Dark Magic

Definition

What makes magic "dark"? Is "dark" the same as "evil"? Who decides what spells, potions, creatures, and other magic is and is not "dark?" These are all widely debated questions with many different answers.

Things so classified are harmful to the caster, the victim, or both in some way. If there is a victim, the results are harder or even impossible to reverse. In some places there is an implication that it is also harder to even block. I need citations for this.

Also note that there seems to be more "dark" magic than "light" magic, see my mini-rant on the balance of power.

Analysis

I think that "dark" should be synonymous with "evil" but in practice probably simply means culturally frowned upon and/or legislatively proscribed and/or controlled. Parseltounge is "considered" the mark of a "dark wizard,¹ simply because of two known speakers being themselves "dark wizards," and despite the admittedly inconclusive evidence that it is normally an inherited trait.

You can, if you know your anatomy, kill someone with a sufficiently well placed cutting spell, regardless of whether or not it is technically a curse. You can similarly kill with a tripping jinx, though that one requires that it be timed such that the person trip such that the fall is fatal. Levitation, taught in charms, can be fatal, if the person is released from high enough, or if something heavy enough is first levitated then released. Not to mention that if you can vanish a mammal, you can vanish a human.² A sufficiently creative mind can, no doubt, find dozens of other spells from each of charms and transfiguration that can be used to kill someone.

This definition is not universally agreed on. A number of fan fiction authors prefer to draw a distinction between "dark" and "evil."³ While I have read a number of these, few of them have any kind of definition of what constitutes "dark" under such a three way split. One possible definition of "dark" that does not necessarily equate to "evil" that I read is that "dark" magic is powered by sacrifice, whereas "light" magic is powered by the caster's inherent ability. Per that author the sacrifice can be willing or unwilling, and can even potentially be self sacrifice and still be classified as "dark."⁴ One work that lacks a definition also stands out. Amelia in one work essentially refuses to decide if "dark" is right or wrong, but instead worries if it is legal or illegal. Given her role as head of the DMLE, I can understand and sympathise with this position.

A Study of Resonance on the other hand is fairly typical, fumbling with the distinction between light and dark.⁵ In places it comes fairly close to a straight forward good and evil. In other places it veers towards merely light is legal and dark is illegal, but there is no true distinction. Some of this is narration bias, Percy, the main character, does not clearly understand the difference.

One work does have what may be a workable definition. It says that "dark" and "light" are categories of emotions that power magic.⁶ "Dark" magic is powered by anger, sadness, and fear under this theory. The work rightly points out that these emotions are not inherently sinful. Anger can be righteous anger. Fear can be justifiable. As of writing this, I have not finished the work to find out how well the author pulls this off, but I can see some potential problems. There is a difference in kind between righteous anger and the hatred that powers the killing curse or the cruciatus. I strongly suspect, from the brief bit that I have read, that the author does not grasp this difference. If so, it will prove a fatal flaw to the theory, for it means that there will be no examples of "dark" magic that do not strongly tend towards evil, and my overall thoughts on the matter will stand essentially uncontested.

Another line of speculation is the effects of this "dark" magic, not just on the victim, but on the person who casts it. In How?, it is speculated that dark magic leaves behind … residue in the body of both the caster and the victim.⁷ If not purged, this residue will have both physical, emotional, and psychological effects on the person. Another theory is that it is addictive and personality warping, but not quite so … tangible as How? would have it..⁸ Others of course would have it be that the whole thing is just bias and prejudice,⁹ while yet others attempt to walk some sort of line - it can be abused, and its abuse can have effects on your personality, but properly used it is fine.¹⁰ I could deal with the idea that it is morally wrong but safe to use (except for the moral effects on your soul), but this last theory to me is not really tenable.