[Alignment Replacement] The Color Wheel - Now With More Green!

[NineThePuma]

I'm Red//Blue, oddly. And there is no tertiary, only a second secondary.

[hamishspence]

I would see it like this: An altruistic Black character is more interested in the action they are taking than the positive benefits that result. The behavior itself is a statement of power and autonomy: "I can influence the world," "I am in command of my own behavior," "in doing this, I define myself by my actions." White helps others because doing so is moral and fosters social good, Green helps others because it's natural and essential behavior, Black helps others because it's an affirmation of selfhood and capacity to influence the world.

If Primary represents ends, and Secondary represents Means, you could have Black/white and White/black characters, who behave in a very similar way, and both fit with D&D Good.

The Black/white character's End is power- personal and social- and their Means are community-based, and altruistic- they make considerable sacrifices of time, wealth, and personal safety, in order to help people, and helping people increases their popularity and furthers their gain of power- and with more power, they help others more, and so on.

The White/black character's End is the good of others- individual and especially community- and their Means is power- they accumulate it in order to help others, and helping others increases their power, which enables them to help more others and improve the community, and so on.

Both are behaving in a generally Good fashion (helping others at their own cost) and both are accumulating power.

(they might have evil counterparts though- who take of everything worst in Black and White, rather than everything best).

Similar logic could apply to most of the others- a person who sees Knowledge (or logic?) as an end in itself, and everything else, as means to that end, might be primary Blue.

A person who sees a particular emotional state (say, happiness) as an end in itself, and other things as means to that end, might be primary Red.

And a person who sees Harmony as the end, and other things as the means, might be primary Green.

[Lix Lorn]

I value freedom above all, but think that law and order is (unfortunately) necessary. I will/would use any means I could to acheive a happy world.

[Morph Bark]

I value freedom above all, but think that law and order is (unfortunately) necessary. I will/would use any means I could to acheive a happy world.

So you're Green/White, like your avatar?

[Lix Lorn]

Isn't freedom red? And that's a TERRIBLE pun. XD
My avatar is probably white...

V Yes. Agree.

[hamishspence]

I thought it was closer to Red/white- Freedom is the End, law, community, order, etc, are the means.

"Laws that protect the freedom of others" might be the ideal, of the Red/white perspective.

Green/white, might be less about "freedom" as the ends, and more about "harmony".

[Morph Bark]

I'm not terribly familiar with MtG stuff beyond this thread. XD All I know is that someone made a chart where he broke up the colours and assigned two things to each colour (stuff like Chaos, Order, Law, Death and Life) and Red and Green where basically the ones with freedom and all that.

[hamishspence]

In this thread (1st post) Red was "freedom and emotion" Green was "growth and harmony"

Little or nothing was said in Green, about freedom.

I think there was another similar "color wheel personality chart" which was commonly quoted in people's signatures- a picture of the color, and some text on the personality.

I'm not sure if that differed much if anything from this one.

[Lix Lorn]

My extended sig has several magic colour banners. Red, RedWhite, and RedWhite(colour)

[Glimbur]

The problem I have with this system is this:

As my previous post showed, it is possible for more than one alignment to endorse a given action for different reasons. The argument about black=selfish shows that a given alignment can have serious disagreements on not just methods but values as well. Put these together and you see that the system is not predictive and it's not descriptive, which makes it useless as an alignment system.

Would you want to live in a city which is majority White aligned, and governed accordingly? It depends on if they are authoritarian white (White-Green? Undefined?) or permissive white (White-Red or White-Black.)

Would you hire someone who is Green aligned to work as a sailor? Depends on if they are regressive Green or intuitive/harmonious Green.

Take your classic moral dilemma of a demon holding a hostage. Black would maneuver for its own advantage, White would protect the community as a whole which probably means calling the demon's bluff to prevent the precedent of folding to demons, and the other three colors would... I don't know.

The wizard who sits in his tower and studies is... a) Blue, because he is studying and researching or b) Black because he is increasing his personal power or c) Red because he likes reading books so he keeps reading books or... I can't make a good case for Green or White here. The point is that this alignment system does not help us categorize people by how they will react to some situations nor does knowing someone's color alignment help us predict their behavior.

[gkathellar]

As my previous post showed, it is possible for more than one alignment to endorse a given action for different reasons. The argument about black=selfish shows that a given alignment can have serious disagreements on not just methods but values as well.

I think your examples from before are a bit off. All of them are probably X color with White as a secondary (except the solid White one, of course), because they use White's tools. If we proceed from that assumption, I don't really understand the complaint. Is it a problem that characters who share one alignment trait and differ in others can conceivably do the same thing? Is it problematic from a design standpoint that Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters probably run orphanages?

Further, I don't know that I see those "disagreements in methods and values." The colors look pretty concrete, actually. Take Black, for example, because this thread is basically one giant argument about it. Black is always amoral and power-obsessed. You can always expect a Black-primary character to behave without regard for morality, in a way that advances their personal power. There's room to maneuver within that, especially once secondary colors are applied, but there's very little genuine ambiguity.

The same goes for other colors. Blue is always interested in skill, knowledge and progress. Red is always emotional and unrestricted. Green is always focused on life and "the correct way." White is always big on community and rules. This is all made pretty clear in the first post.

Would you want to live in a city which is majority White aligned, and governed accordingly? It depends on if they are authoritarian white (White-Green? Undefined?) or permissive white (White-Red or White-Black.)

Would you hire someone who is Green aligned to work as a sailor? Depends on if they are regressive Green or intuitive/harmonious Green.

This seems like two arguments: that (1) secondary colors allow for too much variation, and that (2) even within a given color there's too much variation, and this aggravates the first problem. I don't know that I can respond to the first point, it appears to be one of taste that I just disagree with. That said, shades of it filter into the other argument, which I will answer.

My issue with the second point may just be a difference in interpretation, but I read each as outlining a complete ideological viewpoint, not a set of several views that you mix and match. Assuming the sailor in your example is solid Green, he's not going to be either regressive or harmonious, he's going to be both depending on the situations he's confronted with. You don't have "altruist-Black" and "hedonist-Black," you just have the color Black. Variations are, again, represented via secondary colors.

Take your classic moral dilemma of a demon holding a hostage. Black would maneuver for its own advantage, White would protect the community as a whole which probably means calling the demon's bluff to prevent the precedent of folding to demons, and the other three colors would... I don't know.

It would depend on the character's personality, relationship with the hostage, and the context of the situation. The traditional alignment system isn't really any clearer on this, nor should it be. Alignment describes a character's methods and behavioral priorities, not every facet of their personality.

The wizard who sits in his tower and studies is... a) Blue, because he is studying and researching or b) Black because he is increasing his personal power or c) Red because he likes reading books so he keeps reading books or... I can't make a good case for Green or White here.

D) Solid Blue or Secondary Blue, because whatever his eventual goals, the way he achieves them is primarily through the cultivation of knowledge.

The point is that this alignment system does not help us categorize people by how they will react to some situations nor does knowing someone's color alignment help us predict their behavior.

Even if it didn't do those things, it would still be a handy tool for developing characters and understanding their place in the world. And it does do those things, so yeah.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The problem here is that Magic itself gives a lot of examples where things are not exactly clear. Some wizards are black, others blue, and more white. Why? Well, they all learn, but that's not what matters, despite blue being so primarily "lol knowledge." As I showed earlier, you can correlate everything here back to the 3x3 grid in bogstandard DND. If such is the case, then why bother?

[GnomeWorks]

As I showed earlier, you can correlate everything here back to the 3x3 grid in bogstandard DND. If such is the case, then why bother?

Flexibility.

Just because you can directly correlate straight-up colors to standard D&D alignments, doesn't mean that that holds for all color combinations.

Not only that, but there is flexibility within the colors that doesn't necessarily exist in standard alignments.

I would also argue that using the color wheel, as opposed to the alignment grid, lends itself to a more subjective world rather than an objective one. Just because someone is Black doesn't mean they're evil, and just because someone is White doesn't mean they're good or lawful.

[Jallorn]

The problem here is that Magic itself gives a lot of examples where things are not exactly clear. Some wizards are black, others blue, and more white. Why? Well, they all learn, but that's not what matters, despite blue being so primarily "lol knowledge." As I showed earlier, you can correlate everything here back to the 3x3 grid in bogstandard DND. If such is the case, then why bother?

I disagree. He has never said all wizards should be blue, he just said all wizards should at least have a secondary color be blue.

[NineThePuma]

Wizards should TEND toward blue. But I'm crazy, ignore me.

[Lix Lorn]

What's confusing me is that you seem to be arguing that the ambiguity of motives when using the colour system is a bad thing. (shrug)

[hamishspence]

Take Black, for example, because this thread is basically one giant argument about it. Black is always amoral and power-obsessed. You can always expect a Black-primary character to behave without regard for morality, in a way that advances their personal power. There's room to maneuver within that, especially once secondary colors are applied, but there's very little genuine ambiguity.

Behaving in a way that advances personal power, yes- for a Black character, power is the End, rather than the means.

However, how much they regard morality, might vary- Black's defining feature is "Power as an end in itself" rather than "lack of regard for morality"- you could have Black characters who regard morality with considerable approval, and try to behave morally within the constraits of their overall goal (power-seeking).

The aforementioned "Nice Black/white character" who likes both the exercise of power, and helping others (but power just a little bit more) might fit.

What's confusing me is that you seem to be arguing that the ambiguity of motives when using the colour system is a bad thing. (shrug)

I like the element of ambiguity. Even for two characters with the same primary and secondary, there can be a great deal of internal variation.

Morality, is completely separate, from the Color Wheel, you could have a fairly moral Black/white person who helps others a great deal, and does not harm them, and a very immoral Black/white person who is a tyrannical dictator.

[gkathellar]

I disagree. He has never said all wizards should be blue, he just said all wizards should at least have a secondary color be blue.

Assuming this is referring to my comment before, I said a wizard who sits in a tower researching all day probably has some Blue in there. I would also say a warrior who does nothing but train has some Blue in there, because Blue's trait and tool is knowledge.

However, how much they regard morality, might vary- Black's defining feature is "Power as an end in itself" rather than "lack of regard for morality"- you could have Black characters who regard morality with considerable approval, and try to behave morally within the constraits of their overall goal (power-seeking).

Right, except that amorality is right in Black's description in the first post, in the same way that morality is right in White's. It's not that Black is interested in one moral code and White is interested in another like traditional D&D Good and Evil. It's that Black doesn't believe morality is actually a thing, and White believes morality is an essential thing. To say Black acts "morally" in any situation is a problem because it demands the kind of objective standard that White, the moral alignment, doesn't set. Black does what it wants, and sometimes what it wants benefits people.

Note I'm talking about solid black there. Secondary colors allow for a great deal more variation and that's absolutely the point. A Black // White character is without a doubt doing a clever balancing act between morality and amorality.

[hamishspence]

It's not that Black is interested in one moral code and White is interested in another like traditional D&D Good and Evil. It's that Black doesn't believe morality is actually a thing, and White believes morality is an essential thing. To say Black acts "morally" in any situation is a problem because it demands the kind of objective standard that White, the moral alignment, doesn't set.

That's the thing though- a person doesn't have to believe in morality, to act "morally" by a D&D standard.

In D&D, "making sacrifices to help others" (especially strangers, rather than people you feel a close connection to) is "moral behaviour" and "harming the innocent for fun or profit" is "immoral behaviour".

(There might be other parts to it- like harming the "not-innocent" for fun, but these are the two most notable factors).

A person can "act morally" and "choose not to act immorally" and yet not believe in morality as a thing, at all (at least, not consciously, though one might argue that he must subconsciously believe in it to act this way).

[gkathellar]

"Act morally by a D&D standard" is pretty much a nonsense term without the traditional alignment system. Are you saying that Black-primary characters could still be Good by the standards of the old system? I don't think that's a helpful comparison. Why bother implementing a new alignment system if you're going to keep the ethical terminology of the old one?

If you're using the color wheel, D&D morality need not apply. Ever.

[hamishspence]

You might be playing a D&D game- and using the Color Wheel, to describe the personalities, and goals, of D&D characters.

[gkathellar]

"D&D morality," as you're describing it, is based on the two-axes alignment system. And if you're using the color wheel, you've already decided that the alignment system as it is fails to adequately describe morality and behavioral tendencies.

In using something besides the conventional alignment system, you throw out the need for that specific brand of poorly-defined morality in your D&D game. If you're going to bother wondering where Color Wheel characters fall on the traditional system, why bother bringing it in? Stick with the two axes, they describe classic D&D morality perfectly.

[hamishspence]

The two axes might describe morality (in a D&D context) but not personality.

There can be circumstances where one might want to use both. In a crossover campaign, where Magic The Gathering characters are brought into a D&D world (or vice versa) it may be handy to know where characters fall using both systems.

So- one might take a D&D character with a canonical alignment, and ask "What color are they, in Magic terms"?

[gkathellar]

Oh, I hadn't even thought of a combination of this and traditional alignment. I don't personally like the idea, and I don't know how you would work that out mechanically, but it would inject a clearly defined moral system into the color wheel.

The only problem is that if you're fusing the two, some colors are pretty typecast. Solid White in particular is pretty much always going to be Good and almost never going to be Chaotic in a world with Moral Truth and Perfect Order like the two axes gives us. Eh. Maybe that's a feature, not a bug?

[hamishspence]

The only problem is that if you're fusing the two, some colors are pretty typecast. Solid White in particular is pretty much always going to be Good and almost never going to be Chaotic in a world with Moral Truth and Perfect Order like the two axes gives us. Eh. Maybe that's a feature, not a bug?

White would tend to default toward non-Chaotic and non-Evil- but a slight addition of "evil means" toward the overall goal, might bring it toward Evil rather quickly.

Even if doing evil deeds toward "maintaining order" is corrupting- a character might not see it that way. Just because morality in D&D normally works a certain way, doesn't mean most D&D characters are aware of this, or believe it.

There's plenty of precedent for evil D&D characters who "believe themselves to be pure and un-corrupted".

Similarly, Black would tend to default toward non-Lawful and non-Good, but with a little extra empathy or kindness, it might cross over into Good despite Power being the overall goal.

With its focus on "freedom" Red is also likely to be non-Lawful.

Oh, I hadn't even thought of a combination of this and traditional alignment. I don't personally like the idea, and I don't know how you would work that out mechanically, but it would inject a clearly defined moral system into the color wheel.

I might not bother with mechanical effects, and use the Color Wheel as a roleplaying tool- to provide info on a character's Ends and Means.

[Lord_Gareth]

Far be it from me to say that you're using my Wheel wrong - it is, after all, your game - but it may help to re-consider the goals of each Color. Technically, the goal is happiness, but how each Color thinks that is gained is different:

White - Peace
Red - Freedom
Black - Power
Blue - Perfection
Green - Harmony

In the end, those are the only moral considerations each Color follows in and of itself (with individual variances, of course). If I wanted to re-color the individual cosmology, I'd put, say, Baator as a White-aligned plane (with a significant Black streak) and Celestia/Mechanus as purely White (with the knowledge that Mechanus believes law to be morality in and of itself and Celestia ascribing to a [technically arbitrary] moral code that separates it from Baator's code of law and punishment).

From an objective point of view, each of the colors does come across as pretty amoral, but each color does have a moral imperative. Blue's pursuit of Perfection is its moral imperative; Blue thinks the world would be a better place if it could improve it. Likewise, absolute Freedom is Red's moral imperative; nothing is more important to Red than everyone being free.

[hamishspence]

White - Peace
Red - Freedom
Black - Power
Blue - Perfection
Green - Harmony

From an objective point of view, each of the colors does come across as pretty amoral, but each color does have a moral imperative. Blue's pursuit of Perfection is its moral imperative; Blue thinks the world would be a better place if it could improve it. Likewise, absolute Freedom is Red's moral imperative; nothing is more important to Red than everyone being free.

I paraphrased it as "Order" for White, and either "Freedom" or "Passion" for Red, and "Knowledge" for Blue- but these may be variants on a theme.

"Order" may be seen as an essential part of "Peace"
"Passion" may be a subset of "Freedom"
"Knowledge" may be a subset of "pursuit of perfection"

The idea that Primary Color represent the character's ideal, goal, etc- and secondary colors represent the methods the character uses in pursuit of that ideal, makes sense to me though.

The Sith code seems to be Red and Black intertwined:

Peace is a lie. There is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

(On the other hand, Darth Revan said that all who master the Dark Side, are bound to serve it- so in a sense, by mastering the Dark Side, the character actually does not free themselves, but binds themselves).

[Owrtho]

It seems order fits white much better than peace, as an ordered structured society can still be focused around engaging in rather unpeaceful conduct (such as war), provided they do so in an orderly fashion.

Owrtho

[Hyooz]

It seems order fits white much better than peace, as an ordered structured society can still be focused around engaging in rather unpeaceful conduct (such as war), provided they do so in an orderly fashion.

Owrtho

This actually gets into some interesting theory on positive vs. negative peace. A society that seeks peace, but doesn't care to make the differentiation might go to war to subjugate other peoples and enforce their own peace (their own Pax Romana, if you will) through coercion.

If all we define peace as is an absence of war, then White valuing peace fits with the idea of order that's being put forth. If we prefer to define peace as positive peace, i.e. not just the absence of war but the presence of justice, then there's more contention.

[Glimbur]

There's an important question we haven't answered satisfactorily. What is an alignment system for?