Escape Clauses In Spell Work?

[Jabberwocky]

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 I think is completely ineffective.  If you don't want to hurt them, why would you possibly doing a spell about someone when you feel that strongly?  Especially as I suspect most people would find their unconscious desires heavily affect the end result. It's like saying "I don't want to hurt you" before punching someone in the face.

In general, I don't see the point anyway.  I see the work I do as mostly about expressions of will/shifting of probabilities.  And I'd hope my will is strong enough that, if I'm doing a spell to help in a job interview, it not happening by the rest of the candidates getting hit by a car goes without being expressly spelled out.

[DaraD]

If I need an escape clause, I probably haven't thought the act through enough to make it ethical.

 
This.

Granted, on the rare occasion my intent is to cause some level of harm; then an escape clause is not needed anyway.

[Rhyshadow]

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 them at all.  Every spell I do is carefully thought out - and while I might ad-lib the exact wording, the intent and meaning I want is always fore-front in my mind.

IMO: If you have to put an 'escape clause' in your spell, then you haven't planned it properly.

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?

 
Since I don't subscribe to the "Harm None" rule anymore, it's a moot point for me - but if someone cast a bane-spell and put that rejoinder in, then it cancels the effect and you've just wasted time.

[dragonfaerie]

I don't use them at all.  Every spell I do is carefully thought out - and while I might ad-lib the exact wording, the intent and meaning I want is always fore-front in my mind.

 
Yes. Although...

I've never found spellwork to be some sort of complicated, fairy-tale like test I have to work through, where every phrase is fraught with pitfalls and danger. And it's been my experience that people who get caught up in that mental trap are scared to death to use magic for fear that they'll bring catastrophe on their heads(!)

While the Rede isn't a governing phrase for all of Pagandom, if someone's already talking about "Harm none" then I guess they've already decided to use it... and it doesn't say "Harm none". What it says is that if it doesn't cause harm, you're free to do it. If it does? Well, you get to decide whether you're willing to take on any eventual consequences. If not, don't do it.

Karen

[Maps]

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.

 
I've done stuff like this, and from what little spellwork I've tried, it has worked immensely well (and, as I said elsewhere, with such clockwork precision and accuracy that I wound up scaring myself away from doing person-specific workings altogether!).

Though really, if I were coming up with a spell that was supposed to have a very specific outcome like that, I couldn't imagine designing it any other way.