White is usually good and black is usually evil, But I'd like to open discussion of not only examples of good/evil in each color, but also other ways it exists. I think it would be a good exercise for all of us to think of how this can be done.

A.F.S. thread.

This probably belongs in the A,F&S board, rather than here.

My opinion is that someone with any color in their color identity can be any alignment, though there are patterns

Strongly > (No Modifier) > Mildly > Faintly
Leans Towards: Tends to be this rather than neutral and significantly rather than the opposite.
Leans Away: Tends to not be this alignment, but is no more likely to be its opposite than neutral

: Leans strongly towards Lawful
: Leans mildly towards Lawful and faintly away from Good
: Leans away from Good and faintly away from Lawful
: Leans strongly towards Chaotic and faintly away from both good and evil
: Leans away from Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil (Leans neutral on both dimensions)

In general, you're unlikely to get chaotics out of , lawfuls out of , lawful good out of or a corner alignment out of . is pretty open, with slight lawful tendancies and a hint of amorality (fewer good types, but only just.)

Black is selfish. It is not evil. It is generally more likely to lead to evil than, say, white, which seeks conformity and whatnot, but it isn't inherently evil.

I think Tevish more or less hit it on the head.

Yeah, when I write, I try to not think of the color pie in the sense of morality, but rather think of it in the sense of what characters care about and how they look at the world. I do think certain colors lend themselves to certain moralities, but I think the paradigm of good and evil is too binary to have any direct correlation with the color pie.

Is this only a discussion concerning the "good vs evil" argument, or the color pie in general? I would really like to know in what modern views can Green be identified? I can see very clearly that it's easy enough to be labeled as Green if you're a hunter or a nature enthusiast or something (in most cases) but without very "screamy green" qualities, what are some basic traits attributed to Green?

I've explored this a little bit with Kahr-ret-Taris in The War of the Wheel, although admittedly his view of the world is fairly rather than just . Personally, I see a modern philosophy as being about natural orders and food chains and the like (whether literal or symbolic). I see it as a belief that those at the top of the system are there because they are strong, but because they are strong, it is their place to protect those below them, because in doing so, they protect the entire system. In nature terms, the Lion kills in his territory to feed, but he also keeps out other predators who would endanger the balance of the system. The same philosophy can be applied to modern systems like government and business, I think.

I know green has touched upon primal spiritualism via the totem enchantments of Zendikar (and perhaps there's even older green cards that utilize the theme that I'm unaware of). On the other hand, I could see a green hunter refusing to offer a prayer to the spirit of the prey. Said prey knew its role in nature and fulfilled that role. Why waste time convincing oneself that kill or be killed isn't the natural order? It would just make you soft, and thus prey, for the more cunning predators. I'm not sure which modern view meshes with this interpretation of green. Raven, I feel like there's a touch of Black in trying to control the modern systems that you mention. Would a purely Green approach welcome changes within, say, a particular business sector and strive to adapt to those changes?

So Green is just semi-Republican (in that it's not very willing for forced change, but its okay with systems that work regularly)? So I guess playing by the rules (and understanding and agreeing with) social, economic, and political placements and not rocking the boat, (but perhaps trying to ascend via the system itself represents growth, so Green permits that. So a Green presidential candidate would utilize extra marketing and maaaaybe some slander against his opponents, but be against a Black candidate who actually rigs votes in his favor. Then again, maybe that's too big-time of an example, I wish I had a more everyday, down to earth example, but I think that would fit

Well, keep in mind though that prey fight back. So a mentality doesn't have to be satisfied with its place on the food chain. It wants to be at the top, if it has the strength (or whatever quality is applicable) to take that position.

And again, remember, this is just my interpretation. Others might disagree.

I go into how I see green outside of some of the standard Magic tropes/how green can exist in contemporary Earth humanity some in a post awhile ago. I made it in response to someone asking how people who identify with green see it, so here is a part of it:



Other elements of green that I do not describe above are:

• traditionalism/conservat(ion)ism - resistance to change from what one considers "natural", i.e., what one has lived with most of their life, and that can be social (we've always done this or never accepted that, so that should continue) or ecological (a forest has been here for centuries, so we should not get rid of the forest)
• essentialism - belief that the way the world or people are is the way the world or people always will be, regardless of how much they want or try to change, and this can be looking at people on the level of the individual, a group of people like a gender or race or geographic group or whatever, and/or the entirety of humanity
• libertarianism/anarchism - whereas white seeks out moral, divine, or state law, green only believes in the constraints of nature, like in Daoism, green believes people should stop trying to impose its will on the universe/nature and each other and instead (linking to the previous point), people should align themselves with the universe/nature and just carry out the role they have

Black and green are referred to often as the "survival of the fittest" colors, so I am going to try to parse the two out here a bit. I think the problem here is the problem in general with the phrase "survival of the fittest" which is a term used by an economist to inaccurately describe Darwin's work. Survival of the fittest simply does not describe nature. Green is just too circle of life-y to care about amassing power like black. To black, either the lion is the most powerful because it doesn't have any predators or the worm is the most powerful because it gets to consume everything in the end. To green, the lion and the worm simply have their places and to say one is more powerful than the other is like saying the wind is more powerful than the river.

I feel like I've psychobabbled for too long now, but I want to emphasize that no one person can encompass all of a color. Each color is just too expansive and aspects of it can appear in very different ways. Very little work, I think, has been done to explore how many different ways groups or individuals of the same color(s) can oppose each other.

Green also cares about family and community in a big-picture sense. It's the color of genial pastors and New Age hippies, of long-suffering daycare workers and UN volunteers.

I think black is capable of understanding that the lion is not more powerful than the worm because it sees that each are inherently powerful in their own right (at least until one kills the other. Then it can safely say that the lion or worm is more powerful). It does, like green, however, understand that there can be such a thing as a strongest lion or a strongest worm (typing this gives me a mental picture of a worm flexing its wormy biceps).

The place where green and black divides is how they follow the "survival of the fittest" principle. Green wants the lion to act like a lion, but black tells the lion that it's okay if it goes around murdering all the worms to ensure its survival. After all, Mr. Lion can't become a lich lord if the worm gobbles up his body. A lion is perfectly okay with amassing power in the form of territory and the number of mates he can get jiggy with. In nature, the most fit animal is chosen for mating because it is the most likely to pass desirable survival traits. In this way, survival of the fittest perfectly describes green. Which would you choose to be your guard dog: the muscular bullmastiff or the tiny chihuahua?

Of course this is only one end of the green spectrum. You can walk to the other end and see a completely different view.

On a different note, would black be able to accept its place in society and not strive for anything greater? Possibly because it knows that without the right circumstances or power it will never be able to achieve its dream (like becoming president), so it stays content with what it does have, only trying for something more when a golden opportunity presents itself. I understand that a large part of what makes black appealing to people is its ambition, but what if ambition wasn't a part of the person's personality?

I think that if ambition isn't a part of a person's personality, then they're just not very strongly Black-aligned. Accepting the status-quo and being content with what it has are the complete opposite of what defines Black. An opportunistic power-seeker who goes along with what life gives them until the day where they suddenly have a chance to make it big seems... Green/Red, I guess?

Now, I think Black can realistically decide that it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than to try to compete in an arena that's not attainable. Picture any kind of corrupt official, like a small-town mayor, who knows they're not going to aspire to world domination, but exploits every bit of power they have. They've got their own little corner of the universe under their thumb, and never really go much farther. But I don't believe such a character would ever reflect on their life and say "This is good enough". They acknowledge the limitations of their power, that's all.

A graphical summary of my take. Some things may lose a little nuance.

Only thing about that is that I still think you can be Black and Good, but not Black and Lawful. My opinion of this very topic is that they really shouldn't be forced to combine, but be used to complement each other, and only certain details don't mix. Basically, if you used these systems in tandem for a character file (esp active role play) you should get bonuses for being Lawful AND Mono-White and get some setbacks to their character for being Lawful and Rakdos, for example, but besides certain specifics, a character can be any combination really, it just needs a certain vantage point to understand to a reasonable degree, so something will have to be sacrificed during characterization to overlap a combination of Black, Red, White, Lawful, Good, and Chaotic, but it can be done.

But what if the person was still very selfish to the point where, if they do make it big, they will push aside anybody that gets in their way? I'm not saying the person is content or has accepted the status quo—they just gave up trying to do more. Think of it like the average laborer in a communist country who wishes to be on top but is unable to due to the circumstances that surround the person (a bunch of do-gooders who quash attempts at gaining power or disrupting the status quo). That is until an opportunity arises for a coup that allows the person to be put into power. With the newfound powers, they manipulate and/or eliminate any potential threats. I guess what I'm saying is that this person is a secret jack...butt.

Well... I guess it complicates things when a character with a particular "alignment" is stuck in a situation where they're not free to act the way they want.

I'd argue that if the character before the coup was portrayed as having a different personality, and their character arc in the story reflects how they change when presented with the chance for power, then it's simply a case of one alignment becoming another. But depending on how the character is portrayed, it might be the case that their alignment was Black all along.

Even in an oppressive regime, with people who are completely powerless, you can have a character who exploits and bullies other people to become king of their squalid slum. Their ambition is going to show through in their character no matter what. But if you put some major change event into their life, like the sudden collapse of power and a reversal of fortune, it's entirely reasonable to say that a person changes from one alignment to another.

Lovely picture. My thoughts exactly.


I, however, don't agree Green is necessarily neutral. Green usually has a policy of avoidance, but it will resist change and will enforce discrimination and social darwinism, or acceptance.

I think Green fits this both in Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good.