & wedges as a sort of faux-alignment that defines what they care about, and motivations.



There are 39 Blue beasts (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?type=+[beast]||subtype=+[beast]&color=+@([U])&output=spoiler&method=visual)

I'm working on a spreadsheet of spells and colours for just that purpose.

...Also, I stand corrected.

[MattDM]

I tried to do this back in pathfinder. I realized that it works better if every spell-casting class (with maybe a few exceptions) can be associated with ANY color. For example, a green druid got the woods archetype, the red druid mountains, a white cleric gets the life and sun domains, a black cleric gets death and decay, etc. etc. Pathfinder had enough sub-classes/archtypes that you come up with a list of domains/familiars/animal companions/bones/etc for each color. In 5e, I think the best way would be to make 5 sub-classes for each main spell-caster (wizard, cleric) and maybe 3 for each more focused spellcaster (druid for example gets green +adjacent, artificer gets blue +adjacent, sorcerer gets red +adjacent) and perhaps restrict the most specialized casters to a single color (paladin get white, ranger gets green, magic powered barbarian gets red, arcane trickester gets blue, and warlock gets black). Something like that, I dunno.

Now, as to the world-building, it makes sense that most paladins are white, most warlocks are black, more sorcerers are red, most druids are green, and most wizards are blue. But for the players, let them pick anything. Who wouldn't want to try something crazy like a blue paladin or white warlock?

[zinycor]

Now, as to the world-building, it makes sense that most paladins are white, most warlocks are black, more sorcerers are red, most druids are green, and most wizards are blue. But for the players, let them pick anything. Who wouldn't want to try something crazy like a blue paladin or white warlock?

Absolutely agree with this statement!

[Falcos]

I tried to do this back in pathfinder. I realized that it works better if every spell-casting class (with maybe a few exceptions) can be associated with ANY color. For example, a green druid got the woods archetype, the red druid mountains, a white cleric gets the life and sun domains, a black cleric gets death and decay, etc. etc. Pathfinder had enough sub-classes/archtypes that you come up with a list of domains/familiars/animal companions/bones/etc for each color. In 5e, I think the best way would be to make 5 sub-classes for each main spell-caster (wizard, cleric) and maybe 3 for each more focused spellcaster (druid for example gets green +adjacent, artificer gets blue +adjacent, sorcerer gets red +adjacent) and perhaps restrict the most specialized casters to a single color (paladin get white, ranger gets green, magic powered barbarian gets red, arcane trickester gets blue, and warlock gets black). Something like that, I dunno.

Now, as to the world-building, it makes sense that most paladins are white, most warlocks are black, more sorcerers are red, most druids are green, and most wizards are blue. But for the players, let them pick anything. Who wouldn't want to try something crazy like a blue paladin or white warlock?

I'm mainly writing this for NPC reaction reasons.

For example...

Oketra sees Gideon in a crowd and instantly picks him out as a user of White mana, and is favourably disposed towards him for that reason.

For those who don't want to read that spoiler, certain powerful characters in MTG can detect colour of mana usage and react to characters accordingly. I'm mainly looking to recreate that kind of system, although it's looking increasingly like I'm going to need to really knuckle down and get spells sorted by colour to make the system work.

I suppose I should also look at class features, to see if any of them are inherently particular colours.

[Anonymouswizard]

You've got a really good overall point, and you are correct, in that categorizing exactly is really hard to do and I'm being overly general in a lot of ways.

However, I honestly can't focus on that because you put what I consider to be the most EVIL Colour ("We're going to lock you up because you're individual and free and we don't like that" White) as GOOD in your "usual" assessment. That's what Law is for!

Sidenote I legitimately have a problem with the idea of Lawful Good and it's bugged me for years and this is a tangent for another thread.

Oh sure, focus on a colour's bad points. You can make all colours evil if you do that.

In fact, I wasn't saying it was 'usual', I was saying it was 'broad', in that it covers all alignments neatly. I then went on to point out that, for alignments it doesn't really make sense as colour/alignment clashes are actually rare, and a chaotic evil white/blue (which, as you have pointed out, both tend towards law) character is perfectly plausible. Magic colours don't map neatly to anything except magic colours!

And I even have my doubts about it working there.

[Falcos]

Oh sure, focus on a colour's bad points. You can make all colours evil if you do that.

In fact, I wasn't saying it was 'usual', I was saying it was 'broad', in that it covers all alignments neatly. I then went on to point out that, for alignments it doesn't really make sense as colour/alignment clashes are actually rare, and a chaotic evil white/blue (which, as you have pointed out, both tend towards law) character is perfectly plausible. Magic colours don't map neatly to anything except magic colours!

And I even have my doubts about it working there.

To be fair, in lore terms, I have difficulty finding good points of white to focus on. It's the colour of many things, all of which I find myself usually knee-jerking away from in favour of another colour's view. Insert "for the greater good" meme here. (It's worth noting that it's my second-favourite colour and most-used colour in terms of gameplay, though. What can I say, I'm a villain.)

And yeah, I know that mapping this is a mess. I did say that my subtitle for this whole thread was "Making things hard for myself as a DM".

EDIT: Hold the phone. Did you say that Blue, colour of knowledge, pure and simple, leans lawful? I don't think I agree with you there. Mad scientists are chaotic as can be, by Orcus, and are as Blue as they come.

[zinycor]

EDIT: Hold the phone. Did you say that Blue, colour of knowledge, pure and simple, leans lawful? I don't think I agree with you there. Mad scientists are chaotic as can be, by Orcus, and are as Blue as they come.

I would say that White CAN be very lawful it feels like it. Azorius for example, takes the lawfulness of white and ups it to 11.

[Finback]

Another thing to remember is that the intersection of these can lead to things that should *seem* contrary, but work together - the best example is the guilds of Ravnica. Black and green should seem antithetical, but they make perfect sense for decay and regrowth, so there's no reason a druid couldn't be in black. A fighter could be black red, but doesn't *have* to equate to a violent maniac, which those two colours often connect with (I'm looking at you, Rakdos - both the guild AND their leader). Other sets have had heroic characters in black, because black can also be about subterfuge - the various aetherborn rogues of Kaladesh are not necessarily villainous (even the vampiric ones!)

I think if you're going to dig into this idea, find out how your PCs want to use it, because they might see connections you don't, and aren't prepared for. They may also find it limiting, if they're told "druids pull from green mana", when one has a cool idea about a druid who lives by the sea, and wants to dig into blue mana some.

[Falcos]

I would say that White CAN be very lawful it feels like it. Azorius for example, takes the lawfulness of white and ups it to 11.

I think you either misunderstood me to mean White when I said Blue, or you mistyped.

I think that Azorius takes the lawful nature from White. I think that Blue has no particular inclination towards any particular alignment.


Another thing to remember is that the intersection of these can lead to things that should *seem* contrary, but work together - the best example is the guilds of Ravnica. Black and green should seem antithetical, but they make perfect sense for decay and regrowth, so there's no reason a druid couldn't be in black. A fighter could be black red, but doesn't *have* to equate to a violent maniac, which those two colours often connect with (I'm looking at you, Rakdos - both the guild AND their leader). Other sets have had heroic characters in black, because black can also be about subterfuge - the various aetherborn rogues of Kaladesh are not necessarily villainous (even the vampiric ones!)

I think if you're going to dig into this idea, find out how your PCs want to use it, because they might see connections you don't, and aren't prepared for. They may also find it limiting, if they're told "druids pull from green mana", when one has a cool idea about a druid who lives by the sea, and wants to dig into blue mana some.

I personally wouldn't assume that black/red led to violent maniac - Black is selfish and red is emotional. That makes a jerk, not a maniac.

(Personally, I think the "villain colour" should be white and it makes me sad that Nahiri and Konda are basically all we've gotten)

And yeah, colour flexibility is important, but spells are really going to be the crux of the matter. Fireball is always red in MTG, even if the caster lives by the sea.

[the_brazenburn]

Here's my take on it.

Bards: Usually blue (enchantments and illusions) or white (buffs and healing) or both (though they don't have to be stick-up-the-arse Azorius) Glamour bards might have green, Valor/Swords bards could have some red, and Whispers bards have black as a possibility.

Clerics: Can be any color, depending on archetype. I'd say that Arcana is blue, Death is black, Forge is Boros, Grave is Orzhov, Knowledge is blue, Life is Selesnya, Light is Boros, Nature is green, Tempest is Izzet, Trickery is Dimir, and War is red.

Druid: Druids are usually some form of green (obviously), with any of the other colors combined in it.

Paladin: White. Paladins are whiter than white. I'd be open to including red for Vengeance Pallies, Black for Oathbreakers and Conquests, and Green for Ancients.

Ranger: I'm just going to cut off any discussion here and call them Green. They don't really get any other-colored spells.

Sorcerer: They could conceivably be any color, though most are red (especially Dragon Sorcs). Divine Souls are White, Wild Magic could have green (or not), and Shadow Sorcerer is black. Storm Sorcerer could be Izzet, or could just be mono-red.

Warlocks are often black. That said, Feylocks are pretty green, and GOO could be blue (or colorless Eldrazi). Celestial Warlock is white, and you could even have a Rakdos fiendlock.

Wizard can be anything. Case closed.

The general impression I'm trying to give is that anybody could really be anything. Some things have tendencies toward specific things, but there's no limitations on what you can be.

[Finback]

(Personally, I think the "villain colour" should be white and it makes me sad that Nahiri and Konda are basically all we've gotten)



Ixalan has also give us Vona, the Butcher, and Mavren Fein. The former is BW, admittedly, but a fanatical vampire priest in white? Yes please!

edit: Oh, DUH, Elesh Norn, the Phyrexian cenobite.

[zinycor]

The general impression I'm trying to give is that anybody could really be anything. Some things have tendencies toward specific things, but there's no limitations on what you can be.

Absolutely agree on this, I think the most important thing would be for the GM and the players to have/agree on a very clear definition of every color and their combinations, this would probably prove more useful that try to cage any class on certain colors.