underthegates - Tumblr blog

underthegates · 1 month ago

Text

Doing The Right Thing: An Analysis of White's Monologue. (MTG)

This will be an extensive analysis of "My Words: White", in which game designer Mark Rosewater talks at length in the words of Mtg's mana color, White. This roleplay approach to explaining the color pie's differing philosophy and why they have a predisposition to certain tactics is my favorite, and I've been eagerly awaiting a return to pie philosophy since the last article was written years ago.

>"To explain my philosophy, I would like to begin by taking a step back and looking at the world as a whole. There are a lot of problems. There is crime, injustice, hunger, disease … just an endless amount of suffering."

White, consistent with its past interpretations, pitches itself as a solution to the world's problems. Not necessarily a problem, plenty of philosophies do that. Especially memetics which want to spread. No one likes crime, injustice, hunger or disease; so this acts as an effective hook. >"But here is the important thing—there does not have to be. I will use hunger as my example. There is enough food for everyone. Starvation happens not because we do not have the means to feed people but because people prioritize things over the welfare of others."

White likes to emphasize that evil isn't something inherent to the world, it's something that's infected it. A contagion that humans have brought with them and that humans can get rid of. This certainly is more compelling than the "There's nothing you can do about bad stuff existing." That White's enemy Black is known for. But take note that White's thesis statement here is that humans are the cause of other human's suffering. >"Most suffering happens because we choose not to stop it. But we can. The potential for a utopia is real. We have the means to get there."

I don't know if its manipulative or just compelling, but putting blame and guilt on the reader for specifically *choosing* not to stop evil is very interesting rhetoric. To take White in good faith, this is more a textbook call for action than some armchair psychologist "manipulation". But this is once again putting human suffering on human's choices. Associating suffering with human activity is consistent with White's ally Green, and citing potential for utopia, and the possibility of a world beyond our dreams is consistent with Blue; White's other ally. >"It only requires us to make one change. I will acknowledge it is a big change, but it is a doable one. We simply need to learn how to put the needs of the group ahead of our own personal needs. Instead of asking, "What do I want?" we must learn to ask, "What does the group need?" If each person thinks about the needs of the group and acts accordingly, we can create a utopia where everyone has their basic needs met."

Another piece of rhetoric White uses (and has used in the past) is presenting its philosophy and changes as simple and actionable. For a sales pitch for anything to work, what the reader has to do cannot be presented as overly ambitious, even if its a big change. It can't scare them away. Claiming that it's philosophy is only "what does the group need?" also implicitly says that everything after this is for the needs of the group. Not that I'm trying to paint White as not having the group's best interest in mind; Its a philosophical concept, I don't see it as needing to lie to the viewer besides about its enemies. But I do want to point out the argumentative tactics that White has been using in order to make its philosophy as appealing as possible. >"So, why is everyone not doing this?" "The temptation to do things that will benefit you is strong. That is the conflict we are up against. But there is good news. People inherently want to help one another. There is a natural goodness within each of us that seeks to help others. I admit it is more apparent in some individuals than others, but it is there in all of us, and you can witness it if you look around your community."

Note the use of "we", everything White says is to make the reader see them and it as working together against a shared enemy. White makes a Green (and scientifically proven) statement of humans inherently wanting to help each other, a sentiment that their shared enemy, Black, despises. >"But how do we get from where we are to where we need to be? First, people need guidance. People will do the right thing if you nudge them in the right direction. How do we do that? The answer is simple: structure. Humans are creatures of habit. If you can provide the incentives to act correctly, they will, and they will continue to repeat those behaviors. That is the key; we have to create a society where helping one another is core to how it is built." Another scientifically proven point that White uses for it's pitch: good behaviors will naturally emerge out of a system which rewards them. This is the reason behind White's obsession with structure. While White believes people naturally want to be good, it doesn't believe them to know precisely how. >"If one does the wrong thing, they get punished. Maybe you lose some of your resources, like money. If it is serious enough, you can lose your freedom and be locked away."

When speaking about it's enemies domains (money and resource hoarding is associated with Black, and freedom associated with Red) White isn't being outwardly hostile yet. White believes in the merits of money and freedom, but also doesn't see either as sacred. But rather, these are acceptable loses should one jeopardize a utopia. I believe this to be an important point to the understanding of the pie in 2025+. The Colors are (or atleast we know White to be) not actively spiteful of what their enemies want, they just see too big an obsession on those things as threats to something obviously more important. >"The most useful tool to tackle selfishness is morality. You have to teach people that there is an objective right and an objective wrong. If you do right, you are good. If you do wrong, you are evil. There are rewards for being good and punishments for being evil." "good people get to become part of the community, and evil people are shunned from it."

Here's the Black vs White axis, Morality. Interesting to me is that White does not see it's own motivation for good as enough for people, and that there have to be incentives outside of it. The mere absence of a utopia isn't enough. For as much as the White stereotype is obsessed with the right and wrong thing, actual White is fine if people focus on rewards and punishments instead of right and wrong for their own sake.

White phrases community involvement as a privilege, intentionally or not. If you're good, then you get to be in our society. Even though White says people are inherently good, White respects and fears the ease that people discard that goodness. This is a key part of how White sees Black; alluring. Even in old interviews, White refers to evil as "knowing how to tempt people" and earlier in this letter, it mentions the temptation of evil. This possibly gives context to the boarderline manipulative rhetoric nearing the start of the article. White knows that on the face of it, Black is flat out more tempting. Insert a joke here about how no one wants a white guy telling them what to do. >"A lot is on the line. One path leads to peace, the other suffering. Each rule that is broken means someone is hurt. If we have to take a heavy hand to ensure peace, to ensure that people can live a life without suffering, it is what has to be done. We are fighting a lot of powerful forces, so our messages have to be loud and clear." Speaking of unappealing aspects of White, it's "greater good" mentality is possibly the easiest way to make a White aligned villain; and the philosophical reason it has access to the vast, vast majority of the games boardwipes. So much so that the colloquial name for a boardwipe, a "Wrath" is a shortening of a White card: Wrath of God. If White believes that doing an evil thing will cause a greater net good outcome, it sees that evil thing as now being good. White's moralizing has no qualms with pulling the lever on the trolley problem; a solution many philosophers have come to already, and a testament to strong moral principles. But even these strong moral principles are certainly able to turn villainous given large enough scope and a song played in minor key. Interestingly, this "at any cost" mentality towards its goals is shared with Black (if to radically different ends), making Orzhov the color combo most willing to make sacrifices.

>"The most useful tool to tackle recklessness is the law. The law presents a list of things you are not allowed to do because they endanger society. If you commit one of these acts, there is a punishment of proper weight. The greater the threat to society, the larger the punishment. It is important that these rules are public and clear. They delineate from what you can do and cannot do. Like morality, there should not be any gray areas in these rules. Also, as with morality, you need to teach the public that breaking these rules leads to consequences. But what about people accidentally getting caught up in the system? What if someone does something wrong but for an important reason? Perhaps someone kills another, but only in self-defense. This is where you get the judicial system. People can judge the circumstances to make sure that people are not punished incorrectly."

A very interesting piece about White's world view (and one of the only places I vehemently disagree with it on) is a hatred of so called "gray areas" in morality and law. White is frequently painted as deontological, and this fully leans into the stereotype. You are either evil or you are good, you either did an evil thing or you did a good thing. And any nuance in actions or circumstances only serves to influence the final verdict. This isn't to say that White believes something like murder is always evil, just that with proper circumstances such a thing instead becomes good. A hate of gray often gets seen as a blindness to complexity of circumstances, but White instead seems to mean that the end result is a binary of either good or evil.

>"there might be others outside your group that have ill will toward your society. That is why you also need a military, to provide someone who can protect against those who wish your society ill."

White has gone from "Mine" to "Ours" to "Your", fully trying to get the reader to identify with it's ideology without thinking about it. Again, this isn't like some evil scheme, just a notable rhetorical device. This also reinforces White's idea that there are enemies who are wishing you, and more importantly; your utopia, harm. >"The combination of morality and law is important because it gives depth to your message. You should not kill for two reasons. First, it is morally wrong. Second, it is against the law. This means there are all sorts of repercussions—these disincentives can be physical (you will go to jail), emotional (people will shun you), or spiritual (you will be punished in your afterlife). Different people will prioritize different incentives, so the breadth of responses will help motivate a wide variety of people."

White sees its two different axis (law for Red and morality for Black) as incentives for its worldview for two different kids of people. Crucially, morality has more appeal to the Red and Green side of the pie (emotional and spiritual respectively) while Law has appeal to Black and Blue (self interested and systematized) >"Now, Blue cares a lot more about the civic side of things (government, law, the courts) than the moral side. Blue is a little more focused on constant improvement over the impact such decisions have on the people. For example, Blue is much more willing to allow people to fall through the cracks if the overall system is improved. Blue is trying to raise the ceiling (creating the highest potential), while I am more focused on raising the floor (ensuring an absolute level of care for all). But we have a lot of shared goals."

A common critique of White, being the color of society, is that people can fall through the cracks of a society. This argument, while fallacious, is addressed; and White levies such a flaw unto Blue more than itself. This paragraph also supports my assessment that White's two incentives appeal to apposite pie ends, and I predict this will be a trend with pie traits going forward. >"My biggest issue with Blue is that Blue spends far too much time caring about the individual. Just as Blue wants to optimize society, it wants to optimize each member of that society. To do so, it will distribute things in ways that I think of as unfair."

The color pie addage "to find what a color argues about with its allies, look at the ally's ally" applies here. Whites issue with Blue is its issue with Black, just to a lesser extent; too heavy a focus on individuality and unfair distribution of resources. >"Where Green and I most differ is the role of restraint. I believe that to have an orderly society, there have to be rules in place that keep people from acting on impulse. Green, in contrast, functions more on instinct. That is not emotional per se but is instead a way of acting on internal motivations that are not inherently driven by the welfare of the group. In other words, Green has a wild side that scares me a little."

White being scared of Green aside, this highlights a common confusion in the pie. The difference between instinct and emotion. White here says instincts are just internal motivations, and those internal motivations won't always lead the group towards a peaceful place. >"People, left to their own impulses, will do dangerous things. Some people will get hurt and others will die. For what? So that Red can just do whatever it wants to do? The insidious part is that Red makes it so enticing. Yes, there are limitations built into a system for the protection of its people. I get how that can feel restricting at times, but Red uses that frustration as a justification to not have any responsibility for its actions. "Oops, you died," Red says, "but look at the giant fireball I made.""

"Black treats immorality like a trophy, something to be proud of. Recklessness is dangerous, but at least that is not on purpose. Black thinks of violence, disease, and cruelty as tools, things it can use to get what it wants. Nothing is taboo to Black. It will do whatever it needs to do to get what it wants, no matter who gets hurt in the process. In fact, Black seems to revel in causing others pain. Their end goal is a dystopia, a world where most suffer so a few can thrive. It is the exact opposite of what we are working toward. What makes this so dangerous is that each person has desires to prioritize themself. I have to create elaborate systems to educate people, while Black feeds their worst impulses. And Black can start small. It is so easy to get someone to make a tiny selfish gesture."

This, keeps the pattern of White being strangely understanding of how compelling its ally's are. White is aware laws can feel restricting and how easy it is to be just a little selfish, but sees these things as slippery slopes toward justifying worse and worse behavior. This is a common argument for deontology, a small bad thing being capable of leading to worse and worse bad things. This also frequently takes the form of the slippery slope fallacy. While some slippery slope arguments are valid, the specific worry about what's to come rather than what's being suggested is what makes it fallacious; not actually addressing the point at hand. Of course White shows a misunderstanding of its enemies and what they want, a trend I hope to see going forward. Black does not want a dystopia, it simply sees that as how the world works on a fundamental level. And Red sees itself as taking responsibility, accepting the risks of an exciting life as they come; I believe what Whites actually mad at Red about is not taking responsibility for other people's safety, something White does in spades. >"Black has come to respect the power of systems. Black saw how I was using religion and law and has created its own forms of it. However, they can still be effective in educating and motivating people."

The language "has come to respect" is intriguing, as it implies this was not always the case. The pie is not static afterall, and this seems to be an acknowledgement of such. Colors priorities wax and wane. I do wonder what Black's interpretations of religion and law are. Cults and crime families are typically colored Orzhov. (Organized (W) Crime (B)), so I'm unclear what forms Whites referring to here, assuming cults and mafia are a joint effort on part of the competing colors.

>"it is admirable that Red can care so deeply about the needs of another."

Big fan of the colors finding things in one another to like.

>"Which brings me to my strengths and weaknesses. Mister Rosewater likes to say those are each an extension of the other. I have embraced order as a powerful tool. It helps me shape environments and gives me access to more answers to different threats than any other color of Magic. Given the time to plot and plan, I can solve most any problem. The downside of that is each of my answers is prescriptive. That is to say it is tailored to a certain problem, so if a different threat shows up, one I was not prepared for, I do not have the flexibility to adapt quickly. I can often get caught off guard if I did not properly anticipate what was coming. Another one of my strengths is my morality. I know right from wrong and can act accordingly. When I lay my head down at night, I can do so without regret, knowing that I held myself to the highest standards. Part of that is that there are things I refuse to do. For example, I will not kill unless it is absolutely necessary. I choose instead to imprison my foes, but that means there are times when they escape and undo my work. That does not happen to other colors of Magic, like Black, who makes sure to permanently remove any threat, but I understand living correctly comes at a cost. I cannot win the day if I do not do it honorably. Each time you justify doing something you know you should not, you are taking a step away from utopia instead of toward it."

White acknowledges its rigidity, claiming that its either due to morality or a prescriptive plan; not ignorance of other options, as its enemies typically paint it as. And another instance of White treating even minor transgressions as slippery slopes away from utopia. >"I get that what I am asking for is difficult. Doing the right thing is way harder than doing the easy thing, but what I have to offer is important. We, as a society, have the chance to think bigger, to be better. We do not have to accept that the world is as it is. We can dream of a world free of suffering. We have the power to improve our lives if we just have the courage and conviction to do so."

I just really like this ending thesis statement. White certainly has shown manipulative tendencies, and a neuroticism when it comes to even minor moral mistakes. But its an earnest philosophy which gives the reader the power to shape the world into a better one. Its a philosophy that, while certainly righteous, is right in many different ways. Humans are naturally good creatures, we have opportunities every day to do the right thing and make the world a better place, and if everyone in the world started just taking the small steps...maybe we could form a utopia.

White is my fav color of magic, in no short part because of its philosophy being very close to mine. Its habit of board nukes and variety of threat answers get explained in this article, aswell as what its willing to partner with its enemies on. Can't wait for the next article.

17 notes · View notes