Can Someone show me non fluffy spells? No matter how far I keep away from fiction all my ideas are fluffy. It's to the point where I can't cast anything without questioning is fluffiness. Even if its a luck spell.
Go to the spells section, pretty much everything there except for the fantasy spells are non fluffy
Also, the coven spellbooks have less variety of spells and most of them are members only, but they are all non-fluffy(Unless the group is a fluffy group)
Lastly, Any spell is possible, its just fluffy spells are highly improbable and in order to even attempt to cast them the caster would need to highly skilled, ascended maybe.
You say that you can't cast anything without questioning its fluffiness.
Well... How do you answer that question, is quite important to consider. As in, you as an individual to take responsibility for your reasoning, and your actions, and your decisions and your choices.
Avoiding fluff, to me, actually goes a lot deeper and more dynamic than simply, "I'll just stick with the cool kids / the experienced people, and I'll just believe what they tell me to believe." Or getting XYZ ingredients together, go through step one, step two, step three, for a "non-fluffy realistic magic goal."
I mean... Realistic magic? To believe in magic at all would get us called "woo" or "woo-woo" which is the word for "fluff" used by people who don't believe in magic at all.
So, I couldn't just show you a non fluffy spell because it's not the spell itself so much as the one who is casting the spell: Is the caster very connected with their intuition? With the universe? Do they understand reality enough to know that this spell with these tools, with that action, with so-and-so words and at this time... is the best path by which they can make their willpower a reality? That's all it is.
Using odd items or performing rituals that don't seem traditional doesn't exactly mean it's "fluff." When the goal is to shapeshift or transform into something like a vampire, yeah, it's fake. But unorthodox practices or spells that seem nothing like others similar to the practice's goal could still yield similar or stronger results.
The legitimacy of something depends on it's results when performed multiple times by one person and then others achieve similar results when performing the same experiment. If the original creator or another practitioner gets results over and over, but one person who performs it does not, who has the right to call it's legitimacy? What outliers do each of them have that could change the results or hinder them all together?
Tl;dr - It's about attempting something despite how off it seems to similar rituals. Yes, some spells and such are kooky like becoming a werewolf or telekinesis, and can usually be passed off. Every spell starts somewhere, right?
When the goal is to shapeshift or transform into something like a vampire, yeah, it's fake.
I did find a spell from probably a 15th century grimoire to turn someone into a werewolf. It involved hallucinogenic herbs with names that I forgot anyway so I couldn't tell anybody here what those were--especially if those curious to perform this ritual skimmed over the "hallucinogenic" part as in...
...When ancient (or, well, olden-time) people did rituals like that? They were probably hallucinating ! And if I lived at that era and was being chased down by someone tripping on mold that made him think he was a werewolf, I would not argue taxonomy with that person! Taxonomy probably hadn't been invented yet, even.
Still, I think it is pretty cool to consider a ritual like that, if only for its value as a historical curiosity.
