Touched by Darkness

[dandan]

This is a rather top down card so I hope you are sitting comfortably......

I was reading a tale about a fallen knight who was restored to his former glory by a fallen god. As in most fiction, knights are all about honour but this was a fallen knight, a man with experience of slavery, of living with the scum of the earth, of hiding from the light of day. How would such a man be different as a knight from the 'standard' knights? I imagined he would be far more goal driven in his application of honour than his idealistic peers. Killing an evil foe by throwing sand in his eyes would be fine. Hell, slitting the dude's throat as he slept would serve the greater good. He would see that he can do things that other knights would shun and therebye achieve things that other cannot. He would be Good and Lawful but his interpretation of such attributes would be vastly different to those of others. Slaying a murderer is a good thing if it prevents 2 or more deaths or the death of someone who will serve the greater good. It is lawful as it prevents future lawlessness.

[traditional Dandan drift off topic] (strangely enough this appears to be broadly in agreement with my views of life and US foreign policy even though my views and US foreign policy are somewhat different!)[/off topic]

My first idea of how to apply this was this:

Touched by Darkness 1
Creature - Human Knight
WW
0: ~this~ gains target ability of a creature blocked or blocking ~this~
2/2

This is a pretty solid creature that can pick up non-White abilities (also White ones but I'd pay that price for card elegance). In addition, I liked the idea of a White creature learning from combat. However gaining abilities is a nightmare rules-wise and I'd hate to start defining X or P/T. I still like the card but it rather misses the fallen aspect of our Knight.

Touched by Darkness 2
WW
Creature - Human Knight
B: ~this~ gets +1/+1 until end of turn
2/2

The road to simplicity is littered with discarded flavour 
This one was nicely tarnished by darkness but also rather darker than our hero should be. He also isn't that cool as he is just a bad version of a Zombie Insect.

Next was:

Touched by Darkness 3
W (or B)
Aura - Enchant creature
Enchant a White creature.
0: Enchanted creature gains target ability of a creature it blocks or is blocked by.
You may play ~this~ as an Instant

Creature Enchantments suck but at least the name fits better and playing it as an Instant reflects the nature of the change - an ability to learn from combat. Making it cost B would help flavour wise but make it less likely to fit into a deck.

Finally I thought laterally and viewed the graveyard as a possible source of material. Would a creature shamed in battle be viewed as a casualty? Possibly. In that case we could resurrect a fallen creature in a similar way to a dead creature.

Touched by Darkness 4
 /{B}X
Enchantment   
When ~this~ comes into play, if it’s in play, it becomes an Aura with enchant creature. Put target White creature card with CMC X+1 or less from a graveyard into play under your control and attach ~this~to it.
0: Enchanted creature gains target ability of a creature it blocks or is blocked by.
When ~this~ leaves play, destroy enchanted creature. It can’t be regenerated. 

So we have a weak Animate Dead and a bit of a rules nightmare. The new BW mana symbol allows me to keep this White and/or Black and this is OK with the colour pie. Paying 2 mana to bring a Knight back seems OK although I need a rather ugly X in there to prevent it from being a White Animate Dead (restricting it to P/T <= a number is also unattractive)

I think the ability is kind of cool and wonder if it can be done without major rules hassles. Getting rid of that X would also be appreciated. This is also a good example of a card that should be an Enchantment rather than Equipment. In any case, bringing back a fallen warrior removed the card disadvantage that Auras still suffer from. TbD4 isn't an Instant as the appearance of the warrior shouldn't be a combat trick.
Current wording

Orzhov Samurai
W W/B
Creature - Human Knight
Whenever ~this~ blocks or is blocked, put an experience counter on ~this~
0:~this~ gains either +1/+0, First Strike, Vigilence or Bushido 1 until end of turn. You may play this ability up to the number of experience counters on ~this~ each turn
The Orzhov Syndicate employs many warriors who have outlived their own honour.
2/2

[Matt]

I'm pretty sure that ability-stealing is a rules problem.

[Liam-K]

Seconded.  But I think you can do "copy the text box of target creature who is in combat with XXX and add it to XXX's text box."  This makes him harder to use if he's in combat with a critter with drawbacks, but it's cleaner.

[Jacob Orlove]

I'm pretty sure that ability-stealing is a rules problem.

Yeah, if this thing is actually taking abilities from one creature, and then from another, and keeping both, you not only have hideous memory issues, but also some rules nightmares. Licids are a spectacularly easy example.

[Norm4eva]

If any colors would steal abilities in this way, it would be Blue and Red.  Cards like Clone do this all the time, only in a more complete way (copying an entire creature).  I don't think White would ever do this.  White would be more likely to say "Creatures lose all abilities unless that ability is first strike or protection from red or from black" or something dopey like that.  I like your idea, it's slightly unprecedented, but it's not really very White.

[dandan]

I acknowledged the rules problem but I'd like to try to figure out a way of doing this if at all possible.

Regarding the colour pie, the whole point of this card is that is unWhite. Think of it as leading a creature to the murky centre of the colour pie where order meets chaos and honour meets dishonour. The new B/W mana symbol allows the card to be Gold and I'm fairly sure that between Black and White, pretty much all creature abilities are covered.

I guess I could concentrate on the experience aspect of combat

Honourless Knight
1W (could be B/W B/W)
Creature - Human Knight
At the end of combat ~this~ gets +1/+1 if blocked or was blocked
2/2

That is, however, about 5 times less cool than the original.

[Ephraim]

I'm fairly sure that between Black and White, pretty much all creature abilities are covered.

I don't think that this is true at all. Just speaking off-the-cuff, this is obviously untrue, if only because red, green, and blue exist. There isn't any call for giving a white creature with a black activation an ability that belongs to blue. There is no "murky centre of the colour pie where order meets chaos and honour meets dishonour," at least, not unless you want this to be WBR. That would encompass order, chaos, honour, and dishonour. I don't object to a white knight that exhibits aspects of black influence, but it should be more clearly WB. Along the lines of the card you just suggested, but also touching upon some of the notions you discussed in your initial post...

Killing an evil foe by throwing sand in his eyes would be fine. Hell, slitting the dude's throat as he slept would serve the greater good. He would see that he can do things that other knights would shun and therebye achieve things that other cannot. He would be Good and Lawful but his interpretation of such attributes would be vastly different to those of others. Slaying a murderer is a good thing if it prevents 2 or more deaths or the death of someone who will serve the greater good. It is lawful as it prevents future lawlessness.

Honorless Knight
{W}{B/W}
Creature -- Human Knight
2/2

First Strike
Whenever a black or red creature dealt damage by Honorless Knight this turn is put into a graveyard, put a +1/+1 counter on Honorless Knight.

Here we have a white creature with white ideals that is stooping to use black's vampirism -- but only when it coincides with his high-and-mighty ideals. Notice that he doesn't get that bloodthirsty rush off killing white, green, or blue creatures.

[dandan]

Gaining experience in combat is hardly vampirism. A lesson learnt is still learnt if the foe is merely vanquished or scuttles back under its rock. As such, I don't like the need to kill in order to pick up combat tricks. I'm also fine with him using White (naturally), Blue or Green skills too in order to advance the cause of White. As well as being simpler and more powerful (as it stands this is one of the weakest 2cc Knights in ages), the lack of honour should mean that he is prepared to use ANY means to achieve his goals, not merely those of his enemies.

Regarding my "I'm fairly sure that between Black and White, pretty much all creature abilities are covered." comment, I wanted to say that between the colours of White and Black, there are numerous examples of creatures with just about every creature ability you can think of. Flying, First Strike, Regeneration, Trample, stoning, life gain, life loss, Shadow. I admit there are a few abilities like bounce but short of being blocked by a Time Elemental I can't see this dude getting that ability. (ditto for pinging) Worst case scenario - this guy gets Elf mana generation ability or Enchantress ability. Does the colour pie collapse? An Eye for an Eye, that which does not kill him, makes him stronger (usually).

[Ephraim]

You've misunderstood my objection. The ability to swipe other creatures' abilities does not belong to black or white. You can't just claim that being dishonourable lets this guy use any means he wants to use. If that's true, then this isn't a white card, it's a WUGBR card. If you want to use means associated with every colour, then the card should be every colour.

[dandan]

No version of this card have the ability to swipe other creature's abilities, that is clearly Blue (although I would think Green has the ability to evolve and mutate too). I am proposing a creature that can learn from combat. Whilst Green has a natural instinct for fighting and Red has a love of violence, Blue is a complete wimp at it and Black sees it as an opportunity to benefit from death and suffering, only White trains, studies, and lives combat. A warrior who dedicates his life to combat is White (as opposed to someone else dedicating your life to fighting - more Red and Black's thing).

Now most Knights/Samurai have a code of ethics that is an integral part of being White. However, I look at this guy and see a dedicated fighter who is more pragmatic than idealistic. Does that make him non-White? In my opinion it does not (I would agree he is somewhat less strongly White than a Northern Paladin but then again so is a Camel).

Going back to swiping abilities. The only way (short of Lure) that he can gain any abilities at all is if a Mage makes a decision to send one of their creatures into combat when this guy is about. IF an opponent decides to do this, then this guy may learn from the experience. Flanking? I understand this tactic. Trample? My warhorse can sythe through defences. Flying. I now understand the tactical advantages of attacking from above and have trained a Pegasus/Griffin to carry me. Tricksy Time Elemental belonging to very strange controller? Your ways are strange but I see things I can use. Do you see that this is very different to Blue cloning a creature? Do you see that this is very different to Red getting abilities by temporarily stealing a creature? Do you see that this is very different to Black getting abilities from a animated dead creature (actually one version isn't that different to this, but I can't remember anyone objecting to anyone Animate Deading an Elf)?

How is gaining abilities through combat not White? (do White's crop of creature removal spells that work in combat feel Black? IMHO no)

I know from past cards that ability copying is a rules minefield. What specific things are a problem, perhaps that can be resolved. Touched by Darkness 1 is easily the coolest card. Is it remotely possible?

I think the misunderstanding is simple. You call him dishonourable, I call him without idealistic honour. Your honourable Knights let a wounded opponent flee rather than fight a helpless foe. This guy slays such vermin, never again to infict suffering on the innocent. He does not see this as dishonour. He would fight fire with fire, happily pouring burning oil in the caves of goblins to rid the world of this menace, killing their young makes the eradication more complete, more efficient, more orderly in his opinion. This is still White.

Magic has a complex colour pie and all too often Black and White are seen as Evil and Good. I like the idea of a White creature that has his own rules but is not chaotic, that has his own morality but is not immoral and that has rejected the accepted standard honour but is not dishonourable.

I know I'm pushing the boundary with this but I think it is with good reason.

[Matt]

You just cannot go around stealing abilities. First off, rules nightmare. You'd have to work through that FIRST.

Secondly, you fall into your own trap! You say that white is too often labeled "good," but then you want to justify making this guy purely white by saying that even though he does nasty things, it's for a good cause, thus he is white. A good cause does not make this guy white, because all colors (even black) have their good causes.

The concept of a knight - a warrior trained for battle - is color-neutral; it is not intrinsic to white. Chivalry takes the blank slate of a knight and paints it white; stabbing the evil villian in the back makes it something else. Red and black have had their share of knights, and the last block gave us a black hero ([card]Toshiro Umezawa[/card]), a samurai who was certainly not above using deceitful means.

[asmoranomardicodais]

A practical knight without an ideal he is striving for would most definitely be black or red. The very definition of white is to work for something bigger than oneself, whether it be an ideology, a government, or even a family unit. Black on the other hand, believes in practical applications, and sees no problems with ends justifying the means, like your example (look at the flavor text for Kaervek's Spite.)

Another way to think of it is to think of the colors as the alignments in D&D. Here's how they would all fit into this structure:

Lawful Good-White: Morality is determined by laws, and all people must follow a greater authority in order to co-exist. Pure White

Lawful Neutral-White, Blue: The negative side of white, that rules must be made and followed, whethered they're useful or not, moral or amoral. Having the rules is the important thing. Blue fits into to this, since blue likes to make things as orderly as possible, to make them easily predictable and work like a machine.

Lawful Evil-Blue: The negative version of blue, where the rules makers use the rules to manipulate the lesser people. Odyssey-Onslaught storylines had blue be only this, and consequencally made blue the made antagonist of those blocks. 

Neutral Good-Green: Pure green, where Good is to be followed for the best of everything, despite the politics, or the timing, etc.

True Neutral-Blue, Green: Blue is this alignmen when the neutrality is used to be objective about the outside world (the soratami). Green is True Neutral to keep away for the outside world, and to be sheltered from it (Jorael).

Neutal Evil-Black, Red: THis alignment only cares about oneself, and has no use for morals.  Red is this when it believes that it is the only being that matters, and black is this alignment when for the same reasons, but as justification for amoral acts, not out of pride as in red.

Chaotic Good-Red, Black: This alignment has their own ideasabout morals, and follows them as they believe, rather than as laws would lead them. If it gets the job done, do it, as long as it is what you believe in. This is the "ends justify means" alignment, along with chaotic evil. Red is this when they feel a strong compulsion to follow a specific path, but don't fit in with the main crowd (Battle-mad Ronin, Kamahl). Black can be this when he wants to makethe world a better place, but can't agree with the mathods everyone else uses. The alignment of loners.

Chaotic Neutral-Red, Green: Pure Red, this alignment does things out of the emotion of the moment rather than out of any idea of what they are doing. Green can be this alignment when they stubbornly follow an instinct rather than facts (Artifact hate, hatred of the new)

Chaotic Evil-Black: Pure black, they will use any means to further causes that benefit the few. They feel that the strong should rule the weak, and they are the strong (Nietzche, Kaervek).

I feel thatyou are strongly leaning this card towards a Chaotic Good ideal, which doesn't fit to me under whites juristiction at all.

[dandan]

Thanks for the replies. I see what you are saying without agreeing with the conclusions you make 

This guy is White because:
1. I want/imagine him to be White based on the initial concept of the card. He is a hero, not an anti-hero and certainly not a villain. (Yes, Matt I'm falling into my own trap of generalisation)
2. He works to uphold all that is White but in order to do so he is prepared to use non-White methods. He takes no joy in killing, he doesn't want to break laws, these things are not natural to him but he is prepared to dirty his hands in order to achieve the goals of White. His tendancies are White but he does not blindly follow codes of chivalry.
3. I completely disagree that the idea of a dedicated warrior is colour-neutral. White has been given combat as one of its specialised areas. I agree that Black and Red (and on rare occasions Green and Blue) have Knights but these are combatants armed with cruelty, ferocity, instinct and trickery and not disciplined warriors whose expertise is born of training and study (following the theory and rules of combat if you will). This creature is initially a rather poor fighter for the cost (especially in White) but could grow strong through the ability to learn through combat. Obviously Legends may be exceptions to the rule and for example, Red fighters may also study combat. However, if you ask yourself which colour is best at combat, White should be the answer.

Regarding the rules issue, I am unsure of the exact problem, not ignoring it. For example, say he copies the ability of a Maro then copies the ability of a Nightmare (and somehow survives this), surely his P/T are, according to time stamping equal to the number of swamps you control. Any problem could be overcome by simply listing which abilities he can learn but this is inelegant and the wacky abilities are rather appealing. If I remember rightly, abilities that set P/T are generally the problem, can anyone give me a specific example of a rules problem?

[Matt]

2. He works to uphold all that is White but in order to do so he is prepared to use non-White methods. He takes no joy in killing, he doesn't want to break laws, these things are not natural to him but he is prepared to dirty his hands in order to achieve the goals of White. His tendancies are White but he does not blindly follow codes of chivalry.

Those things are incompatible with white. A truly white creature is defined as such by its adherence to codes of honor. For that matter, blindly following is also white.

On top of that, white would kick him out for using such methods. They would never admit such heresy in their ranks.

[dandan]

As someone living in a society where adherence to rules is an order of magnitude higher than I am used to, let me enlighten you.

If he wears White, he'd be seen as a good guy, or in Black as a bad guy. If he swears allegiance to whatever, that is far more important than his mere actions. Heaven help you if he got it in writing that he is one of the good guys. In a rules-dominated society all rules assume strict adherence to the rules and therefore have a massive blind spot regarding rules-breakers. I cringe whenever a politician is quizzed about clear wrong-doing and answer that what they did was within their rights, they were allowed to do it within the framework of rules that existed at that moment of time and people accept that as an answer. There is a fundamental lack of understanding that something can be wrong but still within your rights/ within your powers in that function.

The attraction of this card is that he (and I) still see him as fundamentally White despite his actions occasionally being at odds with White's morality and rules.

[Ephraim]

As someone living in a society where adherence to rules is an order of magnitude higher than I am used to, let me enlighten you.

Hey, this sounds like the argument is getting a little bit personal. We're not arguing real-life ideologies here. We're talking about abstract, monochrome caricatures of theoretical ideologies. Thus, in the realm of Magic, a knight who upholds white's ideologies, upholds all of white's ideologies. He doesn't fight for white's cause using any tactics that advance his purpose (a very black mentality). He fights for white's cause, using white's tactics, because that's what white knights do. In the cases where a white character does not uphold one of white's ideologies, that becomes a salient plot point. In other words, if you want this white creature to lack one of white's ideals, then it probably ought to be legendary and have some good backstory to it.

[dandan]

Regarding getting personal, I hope most people understand that a lot of what I write is tongue in cheek. I mean no offence and certainly take none.

From Wizards site
White is not “good.� Black is not “evil.� There's good and evil in every color.
At its best, white is just and protective. At its worst, white is fascist and absolute.

[Jacob Orlove]

From Wizards site
White is not “good.� Black is not “evil.� There's good and evil in every color.
At its best, white is just and protective. At its worst, white is fascist and absolute.

Neither "just and protective" nor "fascist and absolute" describes your knight.

[Matt]

"By any means necessary" is a fundamentally anti-white philosophy. The entire point of rule and law is that the ends do NOT justfiy the means and some means are not appropriate.

From "In The Black":

[Black's] ongoing goal is to use whatever means necessary to get what it wants.

Some limitations are physical, some intellectual, others moral. Black doesn’t do that. Black uses whatever tools are available.

Black understands that creatures motivated by false creations such as morality or spirituality can’t be reasoned with

In white, black sees a color driven to idiocy. Life is hard enough without forcing stupid restrictions upon oneself.

Black’s greatest strength is its willingness to use any resource that will help it advance its cause. Black does not shut off any avenue or turn away any opportunity.

Compare that to what you've said about this guy:

he is prepared to dirty his hands in order to achieve the goals of White. His tendancies are White but he does not blindly follow codes of chivalry.

This character you've created could almost not be any more black.



For that matter, from The Great White Way:

White lives by its laws. As such, it cannot tolerate those that do not follow them. White views such disobedience very severely.

[dandan]

I have to say that we appear to have fundamental differences about what White is. I appear to be outnumbered so I will change tack rather than be beaten into submission (experience of married life is sometimes an advantage).

Lets make this dude W/B W/B

As White as I want him, as Black as you want him.

Now we have the minor problem of his ability being a rules nightmare to resolve.

[Jacob Orlove]

Current wording post would be nice.

[JAG]

Very interesting flavor discussion going on here.  BTW, as for the dedicated warrior idea, I agree that it is not a purely-white concept.  For proof, I urge you to look up the word "Bushido," then count how many non-white creatures it appears on.  I think you may find the concept of a dedicated warrior is not as white as you might think.

As for the ability, which is the real problem here, I agree with the majority here that stealing abilities from other creatures, in combat or not, in flavor or not, is a blue ability.  Proof: Quicksilver Elemental.  A blue creature that steals activated abilities.  Yes, flavorwise, it steals them in a different way, but mechanically, it's doing the same thing.  To be honest, I'm not sure that stealing abilities is the best way to show that he gets better in combat as he progresses.  For example, I could see how he gains Double Strike or Vigilance or Bushido.  Flying is a bit of a stretch but I can manage that.  but what if he's blocked by a Licid?  Flavorwise, how can you account for him "learning" how to turn himself into an Aura?  Or what if he's blocked by a pinger?  To steal a bit from D&D, you can't just "learn" how to do complicated magic by fighting someone.  I'd say, in the realm of M:TG, pinging would count as "complicated magic" to a creature.

So, how do we keep the flavor of learning from combat? +1/+1 counters seems the best way to accomplish this.  not quite as literal, but I'm quite sure if you explained the flavor reason for him having this ability, most people would go "oh ok that makes sense."  I think we have a 2/2 First Strike with "At end of combat, if <this> blocked or was blocked this combat, put a +1/+1 counter on <this>."  Seems alright...unfortunately this feels like it wants to be pushed powerwise and I don't see any good way of doing that.  Protection makes it almost strictly better than White Knight or Silver Knight.  Maybe he could have Bushido (keeping the idea of him having a very strong warrior code to follow?  In this way, he's a bit like Hand of Cruelty flavorwise).

-JM

[Matt]

You know, a guy who gained a point of Bushido for every fight he survived would be very cool.

[dandan]

I agree that flavour and rules-wise it would be better to just make him stronger in combat that allow him to learn things that couldn't be learnt.
I think his skill in combat shouldn't protect him from a lightning bolt so although getting +1/+1 counters is a clean method of showing his experience, it feels rather like growth i.e Green rather than experience. Gaining Bushido is another good option but I dislike the fact that an unblocked Knight with Bushido 20 would do 2 damage.
Seeing as our benchmark knight for WW has 2 abilities, how about:

Touched by Darkness
Creature - Human Knight
First Strike
If ~this~ blocks or is blocked ~this~ gets a +1/+0 counter at the end of combat.
Seeing pain and suffering so close abhors most kind souls.
2/2

Is the issue of +1/+0 counters too difficult (I know we should use +1/+1 as a default)?
Is the power level too high? (IMHO it isn't as this can never get big unless your opponent co-operates)

[Godder]

Or you could put <name> counters on it and give it the ability "Whenever this attacks or blocks, it gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X = no. <name> counters on it" and "whenever ~this~ deals combat damage, put a <name> counter on it" or something like that. That way, it's only big when fighting, and never at any other time.

[Ephraim]

Or you could put <name> counters on it and give it the ability "Whenever this attacks or blocks, it gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X = no. <name> counters on it" and "whenever ~this~ deals combat damage, put a <name> counter on it" or something like that. That way, it's only big when fighting, and never at any other time.

That's essentially identical to it getting a point of bushido every time it wins a battle -- and dandan just said that he wanted it to grow in its ability to deal damage to players as well.

dandan, how about a pseudo-firebreathing ability:
Whenever ~this~ attacks or blocks, put an experience counter on it at end of combat.
: ~This~ gets +X/+X until end of turn. X can't be greater than the number of experience counters on ~this~.

[dandan]

I like the idea but the application is inelegant. As worded you could pay 1 any number of times with X=1, which is actually slightly better than when X=2. You'd need a 'you can play this ability only once a turn'
It is also rather weak and allows growth outside combat. I suggested +1/+0 because he could still Shock him but he would start getting mean in combat if he gets experienced. I think we need a Knight that costs WW to make you wonder if you would use him in a constructed deck.

An alternative

Whenever ~this~ attacks or blocks, put an experience counter on ~this~ at the end of combat.
Remove an experience counter from ~this~: ~this~ gains either +1/+0, +0/+1, First Strike Vigilence or Bushido 1 until end of turn

I'm not sure how weak that is but it is fairly cool. I thought about giving him the counter whenever he attacks or blocks but that is probably too strong although flavour-wise, learning in combat is fine (as opposed to after combat).

[Matt]

Give it vigilance and make the ability ", : This gets +x/+x..."

[JAG]

I like the Bushido result, and perhaps we could do something to make him better when unblocked.  Theoretically, it should be harder to damage players than creatures, right?  After all, it's easier to kill a Bear than a Planeswalker.  So, what about something like:

Whenever <this> blocks or is blocked, put an experience counter on <this>. 
<This> gets bushido X, where x is the number of experience counters on <this>. 
Whenever <this> attacks and is not blocked, you may have it deal no combat damage this turn.  If you do, it deals damage to the defending player equal to the number of experience counters on it.

The unblocked damage thing might be a little too strong, but it's better than life loss and cleaner than "gets +Y/+Y where Y is half the number of experience counters on <this>."  I changed the first ability to "blocks or is blocked" b/c it seemed to me that he was supposed to get better each time he was in combat with something.  This implied that he was involved in creature combat, which to me indicates some kind of block situation.

-JM

[Godder]

My idea wasn't identical to Bushido at all - Bushido only works when blocking or becoming blocked, but mine was for attacking or blocking, so it would still hit the player harder if it wasn't blocked, which is what I thought was the point. It also only triggers during combat, so it dies to the Lightning Bolt, as mentioned.