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

[Eldest]

Your right, peasents don't have many rights under a feudal system, but wonton slaughter is not going to happen.

[Lord_Gareth]

Friendly reminder, ya'll - if you talk too much politics (including political systems) the mods will lock my thread, and then I will cry myself to sleep every night for the rest of my life.

[hamishspence]

D&D morality may differ somewhat from "what's accepted by the average D&D society".

Thus- D&D nobles who abuse their subjects, might be able to get away with it easily- but the alignment system would probably be used to peg them as Evil-aligned.

Plus- D&D societies aren't exactly intended to match medieval ones- female adventurers being perfectly normal, for example.

[Eldest]

My bad.
Yeah, and this system would even help out with that, cuz even the people who are mono-black could be good. So even less detect/smite evil stuff.

[hamishspence]

The closest thing to a "D&D Good" mono-black character, would be someone who has embraced reciprocal altruism wholesale (combined with karma)- and isn't too insistant on being paid back by the particular individuals they are helping.

Thus- they would take personal risks for strangers- based on the assumption that by doing so, this will benefit them in the long term when they themselves get into danger.

Thus- they combine the "it's all about what benefits me" attitude of Black, with the "takes personal risks to help strangers" attitude of Good.

[Lord Raziere]

there is more ways to be good black than that...

you wouldn't believe me though.

[Eldest]

Sure. In a zombie apokalyspe (dear god I can't spell), it's to your own advantage to help others. So then you have more people hanging around and helping you out.

[gkathellar]

Here's a different reading, then:

Mono-black (or mixed black) could very well read like something out of Nietzsche* - that is to say, it rejects absolute values as mere cultural mores and places supreme value on the will and the power of the individual. A mono-black individual isn't good or kind because they think it's their obligation to be, they're good or kind because in doing so they make a statement of their own identity, exercising a personal power on the world.

Mono-black is uninterested in good and evil - whether it comes from a fool or a philosopher, it is the path of unquestioning adherence to one's own will and desire. From there, how "good" mono-black is depends on your optimism about humanity. If you think ambition is the source of all evil, then mono-black is evil. If you think good can't exist without ambition, then you probably expect some mono-black characters to be benevolent. (Bear in mind, though, that the archetypal adventurer is reasonably benevolent and extremely ambitious.)

All of this might sound like "chaotic," but mono-black isn't afraid to behave in a consistent and disciplined fashion, so long as it doesn't fall into the trap of "going along to get along." In fact, mono-black detests mono-white's obsession with "ethics" as a kind of hypocrisy - in mono-black's eyes, all mono-white is doing in being good is following a code someone else has figured out, avoiding the questions that make such decisions "ethical" at all.

*I'm just going to ask that anyone who plans on contesting the mention of this particular philosopher actually have read the man at a college level first, because misinterpretation is very common.

[Jallorn]

In fact, mono-black detests mono-white's obsession with "ethics" as a kind of hypocrisy - in mono-black's eyes, all mono-white is doing in being good is following a code someone else has figured out, avoiding the questions that make such decisions "ethical" at all.

This idea seems like it could be at the core of a primary Black (with any secondary or even no secondary) really good good guy. There is no universal right in his eyes, but there is still right and wrong, and he still tries to do right, it's just he doesn't always agree. So he could be apparently totally selfless, even a monk type, forgoing all possessions and spending his efforts to help the poor and sick. But he doesn't do it for them, he does it because it makes himself richer, because it helps him to get closer to a state of perfection, a personally pinpointed state of perfection, rather than an externally mandated one.

[hamishspence]

there is more ways to be good black than that...

The tricky part is whether they're "Good" in the D&D sense- which requires one to "make personal sacrifices to help others".

Given that Neutral alignment will generally make personal sacrifices for those they value (friends, relatives, country) but not strangers, this may imply that what makes Good different, is that they will do it for strangers as well.

If the person believes they're getting more out of it than they're putting in, does it really qualify as a sacrifice?

Hence "takes personal risks" as a subtype of "makes personal sacrifices" may be needed.

[The Witch-King]

This idea seems like it could be at the core of a primary Black (with any secondary or even no secondary) really good good guy. There is no universal right in his eyes, but there is still right and wrong, and he still tries to do right, it's just he doesn't always agree. So he could be apparently totally selfless, even a monk type, forgoing all possessions and spending his efforts to help the poor and sick. But he doesn't do it for them, he does it because it makes himself richer, because it helps him to get closer to a state of perfection, a personally pinpointed state of perfection, rather than an externally mandated one.

While I wholeheartedly support the notion of and quest for a noble mono-black protagonist--isn't this philosophy either Green (focusing on the growth of the individual) or Blue (focusing on the ideal and pursuit of perfection)?

[hamishspence]

"enlightened self interest" is the better side of Black philosophy.

Thus, if the character believes in karma, they might risk themselves for strangers, or sacrifice things they value for strangers, on a belief that "what goes around comes around".

Result- person is doing Good things, and yet still not contradicting the "everyone is selfish" perspective of Black.

A "selfish altruist" is not a complete contradiction in terms, but it may require a certain amount of clarification or redefinition.

If "altruist" is

"person who makes sacrifices (which can include resources, time, personal safety) without the intention of external reward"

then internal reward (emotional happiness, endorphin rush, and so on) may justify them being termed a "selfish person", when "selfish person" is

"person who does things because those things are pleasurable and/or of physical/emotional benefit to them"

[BladeofOblivion]

While I wholeheartedly support the notion of and quest for a noble mono-black protagonist--isn't this philosophy either Green (focusing on the growth of the individual) or Blue (focusing on the ideal and pursuit of perfection)?

Toshiro Umezawa.

There's a Monoblack Protagonist.

[hamishspence]

"I like me" + "I like power" might be good general principles for Black.

Not incompatible with a Good alignment- but it would need to involve a lot of helping strangers, sometimes at personal cost, without the expectation of physical reward. As well as an aversion to doing evil, even when there's something to be gained by it.

Besides "Good Black" there might be other combinations that are unusual but possible.

"Chaotic White" for example- a character who is chaotic in alignment yet devoted to the needs of the community. An elven king might be this.

"Lawful Red"- might combine passion with lawfulness. They could be a crusader for law and order- driven by their own rage at a disordered, anarchic society.

[BladeofOblivion]

"Chaotic White" for example- a character who is chaotic in alignment yet devoted to the needs of the community. An elven king might be this.

"Lawful Red"- might combine passion with lawfulness. They could be a crusader for law and order- driven by their own rage at a disordered, anarchic society.

Actually, I'd say these fit under White/Red fairly well. The latter probably has double strike.

[hamishspence]

I was wondering how far into "mono-color" either of these can go.

How close to "mono-White" can a Chaotic character be?
Or "mono-Red" for a Lawful character?

[The Witch-King]

I created a holy warrior class for use with the Color Wheel alignment system: the Accorder. Accorders are the church's roving troubleshooters who seek out and deal with threats to the harmony of the community. Besides their considerable military might, they also act as diplomats and emissaries to try and resolve conflicts through peaceful means whenever possible.

If you're interested and wouldn't mind PEACHing it for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

[Lord_Gareth]

I was wondering how far into "mono-color" either of these can go.

How close to "mono-White" can a Chaotic character be?
Or "mono-Red" for a Lawful character?

Well, White believes in morality and expresses this belief through a dedication to order. A Chaotic mono-White character has a clear-cut sense of right and wrong (at least, to them) that vastly conflicts with the laws of the society around them, and as such they probably work to oppose or change those laws. The trouble starts happening when such a character succeeds, of course, as they'd then BE the law of the land.

[Curious]

-Snip-

Thank you; this is my next character.

Lord Gareth, I adore this system, and will henceforth attempt to implement it in all my games. Adaptation may be necessary, but it'll be worth it!

[Othniel Edden]

Actually found this here, comparing the two colored Ravnica's guilds to the dnd alignment system. This might help any character hoping to make a conversation in systems.

November 16, 2006

Q:Where would each Ravnican guild fall on the spectrum of D&D alignments?

Thanks!

-- Jeremy
College Park, Maryland, USA

A: From Brady Dommermuth, Magic creative director:

When we were building the identities of Ravnica's guilds, Jeremy, we actually talked about each color in terms of D&D alignments (and in terms of superheroes, animals, food, and whatever else we could think of). There's not a clean match, but the closest we came was that white = good, blue = lawful, black = evil, red = chaotic, and green = neutral. (Lawful is a stretch for blue, and good and evil have less meaning in Magic than in D&D.) Those assignments would yield the following guild alignments:

Azorious = lawful good

Dimir = lawful evil

Rakdos = chaotic evil

Gruul = chaotic neutral

Selesnya = neutral good

Golgari = neutral evil

Orzhov = [good evil]

Boros = chaotic good

Izzet = [lawful chaotic]

Simic = lawful neutral

This scheme works surprisingly well, in my opinion. The exceptions are the Boros, which would be "lawful passionate" or something, and the Orzhov and Izzet, which have two values on the same alignment spectrum. Interestingly, this scheme also reveals how conflicted the Orzhov are, how insane the Izzet are. If I had to choose alignments for the Orzhov and Izzet, I guess I'd choose lawful evil and chaotic neutral, respectively. That in turn demonstrates that the Orzhov and Dimir are two sides of the same coin, and that maybe the Izzet and the Gruul have more in common than it would appear at first glance. They're both chaotic and passionate, but otherwise mostly amoral (blue and green are united by their amorality).

[NineThePuma]

How's the cosmology coming?

[Tanuki Tales]

Ok, only has been 4 weeks, so I don't think I'm casting any Necromancy here.

Would a race that is by nature humble, honest, hardworking and simple, who only eek out their existence day to day while trying not to make waves or to stand out, be colorless?

I know "Office Drone" was used as an example but all I can think of is Dilbert when that phrase is used and I can't think of a single one of the cast not possessing some Coloring to them.

[NineThePuma]

Why are they that way?

[Eldest]

Ok, only has been 4 weeks, so I don't think I'm casting any Necromancy here.

Would a race that is by nature humble, honest, hardworking and simple, who only eek out their existence day to day while trying not to make waves or to stand out, be colorless?

I know "Office Drone" was used as an example but all I can think of is Dilbert when that phrase is used and I can't think of a single one of the cast not possessing some Coloring to them.

That's just what they do. Why they do it would be what determines the color.
That could be green (they wish to live with their natural way and not try to rock the boat), white (they want to live on their own in a community, collectively). Heck, even black if you stretch it.
So the colors only matter for why they do it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Would a race that is by nature humble, honest, hardworking and simple, who only eek out their existence day to day while trying not to make waves or to stand out, be colorless?

I know "Office Drone" was used as an example but all I can think of is Dilbert when that phrase is used and I can't think of a single one of the cast not possessing some Coloring to them.

Echoing the above, a race or creature is colorless only if it lacks essential drive or motivation. It doesn't mean that they have no personality, just that it either tends to be bland or well-hidden. Other than that, why is usually more important than what.

[Delvin Darkwood]

Ive never seen anyone apply the Magic: The Gathering color wheel to DnD. This actually seems like a pretty good idea, most of the people are very familiar with it as well. i might just try and incorporate it.

[Slartibartfast]

I really love this system, and have even played in a game with it, but I still baulk at some of the meaningless connections people still tend to draw.

Green vs. Nature

This is the most common misconception, probably because it is the closest to being true while completely missing the point. Green is not an embodiment of Nature, but rather the reverse. Green is about the essence of tradition and prophecy, doing things the sames ways because that is how they were always done. Green does those things because that it how it should be. To take a line from GLaDOS out of context "We do what we must, because we can." In other words, we fulfill the actions required to us (by the universe itself) as long as we are capable of doing so.

Nature is a subset of this. Nature is simply a very old tradition. Naturists (followers of Nature; not naturalists) are Green, but it is very easy to be Green and unnatural, or even anti-Nature. For example, a man may know that his people have always burned forests, and therefore he does so as well. This is a Green motivation; burning forests is What Is Done, and so he Does it. This is not very Nature-friendly at all. (This is actually a pretty terrible example, I'll admit, but I couldn't think of a better one yet.)

Really, the description in the first post needs to be changed. The forum's discussion has brought to light too many changes in how we viewed Green from the original MtG definition, and even the modified one displayed there. Green is no longer about "Growth and Harmony" so much as "Tradition and Necessity". I would also like to see the description changed to remove the confusing references to Nature. Nature belongs in a discussion of elements, not alignment, much in the same way that Blue has been disconnected from Water.

To attempt to clarify once more, the distinction of Green is best made in comparison to Red. Red does things because it wants do. Green does things because it is Right, in a way that is wholly transcendent of Good and Evil. The Right thing can be something the Green character dislikes, like murdering his own father. It can be something simple, like always waking at dawn. It could be something altruistic, like donating his entire life savings to charity. The important part is that the action is not done for itself, but because it is Right and it Must Be Done, as part of Prophecy or Fate. This is an ultimate form of selflessness which makes Green highly opposed to Black and in a way White could never dream of.

What not Why - Why not What

This one has been addressed several times in the thread, and its misunderstanding has sparked several arguments that got nowhere. I'd like to clarify the vital distinction.

The Color Wheel (if not all alignment systems) describe why a person does things, not what they will do. Understanding someone's motives may help you to predict their actions, but it does not determine them. Thus the colorful example about the man helping orphans, who could have done it from connection to any of the five colors. The Color Wheel doesn't express whether or not you help kids, it talks about why you do the things you do.

The 3x3 grid (since people keep referencing it) seeks to Judge the actions of a character, and by extension to Judge the character themself. This confuses most people, who see morality as a description of intent, thereby mutating the L-C/G-E system to express intent the way a good alignment system should. This creates a wide range of ambiguity and confusion which is near the core of why that system fails so miserably.

The Summary

The main descriptors of the Colors seem to get confused a bit.

White - Order and Community
Red - Freedom and Emotion
Blue - Knowledge and Discovery
Black - Power and Individuality
Green - Growth and Harmony

These are the descriptors provided in the first post. My previous complaints about Green nonwithstanding, below are the Colors as they have tended to be referenced:

White - Community and Wholeness(?)
Red - Freedom and Emotion
Blue - Knowledge and Logic
Black - Power and Amorality (Power and Self)
Green - Nature and Protection

Uh oh, we've got a bit of discord here don't we?

White tends to be referred to only in the aspect of Community, and thereby through Wholeness and acting as a group. This leaves out the original position that White is about Order, which inherently tends to create a Community by imposition of rules/structure. In other words, Community, by way of Order, is within the domain of White, whereas the existence of a community in general is not necessarily so, and could very easily be Red or Green, if the community is founded on mutual friendship or traditional togetherness. A community could be Blue; for example a town of militia who band together against savage monsters knowing it is the rational course of action to produce a better change of survival. A community could even be founded on the Black ideals that one's own power is more easily heightened with others to work for/with them. (That last example probably bears more elaboration to fully make sense, but that is tangential to my main point that community is not an inherently White aspect, so I'll decline to continue here). To really understand White, "Community through Order" must be better understood. In this way, White is not concerned nearly as much about Community as it is about Unity. White doesn't just want Order in a given place; White wants this Order to exist in the entire multiverse, to bind it together and make it as one. Unity.

Red seems to be the most easily understood of Colors. Nothing to say here. Good job!

Blue is more or less fine. I would contend that the important aspect of Blue is more related to a core concept of Rationality, but that's getting into a technical nuance-y discussion, so I'll leave that one alone for now.

Black... well, half of this thread has been about Black. Honestly, I have no idea where the Amorality concept came from, but it stuck hardily which caused no end of complications. Seriously, the word "amoral" doesn't even appear in the original description. The connection between Black and Amorality or even Immorality seems pretty contrived in any case. Black actually seems to have settled on Power and Self, which is a much more accurate depiction.

Green beyond the connection to Nature, a bizarre bond with "paternity" and "caring" appears to have formed. In Western tradition, paternity is pretty much the rule, which would make paternity very Green in a Western context, and equally odd in most others. More confusingly (to me at least) the discussion of Thundarr the Barbarian tried to classify both Thundarr and the other guy (Ovork?) as Green because they "wished to protect Alara" (I think that was her name? Don't know Thundarr very well). Again, the relation to the Western tradition that "a man defends women" could make that Green, but the empathic bond is much more inherently Red, as caring and empathy are, well, emotions. A tenuous argument could be made for White-ness here, but this isn't really related to either Order or Community, as it preference towards protection of an individual and not women as a whole or a similarly universal concept.

--------

I would fix the descriptors this way:

White - Order and Unity
Red - Freedom and Emotion
Blue - Rationality and Knowledge
Black - Power and Self
Green - Tradition and Instinct

------

Afterword

Deconstructionism expresses the belief that no communication is perfect, because it must be interpreted. I similarly feel confident that I have failed to accurately described my views and that a possibly lengthly discussion will follow this post (Blue?). I apologize in advance for seeming too adamant or certain about any of these points (Red). Part of this is a pent-up rage after having read all eight pages of meandering discussion at once and noticing their flaws (Red) inflamed by my desire to construct a complete, comprehensive, and functional system (White) that is understood the same way by all of us (White) and tempered slightly by my desire to, through this discussion, learn how people think, both in the context of this discussion and as people in general (Blue). I hope to alleviate the confusion (White/Blue/Black) and batten this down so we know what to ask Lord Gareth to change the descriptions in the first post to (White).

[Lord_Gareth]

I will give a more in-depth reply later, my friend - I'm falling over dead of fatigue here.

[Owrtho]

First, I'd say that I agree on how green shouldn't be intrinsically tied to nature. With that, I find it odd how after arguing that for the first part of your post, you proceed to list natures as what should be one of the two main descriptors for green. Further, as you mentioned, green seems more about doing what has always been done, which shouldn't imply protection. I'd also note that doing what has always been done wouldn't mean you are doing what is right, but rather what is to be done in that situation. Personally, I would place the two main descriptors of green as being tradition and instinct, even if those seem to edge some on white and red respectively. That said, they remain distinct, as while white might use traditions, they do so as a tool for order, while green sees tradition as the reason itself. Instinct on the other hand is distinct from emotion which red uses as its motive, even if the two may at times overlap.

On the issue of black and amorality, I think the reasoning is mainly that most moral systems are based around one placing the needs of others above personal wants and desires. Black places itself above others, and as such would be amoral by that reasoning, but is not inherently immoral as placing itself above others does not mean it will do things that detriment others.

Owrtho

[Slartibartfast]

Alright, I now no longer feel I understand the words "amoral" and "immoral" or their distinction, given how just used them, but I think I managed to get your point anyway.

I agree that my connection back to Nature after arguing against it was weird, and that probably is only situationally applicable at best.

The comparison to "compassion" was just an observation I'd made on how the discussion had been going, and I was trying to point out that it seemed entirely arbitrary and inappropriate.

I'd also note that doing what has always been done wouldn't mean you are doing what is right, but rather what is to be done in that situation. Personally, I would place the two main descriptors of green as being tradition and instinct, even if those seem to edge some on white and red respectively.

Okay, I think these need to be separated to be examined properly.

Tradition is the aspect of "doing what has been done" while Instinct is where "doing what is Right" comes in. I use the word "right" because I couldn't think of another one, and this is admittedly the most obscure concept I tried to use here. I don't mean Right and in "right or wrong" but rather in terms of "fitting" or "appropriate". In broad terms, this is "following the Plan". At the level a Green character would conceptualize it, this would be reflexive or impulsive action done without thinking, actions they may never understand why they did, yet still feel they were the Right Thing To Do. This, in a nutshell, can be summarized as instinct, but I was trying to express it better than "that feeling in your gut" (also I hadn't made that connection in my head yet).

Does that make sense? I'm not sure I can explain that any better, and I know that I think kind of weird and can confuse people without really trying sometimes...

EDIT: I just realized that I wrote "Protection" as one of my domains of Green. I don't remember doing that. I agree with "Tradition and Instinct" though. I'm gonna go reread my post to see if I can make out my own thinking. Apparently I don't just confuse other people... Maybe I should stop posting things after 2:00 AM.

EDIT2: I get it! It was a copy+paste error. I was lazy and just copied the first block and changed the titles, and I guess I missed Green. I'll go fix that to avoid confusing everyone else.