What precisely -is- an abuse of magic? Is it up to personal interpretation? I would assume that Mystrans would believe anything that threatens the Weave to be an abuse, but what about Azuth worshipers? From what I've read, Azuth faithful don't consider the protection of the Weave to be the utmost importance, yet they still act against blatant abuses of magic.

Is it magic used for ill purposes? Like dominating a town, animating the dead? Black Necromancy?

Where's the balance of magical creativity and abuse?

I'm not looking for answers about how a character should be played, if it's up to personal interpretation. Rather, if there are canon answers, or a widely interpreted belief of abuse, I'd love to hear 'em.

In before Shala

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

The word "abuse" in itself is as above, many might say its in the eye of the beholder, but in truth another word should be used to demonstrate behaviors that an individual dose not feel is an abuse. Having said that, if abuse is treatment of a thing or person for a bad purpose i suppose what is considered "bad" by individual people would then lead to different perspectives of abuse.

In a world essentially "dominated" by faith to various gods, each with their own views on many points it is my belief that in forgotten realms abuse of magic or any other sort is mostly perceived thorough the dogma of the faith. Secondly the individuals "characters" experience of various alignment based breaches of what he or she would consider "proper" use or justified use.

A follower of velsharoon such as my main would not see his research pushing beyond the limits of mortality and life to be abuse of nature simply the exploration and necessity of immortality. A Salandran would of course view the use of magic in regard to undead and extending life as an abomination of nature and perhaps an abuse of magic. As forgotten realms is heavily faith and magic based just about everything that can "could" be abused in magic is abused, there is a flip side to every coin, what is abuse to one faith is the key element of faith of another. It the entire point of the different gods and their "balance" i think.

I think mystrans would think using magic for personal gain is abuse, and thus anything that is not necessary to help others or to protect the weave could be considered a abuse. Yet im certain there is always an excuse or reason to "Research". essentially i think in each case of "use" you must look at it from the perspective of different alignment and faith and decide would this person think its abuse. I think the only way to be certain is to assess the relationships between the gods, what they promote and what they despise and take the best guess if the lore is not specific.

More specific examples well, i doubt there is a blow by blow for every faith, perhaps Faiths & Pantheons book would have more information on such. I mean really somone could be brought up thinking magic is an abuse itself >.<

_________________
If i am not about when you are, but you would like to RP with Valkin, chose a time in red (GMT+8) / add character name PM me ICLY/OCC :http://teamup.com/ks662ccbfedda01eb0/

Thanks for the response, Talia (And uh, Autumn, I guess. ). I definitely agree that the faithful of certain gods have entirely different outlooks on what is abuse and what isn't.

I could narrow this down to Azuth faithful and their perspective, but I'm gonna look for other input first.

Edit: Or maybe, even, it would be neat to get an idea of abused magic from a number of deity perspectives.

Mmm, yeeeees. My favorite.

As far as I can remember, Hackums, there isn't a whole lot of explicit, spelled-out definitions of what abuse of magic is or is not from the books. There's mention of it, like "such as such organization of (inter faithful here) seek to prevent the abuse of magic" but then they don't go into detail of what the actually means. When I get out of bed, I'll go re-reading to see if I can find you some specific sources with details.

But the only example I can think of off the top of my head is actually Karsus' Folly. From what I can recall, it's the only time that a spellcaster had to actually be denied because of the magic they had invented and used, because of the harm it caused. There's a lot of argument to be able about that, too, about how Mystra even allowed such a thing to happen, since gods know in advance about things related to their portfolios, but the fact that it did happen (whether or not it was an "inside job"), that it did result in destructive catastrophe, that it did result in the Weave ceasing to function at all for a few moments, and that it was the reason for the consequences of magic itself and the way spellcasters could use and access it, and to what extent, says pretty clearly to me that it was "textbook abuse" of magic. I'm pretty sure most every sane person of any faith would agree with that, even if they would have attempted something similar themselves. The fact that Karsus ultimately failed is evidence enough, though. But obviously, it can't all be so world-shaking.


My interpretation of abuse of magic is generally divided into two aspects: abuse as it relates to society/people, abuse as it relates to the Weave. Then, there's sort of a nebulous, third aspect that is somewhere between them that works on the paradigm of the Weave being the fabric upon which all life is build, because the Weave 'touches' everything in the Prime Material and it is intimately involved with everyone on it, so harm to the things like creatures, souls, plants, ultimately still harms the Weave itself somehow, but this goes way off into philosophies, so for simplicity I'm going to stick to the main two I mentioned.

Magic Abuse (Social Edition): This is where most examples of magic abuse would fall, in my opinion. Abuse is often through a human (demi-human, etc) lens that considers how the magic harms another living creature or its soul. A lot of Necromancy tends finds itself in this category, what with the animating of the dead into undead, or the use of enervating Negative Energy that withers another creature. These things are often considered foul and somehow more damaging and vile than, say, using a fairly horrific in its own right Implosion (Cleric Evocation) spell. Enchantment might also find itself frequently used to commit abuses, as it is a Spell School of temporarily enslaving extra-dimensional creatures and subsuming the will of others to do the caster's bidding, as with summon/calling spells or Dominate Monster. Evocation, of course, is one of the most exclusively destructive Spell Schools, and another high-abuse candidate.

It wouldn't be much of a stretch to see an Azuthan wizard talking to their students and warning them away from using this destructive power wantonly as part of a lecture on using magic with care and responsibility, as is part of the faith's dogma. But what is responsible magic use, anyway, especially to following of Azuthans that are primarily (Lawful) Neutral and thus not necessarily guided by cosmic morality, like a (Lawful) Good wizard would be? Again, the details within this category are somewhat lost to interpretation and personal bias.

A more nebulous consideration may be simply using magic when you don't really have to, and this being a form of abuse because it might contribute to an impairment of society or individual, somehow. How much magic is too much? Where is the line crossed from it being okay to use Amanuensis to copy text more quickly and thus freeing up that time to get more done in your day, to overly relying on magic when mundane methods would suffice, and it thus somehow becoming abuse of magic? Because of laziness of character? Because it "strains" the Weave, maybe?

This last part also has some overlap with the second category.

Magic Abuse (Weave Edition): So if we remove the social morality aspect, why exactly would it even be considered abuse for some Evoker to go out blasting every potent spell they have? If killing people, causing destruction, and generally losing touch with the world around you by having this immense power doesn't constitute abuse because it's rooted in the social category that we're now ignoring, would it still matter? Here's where we get in the "strain" on the Weave, which also is laden with interpretations and not an incredible amount of canon fact.

What would constitute a strain on the Weave, anyway? It could be that casting immense and numerous spells pulls and distorts the Weave as the spellcaster bends it to their will, but then consider how many people there must be on Toril using the Weave at any given moment (in Halruaa or Thay, alone!) and it seems silly that one mage even exhausting all their spells for a day could have much of an impact on the Weave in that way. (Maybe if they were all doing it at the same time?) It could be that the explosive force of these Evocations literally damages the Weave as well as the landscape, forcing Mystra to divert her attention to repairing that particular area and thus, in a way, weakening her in some way.

We already know that Mystra is the Weave itself, so impeding the Weave must also impede Mystra, or impeding Mystra must also impede the Weave. Willfully doing things that might impede/distract/cause unnecessary workload for Mystra could therefore be considered a form of abuse, and a good reason for Mystrans to get frustrated when spellcasters of vastly different faiths are running around with their spells on full-auto.

Damage to the Weave is actually quantifiable, and is a lot more clear-cut than social abuses of magic. While a wound inflicted by a spell is visible and quantifiable, its nature as being abusive isn't as readily simple; the spell was designed, intended, and allowed to become the magical force that inflicted the wound, after all. But in looking for abuses of magic as it relates to only the Weave, things such as Wild Magic Zones and Dead Magic Zones can result from what those same Azuthans would likely refer to as careless and irresponsible or uneducated use of magic. So we can more easily come to a conclusion that anything that causes distortion or mortal-made changes to the Weave is likely a form of abuse; because mortals don't preside over the Weave and the changes that happen to it; Mystra does.

That is likely a fairly agreeable definition of magical abuse as it concerns the Weave, but what actually causes said distortions or damage is still up for interpretation and debate. If every spell tugs on a thread of the Weave, momentarily (or even permanently, who knows except Mystra) changes the shape of it, then it isn't so simple as saying that anything that effects the Weave is abuse. We could change it to saying anything that adversely effects the Weave is abuse, but we're stuck in the same position of trying to figure out what adverse ab/use is. The only things that we could therefore say for absolute certainty are magical abuse of the Weave are things that we already know/have seen/have been examples of that contribute or create Dead Magic Zones. Then we're in back to everything else being at the opinion, discretion and bias of individual characters; one Cleric of Mystra might have a far more rigid view of it than another, based on their experiences or the culture they come from, after all, nevermind any mis/interpretations of divine inspiration they may have had on the subject.

Just a quick blurb before I head off to sleep. Abuse of the Weave is probably best defined as anything that directly affects the structural integrity of the Weave itself. Now, I'm not really aware of anything specific that does that, but here are a few ideas off the top of my head:

Casting too many spells in one area, saturating it too heavily in magic, like 24 seconds into this commercial. The abuse being the tomatoes breaking through the paper towels (yeah, my analogy is awesome).

Karsus's Folly was one, but impossible to try these days I hear.

Mixing components of a spell that cause the spell to react violently like Mentos and Diet Coke.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

A lot of this, and I mean a lot, is up to personal interpretation. As well it should be. Since you are looking for a more Azuthan-oriented view, I'll quote his dogma.



Within the Mystran and Azuthan faiths (wherein there is much overlap and understanding between these two faiths), many particulars are hotly debated. Enchantment and domination magic? Necromancy? Divination to spy on others? What is legit? What is not? Answers to these are going to be as varied as there are practitioners of magic. As far as the specifics go, the gods of magic seem more concerned with overarching use. As with Azuth, using magic responsibly and rationally. Or Mystra, in knowing when not to use magic, for example. Their respective followers may advocate specific uses of magic, debate with their brethren in faith, and even war with opposing paradigms of spell-casters (Mystrans/Azuthans vs. Red Wizards; Mystrans/Azuthans vs. Arcanum, and etc).

As for 'typical' views of magic within these faiths? Traditional Mystran and Azuthan dogma discourages unethical uses of magic, such as charming that cute lass down the street, fire-balling a bunch of children 'cause you can, or practicing dark necromancy. That is the mainstream. Exceptions are likely to exist even within the faiths. Again, it falls to personal interpretation in the end.

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

Yeah, essentially, interpretation is the rule of the day. Even canon information on magically enlightened and advanced Halruaa and their magehounds is basically nonexistent concerning detailed information of what is or is not abuse, and you'd think that of any place/organization/people, they'd be the one to have explicit information.

For example:

"Magehounds are Halruaa's inquisitors. Conceived in the country's earliest days as a means of preventing the kind of tragedy Karsus brought on the Netherese, magehounds are tasked with keeping renegade practitioners in check. They rest the Jordaini for magical ability, track down criminal wizards, and enforce Halruaa's most important laws - those governing the use of magic." [Shining South, pg 29]

It's obvious that Halruaa is therefore very concerned about the appropriate use and potential misuse of magic. But what are these most important laws? Skipping ahead to try and figure out what that even means, we have this under the Law and Order section of Halruaa:

"Perhaps the greatest dangers in living in a society so steeped in magical ability are the threats of escalating magical combat and the effects such battles could have on innocent bystanders. Because Halruaans recognize the danger of the magic they wield, such awesome and deadly displays are few and far between. Nonetheless, magic seems to hang in the air of every village and town, and wizards of every persuasion magically check out anyone who might appear to be a threat. Scrying is common, and divinations of every sort are flung about the streets of Halruaan communities like trinkets at a parade. The result is that, for the most part, Halruaa is a self-policed nation." [Shining South, pg 130]

So we can glean from this that even in Halruaa, which likely knows what it is doing when it comes to magic, doesn't see the frequency of magic use as an issue. They seem more concerned about those social aspects I was going on about, and if anything, are somewhat invasive on the social aspects to prevent abuse to the Weave itself. Reading on...

"When a problem does arise, justice is swift but carefully measured. The Halruaan magehounds, who are tasked with enforcing the laws regarding magic, track down renegade practitioners and bring them to justice. No trial is convened without thorough wizardly research, and no case is ever presented without ponderous magical proof to back it up." [Shining South, pg 130]

It goes on to talk about the judicial process, but no where in the chapter about Halruaa does it ever specify what these very important laws actually are, or what will get a magehound sent after you. There is no explicit answer as to what abuse of magic is, even here. At least we can gather that their focus seems to be more of civil and social concerns than metaphysical. Don't blow up innocent bystanders. Seems simple enough. I'll keep looking.

How about a little exercise in interpretation, while we're at it. Here's present-day Mystra's dogma, which should be very familiar to anyone whose played a character of that faith:

“Love magic for itself. Do not treat it just as a weapon to reshape the world to your will. True wisdom is knowing when not to use magic. Strive to use magic less as your powers develop, for often the threat or promise of its use outstrips its actual performance. Magic is Art, the Gift of the Lady, and those who wield it are privileged in the extreme. Conduct yourself humbly, not proudly, while being mindful of this. Use the Art deftly and efficiently, not carelessly and recklessly. Seek always to learn and create new magic.” [Faiths and Pantheons, pg 50-51]

Cautionary, advising restraint and appreciation. The aspect of creation of new magic is almost an afterthought, after a great deal of warning. It's not difficult to see why, considering this the dogma that followed Karsus' Folly and the horrific near-destruction of all magic that it prompted.


But for fun, here's the dogma of Mystryl, before Karsus made it so we can't have nice things:

Choice, decision, and knowledge were the hallmarks of Mystryl’s faith. Magic was great power, and it brought with it great responsibility. Mystryl’s clergy were given the following charge upon aspiring to the faith:

“Love magic for itself, not just as a ready weapon to reshape the Realms to your will. Play with magic and learn how best to wield it, but remember always that magic is an Art, the Gift of the Lady, and that those who can wield it are privileged in the extreme. Conduct yourself with dignity and with forethought while being mindful of this.

Seek always both to learn new magic and to create new magic, but experimenting to learn to craft something oneself is better than merely buying scrolls or hiring tutors. Exult more in creation than in hurling spells, and ensure that your creations are shared with others and so outlive you. Those serve the Lady best and are most favored in her eyes will serve her beyond death as beings who have become one with magic and live on in it forever.” [Netheril: Empire of Magic, pg 50]

The whole tone of it is more positive, more relaxed, with more focus on actually living up to that whole love of magic bit, with even a suggestion that hey, if you are dignified and mindful with your magic, maybe you'll become part of Mystryl herself at the end of your life - so be good and seek her favor. That's pretty sweet, and not at all overbearing.

Meanwhile Mystra's dogma even looks tense compared to Mystryl's, like the maiden become a mother who couldn't manage to keep her youthful, loving spirit in the process. No longer is half of the dogma dominated by talking about the creation of new magic and the rewards that could follow by faithful adherence. Instead, creating magic has become a foot note, and much of the dogma is the nervous mother telling her children to love magic, but don't really use it either unless you're really careful with it. (In fact, just put that back down, please, it's really fragile. Just go play outside.)



Anyway, speaking strictly dogmatically, using magic when you don't have to could be considered abuse.

Or using magic more powerful than the situation warrants, when a weaker spell would suffice. Or using magic at all, when you could safely see the task done through mundane means, maybe by asking some other folks for help. It doesn't all have to revolve around mortal opinions of the magic, such as "Dark" Necromancy being foul as far as magic itself is concerned. It might be morally foul and vile, but the Weave does not make such distinctions beyond slapping on the spell's [Evil] or [Vile] descriptor. Mystra permits these spells to be created and permits them to work - possibly because she must, because of Overdad Ao, but they are permitted nonetheless. Since becoming the latest incarnation of Mystra, everything has become more wary. Mystra has seen her share of chastising and abuse, and her scars have made her cagey. I think, however, that if "Dark" Necromancy really did any harm to the Weave, she would have found a way to discourage its use in her dogma.

It could be argued that it's already there and that it's implicit in what has been laid down. Does someone ever really need to Trap the Soul of another mortal, for instance? If they just have to die, aren't there other, less powerful ways to do that? Well, what if that soul just really needs to be locked up where it can't be returned to life for a while, to prevent whatever atrocities or perhaps even magical abuse that a hypothetical villain might be causing? Isn't using Trap the Soul therefore a perfectly deft and efficient use of magic?

The implicit doesn't really work for that, so "Dark" Necromancy must not be abusive by its nature, only in the way it might be used, potentially - as with all other Spell Schools. Otherwise, Mystra could have just as easily said something to the effect of, "Seek to restrain yourself from using vile applications of magic" or even "Seek to avoid the use of necromancy for harm".

Mystra does not care what magic is used as long as it does not harm the weave, which is why creating a dead magic zone is bad

My thoughts have already been echoed for the most part. The term "abuse of magic" is a highly subjective in a lot of cases, even if the view is held by large groups or faiths. I would almost go as far as to say the term doesn't truly exist within magic and the Weave itself, so much as it is perceived by arcanists and partially imposed by Mystra.

It's a logic I find in a lot of video games: "If it was really cheating, the game wouldn't let me do it." Magic encompasses all forms of possibility, from hallowing a monastery to rending the soul of a blind orphan. It is perhaps because of this boundlessness, this vastness that mortals who use magic often set up social mores and rules to follow by its use. "Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should." Ultimately, anything involving a substantive "abuse of magic" falls down to Mystra. Most would agree I think that this consists of permanent damage to the Weave, the creation of Wild Magic areas, and using magic to usurp the place of deities(at least her place). Since she's the one that oversees magic, it's only her word that gets people in take-away-your-casting trouble. The rest is just mortals trying to keep order with people who can destroy cities with a spiffy formula or whim of will.

Even then, however, it's interesting that the Weave allows one to do things that would harm it all the same. It's not as if it in itself restricts access to anything, even the things that weaken it. So as far as magic itself is concerned, there's nothing that outright defines an abuse. If it can be done, it can be done. It's simply that Big Sister Mystra watches over it comes in and kicks assess when it gets hurt.

I wouldn't say that Mystra doesn't truly care about harmful magics, so much as she is in no position to impose her own morals onto something that is accessed by all. Mystra was once the NG mortal Midtnight, after all. Now, whether she can't do this because of Ao or that she's simply a deity trying to hold the reigns of the Universe, who knows. I like to think the latter, that even if she wanted to, Possibility is a force even greater than deities.

For a follower of Azuth most of the views have already been said. Magic is a science and a tool to be used, but most of all, respected and utilized wisely. I wouldn't say they are expressly against necromancy, as Azuth is LN and allows LE follows, but certainly the chaotic and haphazard use of it is something they frown upon. They look at wild arcanists like someone juggling chainsaws over a baby's crib: good at it or not, it's just not a safe use of a tool. Ultimately, it's to follow logic wherever possible, because it's that serious of a matter to them.

_________________

Wow, I got nothing to add here. Between Nivo and Letum and DI, everything on my mind about the subject's been stated (and more). I would just underscore the fact that "abuse of magic" should almost always be interpreted through a subjective IC lens rather than an OOC objective one, because in the Forgotten Realms I feel that term is more often thrown about by people with different motivations towards and methods of working magic and more often than not is used as a blanket argument to target certain groups.

Yeah, this was spectacular! Thanks so much, guys. The Halruaan case was one I found to be extremely interesting when I was looking into this case as well.

Well, my big questions were answered, and then some. I could see the term "Abuse of Magic" being used just as freely as the "Will of God" when used as a tool for mortals to influence their own ambitions, which admittedly, opens up further ideas for potential character concepts. I was just curious if there were any actual, set-in-stone references to what abuse actually is (The answer is no!)

Thanks again for the great reads. I'd ask more questions if I had any, but I was able to follow you guys well enough! Including Derk's tomato-metaphor. I may still have some in the future as I piece together this character, but for the time being, consider my questions answered!