Ok, so Blacktalons planted some trees in Faethorn, and we went around, chopped them down and planted our own ones. But are rowans, blackthorns and hemlock tainted? Poisonous, yes, but so are Oleanvir adders, and they aren't tainted.

And if they aren't tainted, does the Serenwilde have a right to cut them down? Tree told us to spread his children - but he also told the Blacktalons too.

You do get tainted trees, the Ravenwoods, but they aren't normal trees (and the Blacktalon would deny that they are tainted anyway). And Tree was happy that both the Mother Moonhart and Master Ravenwood were thriving. In fact, he pretty much told us that Glomdoring is preferable to New Celest.

Hm, maybe I'm wrong, but don't you guys make the same trees too? I think it'd be better for you guys to mulch them so that the healthier, purer forest can grow in their place either way. There's not much problem with cutting them down either though, really. They're not sacred, and you're healing the land they're preventing you from purifying.

Evolution's a part of life, who says the Taint isn't a form of evolution? Survival of the fittest, that's nature and evolution, though the weak do fight back sometimes. Not surprising, since no one likes to be extinct.

Tainted trees are still in essence, trees.

That wasn't intended to respond to my remark right? >_> I can't figure how that's relevant.

Hartstone Trees:
Hornbeam (reference to antlers and moonlight)
Birch
Oak (symbol of strength, steadfastness, like stone)

Glomdoring trees:
Blackthorn (shades of Blacktalon)
Rowan (Rowena, berries enjoyed by crows)
Hemlock (poisonous herb)

The trees still protect the forest, so, I don't think they're tainted. I think they're just plain trees (as the Great Tree Spirit isn't tainted, I don't see how it could give tainted saplings)

Also, in Serenwilde there are numerous blackthorn trees. One room is an entire 'Blackthorn thicket', and other rooms have them mentioned as well.

Edit: Also, the Birch tree is a tree that often represents rebirth and healing. It is one of the first trees to grow on bare soil. It fits the Serenwilde really well, as it symbolizes recovery of nature.

Oak also represents wisdom and illumination, another fitting bit when tied with the messages of the Aspects and such.

I'd guess they are tainted in some sense, just because Blacktalon cannot function in normal forest, only tainted forest. Hence, the trees that sustain their demesne would likely be tainted also.

I don't think all hemlock, rowan (aww), and blackthorn trees would be tainted, but the ones the Blacktalon summon will be.

Rowan happens to be one of my favourite trees, but that being said I sort of take an OOC stand on the trees planted in Faethorn. View them with the slant of they mark your territory, they are like you planting your flagand saying "mine!". So Blacktalon trees = Bad, Hartstone trees = Good

The descriptions of the blackthorn, rowan and hemlock appear normal. I thought taint always manifested itself in some way - disease, mutations, choking fumes, unnatural darkness, churning shadows. I may be wrong. They could look fine, but be full of those nasty tainted locust things.

Can Hartstone druids cast effects when they are in the room? Or is it only Blacktalon?

That would be the indication, I think.

Any druid can effect it with any sort of tree. Just like Blacktalon was able to raise the tree in a pure forest.

Ah... then if they're not associated with Blacktalon demesnes I guess they needn't be tainted. Not sure why they would be summoning healthy trees though - that would somewhat be undoing their own work, would it not?

NO

*healthy trees*

Blacktalon: Ugh, pathetic weak forest.

*infest with taint*

Blacktalon: Much better. Now... what's missing? Ah yes.

*replant healthy trees*

NOPE

Oh... of course. I didn't look at it that way.

Elryn, you know as well as I do that you've been beaten here, best leave it to those who obviously know better.

I am just trying not to start some huge argument over the whole thing. Best to avoid it.

Why post something like "no" with no reasoning behind it though? It makes it look like you can't THINK of reasoning for it, which makes it pretty obvious that what your denial isn't appropriate, which presumably is against the point of the whole "no" in the first place.