Code Geass: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Introduction and General Invitation | Proxies for playtest | Design Challenge 2 | Colour-pair archetypes | Skeleton

CardName: The Ends Don't Justify the Means Cost: 2WW Type: Enchantment Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Creatures you control get +1/+1 and have lifelink. When you pay a cost that includes life or sacrificing a creature, sacrifice The Ends Don't Justify the Means. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Code Geass Rare

The Ends Don't Justify the Means
{2}{w}{w}
 
 R 
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +1/+1 and have lifelink.
When you pay a cost that includes life or sacrificing a creature, sacrifice The Ends Don't Justify the Means.
Updated on 07 Nov 2020 by Alex

Code: RW08

Active?: true

History: [-]

2016-12-08 17:59:24: Alex created and commented on the card The Ends Don't Justify the Means

The classic underlying disagreement between the protagonist and deuteragonist, Lelouch and Suzaku: whether the Ends Justify the Means or not.

> Lelouch: It looks like they treated you rather roughly. Now you know what they're really like, Private Kururugi. Britannia is rotten. If you wish to bring change to this world, then join me.
> Suzaku: So, is it true? Are you really the one who killed Prince Clovis?
> Lelouch: This is war. Why wouldn't I kill an enemy commander?
> Suzaku: And the poison gas? Those were civilians out there.
> Lelouch: A bluff to help things along. The result, not a single death.
> Suzaku: The result? That's all that matters to you, I suppose. Huh...
> Lelouch: Come join me. The Britannia you serve is a worthless dominion.
> Suzaku: Maybe that's true, but... but this nation, it can be changed for the better, and from within.
> Lelouch: Changed?
> Suzaku: And any ends gained through contemptible means aren't worth anything.

Lelouch is willing to kill civilians for the sake of overthrowing the corrupt Britannian empire and installing a new world order. Suzaku wants to change the Britannian empire from within.

So... what should a pair of cards titled "Ends Justify the Means" and "Ends Don't Justify the Means" do?

For that matter, what colour should they be? I think The Ends Don't Justify The Means is probably white, but might it be green? And what about the ruthless The Ends Justify The Means? Is that a black, red, or white philosophy?

Or Blue. I'm pretty sure blue also believes that the ends justify the means.

Also, if I was to point to the color that believes that the ends never justify the means, I think I would point to Green. Green believes in reality, truth, and never compromising. I know that this mindset is difficult to reconcile with Green's occasional 'Hulk Smash' attitude. But maybe it's worth pointing out that whenever Hulk is intelligent, yet a distinct personality from Banner, Hulk tends to be honest, direct, and refuses to compromise. See also Planet Hulk, or compare Hulk's friend Amadeus Cho with Reed Richards.

Also, also, I'm pretty sure that Red does not have an 'Ends justify the means' streak in it. It's just happy to see the world burn. But if you told a proud barbarian that they needed betray their clan to save it, they'd spit in your face and stab you.

It's the classic black/white split. Green cares more about method than ends; purset green doesn't really consider there to ''be'' an end. Red similarly is more about doing what feels right to itself right then, regardlesss of longer term ends. Black is the classic "Do whatever is needed, for my purpose"; white is "Do what is right."

But yeah; they could be flip sides of white.

As for what they do? A counter-spell; or white-counterspell of the "Players may not.." kind, makes sense fot the not-justified side. I'm tempted to suggest a wrath effect for the justified one. If you can make them prevent each other; that would be perfect.

How about: Ends being "As an additional cost, sacrifice any number of your creatures. Each player must sacrfifice that many." And means being: "Players may not sacrifice creatures; sacrifice this if you control no creatures."

I can see many different interpretations, but black/white seems the most obvious.

Maybe "as an additional cost to cast ~, sacrifice a creature. [splashy effect]" and "players can't sacrifice creatures"?

That make the second one a creature with an appropriate name and the actual phrase in flavour text if that's ok.

I was going to say "what a coincidence, I just saw this answer on MaRo's blog," but when I went to grab the url I saw that you were the one who asked. I would unequivocally agree with that being B/W.

@dude: Yeah, I asked it simultaneously of MaRo, /r/ColorPie and here :)

I think black/white makes the most sense. There is an argument for white/white, which would be quite interesting, but in terms of set balance it works better if the rare noncreature slots are taken by two different colours :)

Mmm, "Players may not sacrifice creatures" would be great for Ends Don't Justify the Means if the set had a significant theme of sacrificing creatures. But it doesn't, really; the closest thing is the old abandoned design for the Material Gambit cycle. As it is, hosing one specific card isn't really playable, even with a cantrip.

Thinking it through, maybe it's something like this.

Black: "Ends justify the means" is a central black tenet. Black is all about efficiency, selfishness and ruthlessness. There are some exceptions (eg. YOUR means trump OTHER PEOPLE'S ends :))

White: White is very conflicted. White is about the community, about systems, about having principles and sticking to them. That's not so much "means over ends" as there are LOTS of ends and white is torn between them. Every white paladin facing down a hostage situation is weighing up "keep my word, so people trust it in future" vs "save the innocent in front of me" vs "dispense justice, so fewer people take hostages in future" etc etc. Other colours conveniently "forget" about things that aren't in front of your face. White doesn't have that luxury. Sometimes your immediate end is sacrificed on the alter of the means of a HIGHER end. If you're lucky, a worthwhile one. Sometimes not.

Green: What are these "ends" of what you speak? I do what comes naturally to me, and accept the consequences.

Red: What are these "means" of which you speak? Why would you put, like, extra steps between me and my goal? DO THE GOAL. That's the point. Stop overthinking everything!

Blue: I don't believe there's a one size fits all answer to this question, but if it helps, I'm absolutely definitely going to overthink everything.

I was thinking "can't sac" on a creature, not just an enchantment, so it was less absolute, but also, less niche. But that's an idea for this card, not for hole filling.

Maybe add a few others? Can't sac, can't pay life? Can't discard? Would any of that matter without being too strong?

How about one counts geass in play; for good-stuff, and the other protects against geass?

Geass is the set's means.

Love "Do the goal" and blue's reply to it :)

2020-11-07 23:22:05: Alex edited The Ends Don't Justify the Means:

some text, fairly similar to as discussed 4 years ago

I wondered about making this "Players can't pay costs that include life or sacrificing creatures". As it currently stands, you can have the high principles that The Ends Don't Justify The Means, but abandon them when you need to. But that's actually quite in keeping with the series too...

More of a problem is that you can basically avoid the drawback here by just not putting cards with those effects in your deck. I wondered about another "lose the enchantment" condition something like "when two or more attacking creatures you control die in combat", something that's more likely a significant risk.

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Lava Axe
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)