Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Wulf- Should we remove the Naruto example? The rules at the top say that if the cost is your own life, it doesn't count, nor is it used directly for the suffering of others...

Seth: I keep fixing these formatting mistakes in your new entries so I will point them out here and point you towards Good Style and Text Formatting Rules.

You only need to use four - to create a dividing line
We don't put gaps between the dividers and the Examples: text nor between the final example and that divider and the gap underneath the index mark-up prevents that glitch where page history keeps showing the mark-ups every single time.

Other than that these are good entries.

Aubri: The only "official" we've seen in Harry Potter who used Unforgivable Curses was a dark wizard who had replaced said official. There seems to be an implication that use of any Black Magic spell requires the caster to desire harm on the target, and thus it's kind of corrosive to the soul.
Canon Rap: Changing the Nasuverse entry, since on a second read, it doesn't fit under the actual definition given at the top, though it definitely matches in spirit. Magecraft will result in pain (usually on both ends) regardless of what you happen to be doing, since just firing up Magic Circuits will mess with the human body, "good" or "evil". And IIRC, it doesn't 'corrupt' you in any way unless you think Evil Feels Good to begin with.

The lines are pretty blurred in general in The 'Verse. I mean, in Fate, the protagonist is slowly frying his body by doing magecraft, and the Big Bad in is gifted at surgery.
Nornagest: From the Harry Potter example:
Subverted in Book 7: the curses are evil when Slytherins cast them and when Gryffindors cast them.
How is this a subversion?