Dark Magic

Ok so the amount of times I have heard “There is no light or dark only shades of grey” or “there is only power and those to weak to take it” in one form or another is sickening.

Then we get the “You can levitate someone off a side of a building to kill someone or put a suffering animal out of misery with a AK its intent not the spell”

So I want to know if you think there is a branch of magic known as “Dark magic”

The way it seemed to be portrayed in canon is that dark magic was a whole branch of magic. Transfiguration deals with changing the physical properties of an item, charms adds a characteristic to an item, hexes, jinxes and curses cause disruption to living organisms.

So it would seem like dark magic would need a specific cause and effect like the other branches.

I think a lot of the confusion of dark magic could be people using it as a generic term for anything that’s not particularly nice.

I’ll use the example of a bone breaking curse a fairly popular one in fanon. Granted there seems to be no nice use for that curse on another person unless in some medical use. But that doesn’t or shouldn’t make it dark magic. It is just a spell.

Compare it to a muggle knowing some form of martial arts. They have the ability to easily and effectively cause massive damage on another individual. Does that make it evil and dark? No. It makes it an ability one can use if they choose to, and if they do choose to abuse that ability and use it against someone with no justification they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The ability and knowledge to do the martial arts is not evil they merely need to me respected.

I think that spells like that would fall under the generic term of dark magic that ignorant folks like the Weasleys would use. Anything that can do obvious harm to individuals is “Dark”.

True dark magic of the types that Voldemort and the advanced DE’s use would need a defining characteristic to it. Often in fanon it is said dark magic has an addictive quality to it. But it is almost never followed up on, occasionally they say “God casting that Crucio felt great” and leave it at that. There is no withdrawal from not using it for awhile, no drug like craving to do it again.

The other one that is less seldom used is that it corrupts you. It twists and distorts your soul. The more powerful and dangerous the magic the more the corruption. True dark magic must have a negative side to it. If it can increase power or do high level battle damage it would make sense for everyone to use it unless it had an obvious and high downside to it.

It seems obvious that there is a category of “True” dark magic. Making a Horcrux seems to be the only one we have canon evidence on but there would obviously be more. Making a Horcrux needs the cold blooded murder of someone that I obviously dark magic. It is shown to physically contort Voldemort although we can’t be sure what exactly made him transform.

The only time I buy the whole “There is no light and dark” is when it comes to creatures. All of the creatures that were introduced in POA were said to be dark creatures but they are not evil or bad. They are the same as lions and tigers and bears. They do what they have to to survive. Even dementors are not really evil. Sure they have a nasty way of feeding but feeding is what it is. We happen to find it evil because of the effect of what it has on people, but how is them sucking the happiness out of someone so they can continue to live any worse that a Lion eating a Zebra?

So thoughts on Dark magic?

 

I'm still iffy on the whole 'shades of gray' business, though I do think Dark Magic has a corrupting effect on the soul of the person using it. Then again, I don't see how just killing someone would be enough to split a person's soul - according to JKR herself there are worse things than death and the humans aren't exactly a happy and friendly species.

Maybe its the Avada Kedavra curse that breaks it, maybe that spell has a serious effect on the soul, or it may need the caster to be able to kill in cold blood for it to work - not feeding off emotion to power it, but the complete lack of feeling for another creature, to the point where you kill them and it snaps the soul uner the stress.

Dark creatures, in my mind, are only labelled that because they have somewhat human intelligence (in the case of werewolves this point is especially clear) and can act in ways that a normal animal would not, say attacking people for pleasure, like Fenrir Greyback.

Aekiel

 

I put forward the theory in another thread that whilst normal magic is powered by ones own magic, dark magic uses only a small amount of a persons own magic and draws on the magic of the victim so as to actually carry out the effect once it hits.

That could be a reason why its so restricted: It uses less power, so it lets you use more of it than you otherwise could. It also drains the magic of the person it hits. Obviously that last fact is non-applicable in the case of spells that kill, but when it comes to, say, a bone breaker that strikes a persons secondary arm it is important. The wound isn't incapacitating, nor does it prevent them from duelling. Hell, the books have shown us that the correct spell can at least bind such an injury tightly, if not heal it completely. The thing is, that the spell also drained some of the magic reserves of the victim. Such a thing in a duel could have a major impact, especially amongst fairly evenly matched opponents.

It would also be superior duelling magic for the reason that it might make it more difficult to shield against, if there is less active magic in a spell then perhaps shields have difficulty recognising that they have to block them. The avada kedavra curse could work on the principle that it has only a trickle of magic in it, and draws basically all the victims magic into it, thus killing the person due to lack a magic reserves or something. The fact it only has a tiny spark of magic of its own could be why shields don't work, they aren't sensitive enough to realise that its a spell and not just a wee bit of random magic.

 

It's one of the better theories about dark magic and makes sense with everything we know about Avada Kedavra, but what if a target doesn't have magic on it's own (Riddle killed his family with AK) or is just a thing (in Dumbledore/Voldemort duel in the MoM's Atrium a desk started to burn, because it was hit by Riddle's curse - it's mentioned only as a deadly spell in my book, but I'll just assume that it was Avada) without any magic at all? Is the amount of the magical energy put into it enough to cause such effects, or is it just sucking magic from surroundings?

I am a follower of a theory, which names every spell using emotions like hate, anger or jealousy (in short, every negative emotion human being can feel) as the Dark Magic. In cannon we know that there are spells, which need emotion to cast (we know only Patronus, but whatever). Also, Cruciatus needs that a caster enjoys causing pain and wants to inflict it to his victim, so why there can't be another spells like that.

As for the Dark Magic being addictive or not. I'd say that it's strengthening emotions like anger, feeling of injustice, and is slowly affecting a person, which uses it, makes the caster unstable emotionally, but isn't addictive.

I just can't see Voldemort having to use his daily portion of dark spells, because otherwise he'll go on a torturing spree or will loose self-control.

As for creatures, which are labelled as dark. I'd say that people label them as these, because they are a potential snack to some vampire or dementor (naturally, they have to feed, but I wouldn't give them willingly my blood/soul.). Werewolves are also a potential treat to people's safety - they can't control themselves when the full moon comes, so, in my opinion, calling them dark is just a label used to explain why they are discriminated (it's probably easier to pass a bill about controlling these evil dark creatures, than peoples, who can't help what they do around the full moon or can't do anything about their eating habits).

 

If we work with the theory that magic is like the Force, permeating everything, but only some people able to access it and use it, then my theory for the Killing Curse still works. If magic is in everything, then the curse could still be used on those who can't actively use magic. The same with inanimate object. The removal of magic causes implosion at an atomic level or some funky shit like that.

As for the addictive thing, if you go with Aukunens theory that Dark Magic is magic that uses dark emotions, then perhaps its the rush of that emotion that you get addicted to rather than the magic itself.

 

Well, I've always believed that Dark Magic only works because it's fueled by negative emotions, and that if your intent is good, then it won't work. It's already been established that 'righteous anger' can't fuel the Cruciatus, one of the Darkest around. You need unbridled rage, and a deep desire to cause pain--that's what separates Dark Magic from other branches.

Have you ever been enraged before? Humans, by nature, are repressive creatures; we often suppress our emotions, or reduce their outward effects by holding back. I've felt that rage, and I've even let go of the control I usually have over my emotions, and the release is empowering, like a tension headache you didn't even know you had disappearing. In the magical world, intent and emotions are tied deeply with the magics used. I'd imagine that, if a wizard were as closed off as, say, Harry, and not free with their emotions, then it could feel like almost a part of their magic is closed off, and that sort of release of their emotions could free the bonds on the magic being held back by emotional constraints. We've seen Harry when he's pissed, and he can draw up a lot of power.

 

Mordecai, I think you contradict yourself. If magic is everywhere, like the Force, you eliminate the difference you defined before. If magic is everywhere, then you never use your own magic, but always "ambient" magic -- even light spells. Right? So the distinction you defined between Light and Dark is gone.

A better solution, IMO, would be to say that both muggles and wizards have magic within them, but only wizards have the genes or whatever to utilize it. We know that wizards can cast both light and dark spells on muggles, and we know that muggles cannot themselves cast spells -- the problem presented by Aakunen. What I think is that something about wizards allows them to manipulate magic, both that in their person and that in other people. Muggles, although they have magic, cannot use it. A Light spell cast upon a muggle uses the caster's magic. A Dark spell, however, is able to use the magic within muggles to the caster's end, just as it is able to do to wizards.

From what I understood of your post, a dark curse is just the blueprint of a curse and something to trick a victim into following the blueprint. It is not actually a curse. How about if the "something" that tricks a wizard into following the blueprint can trick a muggle into doing the same? In that way, it allows a muggle to use magic, if just for a fraction of a second, something which he would never otherwise be able to do. It's a miracle -- until it kills you. Or, rather, makes you kill yourself.

 

...What you just said in the last paragraph is what I said.

My analogy of the Force was perhaps incorrect, I meant that everything has magic in it. Not that magic surrounds everyone and everything. So...basically what you said.

I do like the idea of it being able to make muggles capable of magic for a fraction of a second. That could lead to a variety of interesting plot bunnies.

 

Meh, JKR said that in book 7 a muggle would use magic--and that it wouldn't be Petunia.

 

Ok I´ll try to explain my magic system which I have thought out at work today.

Basically each individual has the mind, body and soul.

Body is the part which supplies the magic.
Mind is the part which shapes the magic.
Soul is the part which gives us emotions.

So your typical spell is made of magic which is supplied by the body and shaped by the mind.
Very powerfull magic includes the emotions (soul) as well, which allow the body to release more magic than it normally would and it also influences the spells effect (Patronus,...).

Normally you would think that the dark arts would require a gigantic amount of magic, since its way more difficult to rip the soul out of a body than to stun a person. However they use a shortcut which makes it possible to perform powerfull dark arts with only a small amount of magic.

The dark arts do not only use magic, they also use a very small portion of your immortal soul in the spell. This gives them an enormous power boost.
For this effect the caster has to hate the target so much that their own soul sacrifices a bit of itself to make the spell happen.

A person who uses the dark arts often will over time loose more and more of your soul. Not so much that you are in any danger of loosing it completely, but enough to change the emotions which you feel. Since you will only use negative emotions for the dark arts, you will loose the positive ones first.
Without positive emotions you will use the dark arts more and so on...

 

I like this except it doesn't really fit with canon. If the Avada Kedavra spell only had a trickle of energy and had to sap the victim's own in order to work, then it wouldn't have the energy to crack headstones and shatter statues when it misses, like it does in the books.

Considering the amount of power it would take to shatter a statue, I think it's fair to say that the Killing Curse has plenty of power behind it the moment it leaves the wand. It certainly has as much as any other offensive spell; spells that can be blocked by shields.

 

Well, if you look at my other posts, I suggest that all inanimate things have magic within them and that being struck by the killing curse causes a sub atomic implosion ~is trying to sound intelligent~

 

I think it more plausible that dark magic is any magic that uses an emotional component in its casting. Because this makes the casting process more complex, dark magic can produce the same effects as other magic, while inducing less magical fatigue in the casting wizard. Similarly, by using dark magic, a wizard can produce more powerful effects than with other magic. Under such a system, the Patronus charm and whatever Lily did are dark magic, but I believe this makes sense, due to the side effect casting dark magic would have, which is as follows.

The side effect is that dark magic makes a wizard more prone to the emotion that is used to power it. For example, Voldemort's short fuse is a result of repeatedly mustering the rage to power the casting of Avada Kedavra. In the same vein, Albus Dumbledore's ceaseless optimism can be written off to one hundred and fifty years of Patronus charms.

 

I think the "Dark" quality of magic is open to interpretation, but a basic trait of it is that it's addictive and corrupting, and that its main use is pain, death or other negative (again, open to interpretation) uses. Take the Unforgivables for example. They're corrupting (the rush of power one gets using them; direct mind control or the ability to cause pain or kill on a whim has to be exciting), and though one of them can be used for good, it's a stretch to think anyone would.

 

I think Dark Magic is any magic that is in any manner unpleasant in nature.

It also comes in degrees. You cannot say x is dark magic, while y is not. For example, on JKRs website, she sorts curses, hexes, and jinxes in order of strength, saying that curses have the most Dark magic, then hexes, then jinxes.

Not all Dark magic is illegal, or even frowned upon. Even a tripping jinx or a tickling hex contain Dark magic, and they are thought of quite lightly - prank hexes. Yet still, Dark magic appears to be any spell that has an effect upon another person which is not Transfiguration, Charms, or Potions.

If I were attempt to define Dark magic, I would say it was any offensive spell that is not a Charm or Transfiguration.

The Darkest of Dark magic is that like the unforgivables - requireng unpleasent emotions to be cast - or horcruxes - requireing murder. This is simply the end of the unpleasantless scale.

 

I always thought when people used the dark arts it made them feel more powerful and so they learn more and more dark arts and it makes them feel more and more powerful until it corrupts them and they no longer care for friends or family just power.

 

Just thought I'd post my two cents here. I've been reading posts on this forum for a very long time now with my friends account, and i just haven't seemed to be interested enough to post until now (I am very lazy).
I have always been under the impression that for a spell to be considered dark, it has to have certain qualifications. First, as said above a spell should be based on its intent. I have never liked the whole 'AK can be used to end an animals misery' cliche solely because it is clearly expressed in canon that the Unforgivables cannot be cast without malice. If the Cruciatus curse requires rage, and a want to inflict pain on the victim (and gain some sense of pleasure from it), I would surmise that Avada Kedavra would require a want to kill a person. This is a core requirement for something to be dark IMO. The want to inflict suffering on another being is what determines whether a spell or potion is dark.

Now so far in Canon this definition hasn't become a problem because as most of us here know canon is severely lacking in spell diversity (they should teach Stupefy in first year seeing how much it's used), but when you try and integrate this rule into fanfiction it gets a little hazy. Using a previous example of the bone-breaking hex, i would not necessarily classify it as dark (although it can be depending on how the writer writes it) because i can't really imagine someone wanting dearly to break someone's bones. If you wanted to derive pain for the sheer sake of inflicting it there are a multitude of alternatives then a bone-breaking spell. Thus i would imagine the intent of said spell to be a want to inflict enough harm so as to stall or inhibit the opponent, but not to permanently maim or kill him/her.

Finally i think a secondary classification of dark magic could be to determine whether a spell, artifact, or potion warps or breaks the basic laws of nature. Now i know magic by definition does this, but what I mean by basic laws would be the cycle of life (someone is born and will eventually die), messing with time, and depending on the fic, inflicting self harm, and murder.

This definition would thus make time travel (and time turners) dark, as well as horcruxes (which has been said by canon to be among the foulest magic possible). It would also make the philosopher's stone dark as it messes with the cycle of life.

 

Concerning Dark Magic

I agree with S, dark magic is realy under-played in fanfiction. It seems like authors don't want to tackle the addictive qualities of dark magic - the challenges and conflicts it would bring - and instead want to focus on Harry doing something else entirely.

One of the few stories I have read where the addictive qualities of dark magic are addressed in the slightest is "The Summer of Change", where Harry feels the darkness and lust inside of him from his use of Crucio and the kiling curse. Even then though, Harry didn't really deal with it beyond humping Tonks.

Dark magic definitely needs addictive qualities in fanfics: it channels hate, lust, domination, etc. through magic into spells designed to harm others. How can that not be addictive? The feeling of the magic alone should be addictive enough.

I don't think time-turners and the Philosopher's Stone would be dark magic. Time-turners seem neutral, with a potential for evil due to paradoxes, but then again those paradoxes sort themselves out. The Philospher's Stone may be based on morally ambiguous desires: living forever and enjoying oodles of money, but if it was so evil why would Dumbeldore keep it at the castle? In canon, Dumbledore is the pinnacle of a light wizard, so why would he keep the stone and not destroy it if he thought it would need to be destroyed anyway?

I would even go so far to say that any magic which is so dark and foul that it goes beyond a simple bone-breaking hex should be classified Black Magic. Then the dark magic quandary would be simplified - dark magic is frowned upon, but mostly not illegal and possesses temporary addictive qualities, whereas black magic is illegal and has permanent, soul-damaging qualities, permanent addiction being one of them. There is no turning back from black magic. Whether or not there is a branch of magic called White magic is debatable, as what would qualify to be white magic that isn't light magic?

Black magic would be things such as: inferi, the unforgiveables, and any other entirely nasty and unnatural spells or rituals - Voldemort's ressurection ritual, perhaps. How can a magic that borders on necromancy not be black magic? Horcruxes (how is that pronounced? Is the "x" silent, or is pronounced in a way similar to latin?) would most certainly qualify, what with the soul tearing and the murdering.

Just some thoughts,
Burn

 

Addressing this point: Dumbledore did not entirely approve of the Philosophers Stone. Remember at the end of PS, in the hospital wing, he says something like, "...humans have a knack of desiring that which is most harmful to them."

 

I stand somewhat corrected then. I should probably try to read the series again, what with the fifth movie coming out and all. Anyway, I guess then that the Philosopher's Stone is more morally ambiguous than I thought. However, I still do not believe that it classifies as what I termed to be black magic, or even seriously dark magic - those magics seem to require an intent to do harm, whereas the creation of the stone itself seems to lack that intent. This is not tosay that bad cannot be done with it, as Voldemort's return would have most certainly been terrible should he have gotten his hands on the stone.

Does the stone grant only immortality, or also invulnerability? What use is there in living forever if one can still have ones head chopped off?