I was listening to Maro's drive to work podcast for the white-blue color pair, and he made several references to being "all about" democracy. Now I would never claim to know the game or the flavor of it better than Mark Rosewater, but I think he has this completely wrong.

I don't dispute that democracy has a strong component, but it seems pretty clear to me that Mono White would distrust democracy. After all, it's priorities are peace and order, it's priorities are not freedom, self-determination, or what we acknowledge as "rights". Distributing the government's power among all members of a given group would only be seen as a good thing by White if it was conducive to peace and order, and history has shown that that is often not at all the case. If one were to pitch the idea to White, I imagine White's response to be something like, "but what if they vote wrong?" White would be very concerned by the idea that the populace could vote to remove the penalty for vandalism, or issue rocket launchers to anybody that wanted one, or, gods forbid, limit the government. Things like that would be unacceptable to White, and as crazy as they might sound, they could happen under a democracy. Why would White accept the risk inherent in a system like that when centralized authority could just guaranty that things stay orderly and peaceful?

What do you think? Am I nuts? Was Maro right the first time? Is there a two or three color combo that you can see Democracy fitting nicely into?

I think you're right on this one. White's big on hierarchy, which isn't a great fit with democracy. White also values responsibilities above rights, which doesn't jibe with most conceptions of democracy.
White loves republicanism- which goes well with democracy. But white also loves dictatorship which is essentially democracy's opposite.

I think any organized system of government is going to fit okay with mono-white, but there are certainly systems that fit white better (imperialism and etc.)

I think white as a whole is agnostic towards the exact structure of a government, as long as it works to maintain order and peace. As much as white may be afraid of people making bad decisions, white also wants fairness and equality between people and white generally believes in the benevolence of people. White believes in ideals and people living up to them.

I think how paranoid or heavy-handed white government will be will just vary from culture to culture, plane to plane.

Historically, democracies were seen in the 19th century as unpredictable and unstable. This is the attitude I would expect from pre-industrial civilizations. doesn't like "unpredictable" nor "unstable". Therefore I wouldn't see being interested in democracy at all. It would only be interested in democracy and rule of law if it was applied to the current state of affairs, where democracy is dominant. Even then, petty war breaks out all over the world in the form of the Middle East and North Korea, and would be just as likely to support a dictator that would invest some military support to maintain peace (i.e. China) as it would support a democracy.

In short, supports the current system, and hates change. This can be good sometimes, preventing a system from degrading to something worse like extravagance or a sudden outbreak of imperialism, but oftentimes it can be very, very bad. If you study the Inglehart–Welzel culture map, lines up with Africa. Over self-expression, democracy, secularism, and rationalism, favors dictatorships and giving up freedom in exchange for security. would eschew evidence in order to keep the current system the way it is, where even can't even qualify as that, where it just wants to live a life independent of things it doesn't understand, or at worst destroy things it doesn't understand. If gives the time (and truth serum) to have its enemies explain what is really going on, it would go for the decision that it believes is right, i.e. if says it wants to study the weather to avoid environmental disaster, would leave it alone or even help out, while saying it wants to make money from draining dryad souls would invoke wrath. would more likely than not go for the decision that would enforce the status quo, such as persecuting regardless of what is doing.

That being said, bad guys aren't objectively better than . They are rapists (following their sex drive) in addition to having the "lines up with Africa" problem.
"Haha! Hypocrite!" "Wait, what are you doing?! Not there! Wrong hole! Oh god do you even use a condom?!"
"Haha, survival of the fittest!"

There's also an especially interesting tenet where can get easily manipulated to go against its objective of peace, instead favoring a community of people. Let's say we get a bunch of aligned characters that care about their community. They have clear boundaries of what they think is right and wrong. Applied and twisted correctly, these boundaries can come into conflict with what the rest of the world thinks is right or wrong. These characters are still and wouldn't change their viewpoint of the world. This results in a very anti-democratic ideology, one where a group of people think their way is correct and everyone else is wrong. and are at least able to understand that what they believe today might not be what they will tomorrow. is completely indifferent to this nuance unless there is benefit. needs a lot of trust AND reasoning to get it to act differently, but the thing here is, it is completely able to.

In my opinion and thanks to the points I stated above, I think and are the most democratic of the five colors. favors informed decisions (rational-secular) while favors self-expression. doesn't like misinformation and wants to verify everything it reads, doesn't like sacrificing freedom to be a little more secure. Both colors would be excellent advocates of democracy.

In Pie Fights it is stated that the / conflict is that of democracy versus fascism.

That's interesting. Democracy does kinda seem like the only way you could talk red into sorta being okay with government.



I've never seen white's preoccupation with "duty" phrased this way but I love it! "responsibility" feels so much more applicable to modern day thought.

And predatordetector, that's exeptionally well put and thorough and I thank you for it.

I disagree with the idea that blue would be the best advocate for democracy, especially if we are going to bring up pre-Industrial fears of democracy. Blue believes people can learn and make better decisions; it does not trust people who have not done so.

Edit: Part of the problem with the question is "democracy" is loosely defined. White would prefer a benevolent despot over a 1800s-style American democracy with very limited government, and it would also prefer a social democratic republic with strong social support structures ensuring everyone's health and safety over a tight-fisted oligarchy.

I said red and blue.

Blue would want to have a world where it wouldn't get misinformation. It uses misinformation itself though (because it's an ally color to black and because blue knows how effective misinformation is) but nonetheless it would be furious if a group of three people could manipulate the minds of many not through logic, but through playing up fears and hatred to achieve more power. It manipulates minds explicitly instead of playing it up via religion or emotion. It advocates education, which it believes would enable people to make better decisions. In a properly educated world with little misinformation, blue would likely favor democracy, be the catalyst that causes democratic change and be the stabilizing force for democracy.

doesn't give two **** about democracy. It just would exploit whatever it can find. This makes it an anti-democracy color in the fact that it can lead to the worst-case scenario wants to avoid.
is a fairly anti-democracy color, but not as bad as , as it could change its mind without the requirement of force.
needs force or massive threat thereof in order to change its mind about something.

is the clear winner here when it comes to this topic though, since it doesn't have anything going against it other than it can be easily manipulated. The only color that counterbalances that problem is , thus is the other half of the puzzle needed to create a pro-democracy force in MtG.


might prefer the tight-fisted oligarchy over the social democratic republic if the oligarchy wants to avoid AND stop wars while the republic makes war with everything that they see OR ignores wars that are going on across its borders. hates chaos and would side with the faction that promises the least amount of chaos.

I don't think it fits neatly into any one color, but I dod have to disagree with predatordetectors assessment of black here. Black likes self determination and think everybody is best off when we all look out for ourselves. If you combine that with a white desire for some kind of rule of law and a red aversion to oppressing others, Mardu might be the most democratic shard but I honestly don't know.