Some folks need to learn how to use the phrase “this is my UPG,” and stop speaking with the implication that their personal experience is objective fact. It would make discussions like this much easier and much more useful.
A good place to look to determine the difference between a Hex and a Curse is etymology.
The word “hex” was first recorded being used in 1830 American English, by Pennsylvania Dutch / German practitioners of Traditional Witchcraft (the lore and praxis of which is well worth studying, they had their own rune spells and grimoire systems and all kinds of neat stuff). It effectively means “to practice witchcraft,” and has been used to refer to being a witch or sorcerer in general. The noun use of Hex was recorded in 1909, and means “magic spell.”
In other words, a Hex is
any magic spell, regardless of intent or outcome, and also refers to the caster themselves. The secondary of Hex comes simply from the fact that most people in the 19th and 20th centuries viewed all forms of spell casting and witchcraft as inherently malicious and evil, so to everyone outside the Pennsylvania Dutch lineages of witchcraft hexes were always bad, and to the witches themselves it was just their word for “spell.”
Sources:
Curse, by comparison, is a more mysterious but concrete word that comes from the late Old English word Curs, and refers quite specifically to a “prayer” that evil or harm befall someone.
Sources:
So.
A hex is any type of spell cast upon someone by a witch or sorcerer, and a curse is more specifically a spell that is cast with clear intent to harm the target.
As for me, and my own praxis and UPG regarding the general topic, I’ve learned to stop thinking in small patterns of spellcraft like this and to start thinking in broader patterns of Magical Warfare. This way, it is not the individual spell that matters, but the strategy and tactics of conflict in general -
how the spellcraft is used - that actually matters.
For example, one of the principles in The Art of War by Sun Tzu is to use the terrain to your advantage.
A malefic spell from Norse Tradition that applies this principle perfectly is the Nidstang Curse. The Nidstang is a curse that is not merely aimed at a specific person, but rather, it curses the land the person lives upon and riles up all of the local spirits who reside there. After being informed that the target of your ill intent is the reason you have cursed the land, the local spirits will do everything in their power to make the targets life a living hell, until they have no choice but to flee to a distant land or perish. Egil used this curse in Egil’s Saga, chapter 60, and there’s all kinds of odd and occasionally interesting discourse about it among academics and practitioners alike.
Another common, general type of magic is to influence a persons mind and emotions. Perhaps the most popular form this assault comes in is the common love spells that abound, which usually amount to little more than a magical method of rape. Things like the hotfoot spells that are meant to rile someone up and make them restless are also part of this. The honey jar spell as well. Quite a bit of spellcraft can fit neatly in the broader category of “influencing the targets mental and emotional state.”
And then there are things like Bindings, Uncrossing, Reversal, and more depending on the exact nature of a particular conflict or situation.
I care more about the type of action than individual tactic used to execute it. I can always craft a spell for a specific occasion, after all.
Most importantly to me and my praxis:
Whether or not a spell is malefic does not depend on the spell itself, but rather the intent of the user.
That’s a very “guns don’t kill people” statement, but it’s also the truth as I have experienced it quite consistently.
Binding someone from getting a promotion you are competing with is a malicious action, it’s not inherently more noble just because you’re not being more vicious with your curse. Refusing to “curse” someone, but rather bless everyone around them, is a malicious action because your end goal is still to see them suffer while everyone else prospers. Uncrossing someone because you’re angry at them is a malicious action. Doesn’t matter if they get on a better track and live a better life afterwards, if your goal is to watch their world burn down around them in the mean time.
Likewise, it is possible to use some rather ruthless spellcraft honorably and beneficially, such as in cases of neutralizing threats that have come upon you or your loved ones, or ruthlessly destroying a person or a system that is causing harm to your community. To be kind to your enemies is to be cruel to your loved ones.
The notion of inherently good or inherently malicious magic is a very….
human notion. And a relatively recent one at that.
Your ethics, your character, and your honor are determined by your thoughts, your words, and your actions.
Nature doesn’t care if you think you’re the good guy, nor does it care for our habit of categorizing things in all the ways we do.