The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

For example, if you really hate someone and want to harm them and you do a spell powered by those emotions is adding "and with harm to none" at the end of the spell going to override your emotional power and intent?

That seems like a cop-out to me. My feeling is that I'm responsible for my actions, magical or otherwise, and that it isn't the spells' job to make sure they don't hurt anyone. I mean, if I swing a baseball bat and it hits someone on the head, that's my fault, not the bat's. If I need an escape clause, I probably haven't thought the act through enough to make it ethical.

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

For example, if you really hate someone and want to harm them and you do a spell powered by those emotions is adding "and with harm to none" at the end of the spell going to override your emotional power and intent?

 
Maybe that's just an extreme example, but I am alarmed at the idea of doing spell work based on hate and harm. I cannot see how any good will come of it.

As for the original question, I do. The reason is because I would never want the exercise of my will to cause suffering for another. To me it would be no different than wanting to sit down on the subway and so bludgeoning somebody to take their seat. It simply is not in my being to do such a thing.

Does it "work" or "mean anything?" These are essentially equivalent statements, in my opinion, for if it means nothing then it has no power. If it means something to the speaker it has absolute power over the working. Words are just words, it is the emotion and intention that matter. Frankly, much can be done without saying a word, the words just focus the mind. But focusing the mind on hate and harm will bring those things to you -- the fire you feed will grow.

For what it's worth.

]Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

 
I don't use escape clauses per se, but I do usually frame things in the "May this work out the best way possible for everyone involved." (Which is not quite the same thing as "harm to none". Sometimes the best way possible is still not a whole lot of fun, because you're choosing from a bunch of lousy choices - or because at least one person in the situation has locked themselves into consequences they really don't like.)

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

 
Rarely - by which I mean, I don't think I ever have, but I don't recall for certain that I haven't, and I wouldn't rule out something like what Jenett describes.

I don't think they're any sort of substitute for actually considering the possible consequences of one's spell, nor do I think they're capable in and of themselves of eliminating negative consequences.  If one doesn't structure one's spell as a whole to minimize unwanted consequences, it doesn't matter how deeply and sincerely and fervently one wants to have no negative consequences.  If, OTOH, one actually does the work of considering consequences and structuring the spell accordingly, the escape clause isn't necessary, but is probably harmless and might help bolster the overall structure/intent.  (Though it also probably won't act as much of a buffer against the consequences one didn't think of.)

I tend to be rather scornful of the concept, though that's mainly focused on as it's commonly applied.  An awful lot of people seem to use it as a way to disown responsibility:  "Well, it's not my fault thus-and-so happened as a result of my spell; I said 'good of all, harm of none'!  That shows I didn't intend harm!"  But people do (non-magical) things all the freakin' time that they don't intend to be harmful but that nevertheless are; lack of intent doesn't make the harm go away.  (And all too often, they too will claim, "But I didn't intend that!" as if it was a get-out-of-consequences-free card:rolleye::.)

There are no Magic Words, because all words are magic.

The ones phrased as the spellcaster's intent (however much I doubt their efficacy if they're not the culmination of careful spell construction) don't annoy me quite as much as the ones phrased to pass the buck to deity.  If you're working in a magico-religious paradigm in which spellwork is all about your intent and energy, it's not the job of your deity to check over every spell you do and cover your sorry arse.  (YMMV with other paradigms, but the original question isn't as relevant to them anyway.)

Sunflower

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

For example, if you really hate someone and want to harm them and you do a spell powered by those emotions is adding "and with harm to none" at the end of the spell going to override your emotional power and intent?

 
I don't think I've ever used that type of clause in spellwork.  I tend to keep the same moral outlook for both magic and mundane, so if it's something I wouldn't do in the regular aspects of my life, it's not something I would do magically.  I think that there are definitely times where there are hard choices to make, and it becomes not a question of what is right or wrong, but what is the least wrong.  And I also think that sometimes people put themselves directly in your way with no intention to move, so it becomes a question of harm to whom instead of harm to none.

I think the words themselves are a two edged sword.  If you believe the words you say give your spells power, then adding them in can definitely effect your results (my personal thoughts are it is the will of the caster that forms the push of the spell...but if your words weaken or alter your will because of your belief in the words, you end up in the same place).  On the other hand, if you always add those words at the end of every spell you say, I think you stop hearing them and they become just sounds and no longer have weight.

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

For example, if you really hate someone and want to harm them and you do a spell powered by those emotions is adding "and with harm to none" at the end of the spell going to override your emotional power and intent?

 
Well, truth be told, I feel like using spells for hate and harm is cheap and about as appealing as use sex to sell fast food burgers. just imo...

Further more, I feel as though those clauses are used to put more aim to spells. If I'm trying to conjure up a storm or some rain, I'm not trying to harm anybody in a potentially deadly storm's path.

Do you  regularly use "escape clauses" in your spellwork, like "with free will  to all, and harm to none" or the like? Why do you use or not use them? Do you think they work? Do they  even mean anything?

For example, if you really hate someone and want to harm them and you do a spell powered by those emotions is adding "and with harm to none" at the end of the spell going to override your emotional power and intent?

 
No. When I am using aggressive magick there are basically two varieties. There is direct attack in which case I intend harm to the target. The key is structuring the spell so as to reduce the possibility of collateral damage.

The second kind of aggressive spell and the one I use the most is what I call a razorwire spell. Those are structured so that the target will only be harmed if they do something in particular or fail to stop doing something in particular. For example if someone is harassing me, then the spell might give them endless nightmares until they stop.

My spells are very carefully designed, and while there is always the potential for blowback and unintended consequences I've seldom experienced any such thing since the very early days when I was just learning.

Personally I don't think much of the "an it harm none" "if it be for the highest good of all" kind of stuff, but everyone has their own comfort levels and their own ideas about what constitutes ethical spell casting.