MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
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!
Have fun!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/lucian-proclaimed-king
Soldis Venimar, Falconer
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/soldis-venimar-falconer?list=set&set=3015
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/tatsumune-the-unforgiven-2
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/murder-1?list=user
Iohas, the Pyrrhus Victory
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/iohas-the-pyrrhus-victory
Siphas the Abandoned
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/siphas-the-abandoned
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/dremael-closest-to-the-pit?list=set&set=1580
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/gorgon-inanimator?list=set&set=1266
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.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/fandral-the-dashing
One of Darkseid's most evil minions.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/granny-goodness-4
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?
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/archithrax-hero-returned
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/tatsumune-the-unforgiven-3
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.
I tried to put Nietzsche's animation gif here, but it didn't work. I don't know how to do that.
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.
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.