Good & Evil

So I've noticed that people seem to think that white cards in Magic must be good-aligned and pure and black cards must be evil-aligned and malignant. I want to break that idea; after all, they aren't good and bad; they just have different perspectives of the world and different goals. In short, I challenge you to create either an evil white legendary creature or a good black legendary creature. Multicolor is allowed, but no W/B creatures please; that would ruin the point of this challenge.
Have fun! :D


  • So, my Falconers were just a big F-U to tradition, monoblack when they really shouldn't be, stuff like that, but the recruiter, Soldis, really isn't a bad guy. He's just trying to stop a war he's paid to fight. I wouldn't say he's good, but oh well.

    Soldis Venimar, Falconer
  • Two soldiers revolving around Iroas, the God of Victory. What does it mean to be good or bad?
    Iohas, the Pyrrhus Victory
    Siphas the Abandoned
  • I am slowly working on a set that takes place on a plane that explicitly has good and evil but mana colors aren't really that clear of an indication of it. White tends towards good and black towards evil but they aren't definitive or mutually exclusive. For example, here is a good angel that is part black-aligned:
  • Well there are exceptions, like Drana, Liberator of Malakirk. Or Elesh Norn.
  • @Gelectrode You could make a strong case that Elesh Norn is one of the most intentionally malicious beings in the Multiverse, and she is monowhite. I would say the most, but as long as Nicol Bolas is alive that will be a hard title to claim. By malicious intent, I mean they are not just simply acting in their own nature, or a puppet being forced into actions they don't agree with. I mean they are actively seeking a certain goal and are aware of the reprecusions of their actions and either they will not stop no matter who gets hurt or they even enjoy their suffering
  • Here's a card I made for one of corwinn's old cycle challenges.
  • Well, here is my excuse to get philosophical:
    Technically, no person intends to do wrong, even villains. To their own perceptions, what they are doing is perfectly acceptable and/or beneficial. What villains do not know is how their victims truly perceive what they are doing. For example, Elesh Norn perceives her own actions being beneficial to the world as a whole, but to the Mirrians, she brutally converts everyone and anything to the Phyrexian cause. If Elesh Norn somehow experienced her own suffering she was influencing in the world, she may have second thoughts about her actions.

    Then again, another difference between a hero and a villain is how they perceive their own actions. While Elesh Norn (or Nicol Bolas) may exploit their surroundings to get what they want, they may see what they want as beneficial to everything else. Nicol Bolas wants his power back so he can do what he wants to. maybe, he reasons, when he gets his power back, he will make the multiverse better in some way. That's probably why he wants his power back, to become a just (not) and kind (not) ruler. He sees Ugin (a good guy) as a villain, much like we perceive him.

    In my opinion, the only difference between a good guy and a bad guy is how they judge themselves. Elesh Norn may quickly forget about her imperfections, or may not perceive them at all, remaining how she is (evil). A good guy however (lets say Gideon) tries and improves him or herself instead of ignoring the bad trait about him. If he notices that his is not compassionate, he will try and overcome this trait (making himself better).

    Moral of this lesson? Study more for your next test.
  • edited October 2015
    You are transferring your own sense of morality onto these characters. Then you are implying that your morals have tangible value outside of your own existence. Then you are assuming one of them is noble. Then you are jumping to the conclusion that they have worth simply because you prefer the actions they take and the outcomes they achieve.

    Their moral compass has no more value than that which you assign to it, merely for mirroring what you want your own morality to be. Thereby helping to validate your existence in a reality you subconciously know you can't prove is real. You enjoy their philosophy because it gives merit to your own, justifies your actions, and creates a reality where your feelings of security and worth can blossom and continue to thrive.

    Villans, exploiting their surrondings to get what they want? What do think your food is made from? Or what your house is made of? The MORAL of this story? How do you justify what constitutes as better, then prove that it is better than another persons qualitative assumption of what better means?
  • @AustinSmith - Who knew you were going to inspire such a philosophical debate?
  • All right, here we go. Archithrax was a hero of the polis of Akros on Theros. He died saving the polis from a huge hydra's attack. When he reached the underworld, and Erebos, he was brought into the ranks of the Returned and sent back to the surface to wreak havoc on the mortals. However, being a true hero, Archithrax rejected his new nature as a Returned, and went back to Akros to continue defending it. He is back to being a hero, but now he will go to any lengths to do it. Be it granting himself more power, weakening not just the attackers but the polis itself, or seeking knowledge through the death of a commoner, he will not back down. In some ways, he is stronger, but overall he is not the same hero he once was. However, he still fights for good in the end, and as such, he is a character with a very black flavor, but still a *good* character. Here is: Archithrax, Hero Returned!
  • @Nicholas_Bolas So you're saying he is The Crow?
  • I want to make a prediction and I won't be able to edit this post later if I am wrong. Here goes, Luke Skywalker goes to the dark side in the new Star Wars movie. That is why he is confirmed to be a signifigant part of the movie, but has no presence in any of the teasers, trailers or media junkets that have been publicly realeased. It would explain why Han Solo, a moraly ambiguous anti-hero, is the one acting as the coming of age guide to Billie Lourd's character. It would also explain why Kylo Ren is always disguised and never revealed. And why in the trailer Finn is horrorfied to see Kylo Rens true face (which is of course hidden from us the viewers). J.J. Abrams loves tormented heroes, and Mark Hamill has spent WAY more time in the role and psyche of the Joker than he has as Luke Skywalker. Luke becomes his father, finishes bringing balance to the force and the cycle begins anew, the circle unbroken.
  • @Corwinnn I'm very pleased in the direction this contest took :D
  • Now we just wait for two months. Then I can lauded or flayed, whichever is applicable, I guess.
  • @kauyon I notice you always pick and choose, very subtly, exactly what you imply with your words, but ultimately, your earlier statement on morality having no more value than what you assign it... well, lets go back a bit. Just like your "it is only because you have one" statement, you are setting up a tautology and making it seem as if it proves your argument. The point being you don't have an argument. You just say something intelligently empty in a way that presents it as a counterargument. Literally, you can only affect something if it exists, and values are by definition assigned. You have changed nothing. You have proven nothing. You have said nothing.
  • edited October 2015
    I remade Tatsumune, the Unforgiven. Sorry, ignore my first comment.
  • I feel that this thread is now "Nietzsche Approved".
  • @CrucibleOfHate

    If all morals were defined as equal values, and the only difference was in the choosing. Then you would be imposing your moral code on the world. By simply choosing a point of view and accepting it as part of your reality, you are willfully putting on a pair of symbolic goggles that from that point forward muddle everything you encounter

    If the goggles you choose were let's say pink. You would then from the moment you put them on, begin accepting the world as being a pink hue. This would in turn cause you to begin making assumtions you would have never made if your goggles were instead a shade of blue.

    If you think of it in terms of numerology and use binary code. Then all perspectives, or all moral codes, you could possibly choose exist as both a 0 and a 1 simultaneously. What value they have, is the one you choose to apply to them. You are the variable in the equation.

    So then, if all morals exist as both a 0 and 1 (or good and evil) simultaneously, then theoretically, the very concept of morality, and the ability to choose and impose a moral code on reality as you percieve it, is in and of itself inherently evil. Which is why plants and animals are incapable of doing so.

    There, I was clear with my point, stated it logically, fleshed it out and defended it. It's meaning and value, however, is as it always is. Up to you to decide.
  • @kauyon Beautiful, beautiful. That's a proper argument. It even supports itself, since the individual decides the value. Of course, I pointed that out, but you said it first. Points to Kauyon.
  • edited October 2015
    Kinojitsu_Asahi LOL!!!

    I tried to put Nietzsche's animation gif here, but it didn't work. I don't know how to do that.
  • @CrucibleOfHate

    Thank you, but I merely want to present people with ideas and perspectives that make them think and ponder themselves, their choices and their machinations. I do not do it to win, but to challenge each of you reading this to consider if you think I am right or wrong and why you believe so.
  • @kauyon That's cool, but if so, why do you always sound like a Mormon trying to shove a bible down my throat? When I'm a member of the choir? If you'll excuse the analogy.
  • @CrucibleOfHate

    Everything is the bible, you just have to connect the dots. If read the comments in my Sounds of Insanity thread that you upvoted, then you would know very well what my view on the bible is.
This discussion has been closed.