Dark Magic = Evil Magic?

gillrmn

Often I have seen Mythos saying Dark Magic corrupts etc. but then a drizz like npc comes along who breaks the trope saying, no it is not evil. But the explanation matters. If it is bad - it ends up being a twilight thingy.

We had a home-brew campaign with Dark, light and Elemental magic, and only mages and rogue class. Our previous campaign was all about a very good NPC who uses dark magic and goes crazy - because dark magic is evil and if you curse someone you dig up your own grave -right?

So in next campaign our DM introduces this new NPC who helps us who is using dark magic regularly...

For now, the best explanation I heard from (my) DM and I still remember it:-

Dark magic is not dark, its misunderstood. It was used by ancient people. Their constitution was different than us (trolls and giants were ruling before humans came on ship from a portal). So when they used magic, they healed themselves up getting rid of all the bad energy. They developed it to a very advanced level. Compared to their magic, your light magic by is at its infancy.

However, at the same time, human constitution cannot hold it properly. So every-time I use it, I get damaged (like smoking etc. does to our health). So I have to use little of it and make sure I rest properly to recover.

I abhor calling it "Dark magic". I call it "Ancient magic" and I am myself only a historian and not a wizard.

So with one excellent stroke, he converted dark magic from evil to "Ancient and powerful" magic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are your thoughts? Do you like such U-turns? Would you accept such stupid U-turns if you feel the person used the lore very cleverly?


EDIT:
And by bad explanation I meant "love caused it" "human emotion" "will power" overcame it - because if it was so easy, why someone else before you for so many years wasn't able to make a will save ...

ruinedmirage

I believe elemental magic is impartial. It's like asking if Fire is good or evil? It depends on the user. In my game, I created two more elemental specialities: Life (which includes the moments of birth and death, those instances of creation and destruction are "arcane" in theory), and Shadow (magics manipulating the darkness without the aid of light, harder to explain).

Life and Shadow seem like natural "good vs evil" magics, but they both have curative and damaging capabilities. I dunno, to me, it's like questioning whether this cup of green tea is malicious in trying to burn my mouth, or is it friendly by tasting good?

iamtruthseeker

Forbidden magic is forbidden for a reason, not necessarily evil, but things we were not meant to know. Think Cthulhu.

catburger003

Think Horcrux.

gillrmn

ruinedmirage wrote: »

I believe elemental magic is impartial. ...

Well in our homebrew campaign we had very simple rules (because writing a ruleset is such a pain) but elemental was completely different from other two. Only those who were not able to use elemental were able to use light or dark.

We had a set of fives. Light magic had 5 shapes. Dark magic had 5 forms. Elemental magic was divided into 5 types, each with 5 spells.

Elemental was actually ancestral. If you are an elemental user(like fire) your spirit will die and go into fire becoming part of the great fireball(sun) and from then on you will help all other fire users like you were once. Elemental magic was from outside the body so it didn't matter if you overused it, but some things were able to negate a certain element.

But using dark magic shortened your lifespan which made us think it was Evil - that and there was a chance of mental imbalance if you ever overused it. Overusing light magic induced sleep, if you still kept using it, you could die with exhaustion. Light magic was good - because it helped you stop by inducing sleep, while dark magic made you numb while damaging your body.

holocat

I have always seen dark magic as more a allegory for the darker side of human nature when faced with easy, or fast 'power' so I generally don't consider 'dark' magic to be inherently evil in most cases, even necromancy. Try this analogy:

Think about a gun. It is designed to kill other people from its inception; whether or not one might consider a gun (the object) evil, it is certainly 'dark;' The situations where a gun is pointed at someone and the victim thinks they're saved or cured or healed tend to be rather grim circumstance.

Now think about the old cliche of the serial murderer, shooting who knows how many people for reasons we don't really like to think about overmuch. Does the gun 'corrupt' him or control his mind? Not in a sense that it made the antagonist do it. But perhaps in a sense that it offered easy power, that it 'promised' him that it could deal with whatever enemies, real or imagined, in a far more efficient and capable manner. To allow him control over their world they did not have before. Add to this a character with a seed of dark nature, a hunger for either control, revenge, or glory, and that classic literary moral slide begins.

To be clear here, I am not arguing against the idea of black magic being inherently evil, corruptive or otherwise. I am merely posting a different perspective on how to view it in roleplay and other literary devices.

So to summarize, whether the tool be money or mind control, necromancy, a 'dark, sinister' weapon of power, or magic black bolts of lingering pain, the magic may do nothing to railroad him to evil. No dark whispers, no loss of bodily control. It may only be the wielder, once confronted with easy power, and a battle between a person's conscience and darker desires.

Is it a loss if they give in to those desires, and throw aside the human artifice of conscience? That is up to the dear reader.

adozu

to be honest i've seen this kind of explanation for potentially nonevil dark magic in other videogames and the likes,it's not the newest thing.

it's all up to what flavour you want to give it in your setting...

for example, what if so called dark magic is tied to spirits that are evil themselves? handling it would eventually corrupt the user because the spirits invoked are dark themselves. or it could be that dark magic is just the expression of the negative human emotions and is born from feelings of anger, jealousy and hate (in a setting where magic is more than just knowledge) and as such it won't corrupt you: you can only use it if you're already corrupting yourself.

...it's magic

trickshaw

catburger003 wrote: »

Think Horcrux.

I hate you so much...

As for the topic,

Bards Tale handled "dark magic" similarly to what others are saying. Naitachal, Bard's Tale's version of Drizzt only WAY cooler, was a "drow" necromancer who forsook his heritage to follow the path of the Bard. Necromancy was "dark magic" and that's what drow practiced. It was considered "dark magic" because it would inherently corrupt it's practitioners eventually. It was inevitable.

Conversely in Dragonlance "dark magic" or "black magic" isn't necessarily evil but is used more commonly amongst evil mages simply because they have effects which people consider morally evil. Such as removing free will (enthralling/charming) or raising the dead.

Edit:

BTW, if you're interested in reading more about Naitachal the Drow necromancer turned bard look up Castle of Deception by Mercedes Lackey. AMAZING series. Highly under read by and large amongst roleplayers.