Well, as is readily apparent, the current message for using the trueground skill is very flawed, and gives an incorrect impression of certain demesne environments (namely Hartstone's!).

The message should NOT have anything to do with sensing the spirit/will/health of the land. Particularly in the case of cities, it makes no sense that they have the ability to do what only Druids should really be able to do. Nor should it imply that Nature itself is telling them that the overlayed environment is not what it wants. This completely invalidates Hartstone's purpose and existence, if any character chooses to extrapolate such justification from it. (And some have already done so.)

Instead, I propose the following message. I believe it retains some ambiguity in the reason why the skill is being used (you're not helping the land to throw off an environment imposed against its will ). It also uses more generic environmental awareness/power than druidic/communal insight.



Current message:


Edit: While I plan to submit this concurrently to our envoy, I have extreme doubts that any would be foolish enough to waste a spot on the report that could be used to effect some mechanical improvement or fix that will have an effect on combat. Really, envoys are not designed to handle non-combat issues.

This is silly, Elryn. Our purpose is not to coat the land in forest, and as such, I see absolutely no problem with the current message. We ARE imposing our will upon it, if it's not naturally the terrain we want it to be. If the land has any spirit at all (and it does, the fae prove that), they're not going to love the fact that you just made their ocean into a forest.

Well, there IS one place where Hartstone does have that purpose, and this skill as-is is a somewhat effective weapon against that. That's what he's complaining about.

The only place I can see it being even remotely a problem is in Glomdoring, and that's easily explained. Our ethereal forest isn't natural, in most senses. We're overlaying it on the existing terrain, forcing it to become something it is not. Overlaying our forest on Glomdoring doesn't remove the wyrd, and doesn't heal the forest.

Also, sometimes you have to do something that someone doesn't like, in order to help them. Small children hate foul tasting medicine, but if they need it, you give it to them anyway. The same could be said for the Glomdoring. It's been twisted and corrupted for centuries, as have its spirits. Maybe it has forgotten what it once was, and doesn't care to be changed. We should still do it, for its own good, regardless of whether it wants it or not. The current message fits fine with this interpretation.

Really, I love how it is now. Changing to Elryn's suggestion seems like a cop out, so you can just claim moral superiority without giving it any thought. We don't need easy mode RP.

He just wants the same ambiguity that Glomdoring's moaned about for months until they got, I don't see the problem with it, in this case it doesn't just benefit one org alone (like the multiple glom changes did), it benefits everyone allowing everyone to claim the basin is best as their type of terrain if they wish to.

So, if you trueground in a city, an urban environment, does this happen?

You close your eyes and let your etheric senses reach out to touch the spirit of the ground. You find the environment here rebels against being , and so you let its true nature reveal itself as that of urban.

That really doesn't make sense. Or the "true nature" of an area is a road? Returning a spot to its "true nature" of "constructed underground" perhaps?

The proposed change would make more sense in all circumstances, while remaining ambiguous. There've been other changes made for the purposes of mechanical ambiguity before, another minor tweak to that effect would be fine. Not a "cop out."


I didn't read Elryn's post as a claim the purpose of the Hartstone is to spread forest over the lands, But I did read it as druids, by their skills/training/etc, are the ones who would be most "in touch" with the underlying natural world. Since we want everyone to be able to trueground, it should make sense that they can by how they're doing so.

It IS an unnatural chaning of the environment when you forest, taint, or flood a place. And if the place was wyrden to begin with, imposing a normal forest is unnatural too. I don't see anything wrong with the message.

EDIT: Tsuki is probably right about the urban/road thing though, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We can still do that, we just have to accept that laying our terrain on top of another is not natural and nature doesn't like to be smothered by magical terrain. Changing the message changes nothing of that, it just makes it easier for people to ignore.

Also, his suggested message is horrible. If we are magically restoring the original terrain, it gives the impression that we need to do more than just wipe away the cast terrain, and actually recreate the base type. Regardless of other changes, we should keep, "...and so you let its true nature reveal itself as that of ."

That doesn't solve the urban thing, really

Ah, but is it? Any place currently wyrdren in the "modern era" was once, long ago before the Taint, originally normal forest. So Hartstone, for example, sees it as restoring the wyrdren place to its original state or true nature. Except that the mechancis currently say definitively otherwise, when more ambiguity wouldn't hurt everyone else.

Faethorn, actually.

This is a valid point. However, that -is- the base type. None of the terrain types we cast are completely solid and physical, else you'd have to chop down our forest when we cast it, as you do with saplings. Its real enough for most purposes, but it's still ethereal power shaped into a forest, not an actual forest sprouting there. It's not that hard to wipe it away. It doesn't permanently change the land to something else.

Perhaps change the message to "Reaching out with your etheric power, you wipe away the unnatural terrain, revealing this location to be ."


Why do we need to forest Faethorn, what's wrong with sylvan forest?

The only answer I've managed to get in-game to this question is that "We need the demesne to defend the fae... wait, the fae aren't being harmed? Okay, we need the demesne to defend Serens in Faethorn.

And we'll forest the rest of it, where there will be no demesne, for fun."

As to the real why... I'm sure there's a reason.

Mostly it's oh look, they killed some seren's and are blockading our area. Seren is not glom, we don't sit back and say, "oh well it's be emo hermits and not care"

@ Sylphas: Well, I'd change that a bit to be something like this:

Reaching out with your etheric power you wipe away the outer planar magics in this area, and restore this location to -terrian type-

Actually, we were misinformed that they WERE harming the fae.

Well, now that we are at war with New Celest, that second one is true. The demesnes do help keep Seren safe, though usually not the person holding the demesne .

(Serenwilde): Person A says, "Celestians in Faethorn!"

Person A has been killed in a horribly gruesome fashion by smelly fishies.

(Serenwilde): Person B says, "Crap. Everyone up to Ethereal!"

And thus the battle begins.

Why? It's -not- natural. If we have to go and cast forest there, it's not natural.

Alright, fine, lets change it to this:

Reaching out with your love and know-how because you are the smartest person in the basin, you know in your heart, because you are completely in touch with the world and know what is best for it, that this land is sickened by the foulness that is the (flood/taint/wryd/forest) plaguing this area. You then release this area from it's cruel bonds of servitude to it's unnatural hateful masters and it thanks you, whispering softly that nature loves you most of all.

Yes, that's extreme, but essentially this is what the argument is over, it's stating something it shouldn't be, and Xenthos is arguing that it shouldn't be changed, because his RP right now is to fall back on it and use it as a way to convince others that their RP is wrong.

Make it ambiguous and let the matter be debated properly rather then saying 'look look it says this so I am right!'

That would be an amusing change.

The problems here that people are whining about are that you're communing with nature, which cities shouldn't do, and that it says 'rebels'.

The first is a valid concern, and easily changed. The second is perfectly fine, though it could perhaps be softened. You can't tell me a stand of ash trees likes being flooded, or that the ocean loves to see a grove of trees pop up on top of it. I find it quite obvious that nature would 'rebel' against being forcibly altered, even if it is only a layer of magic being laid on it. Whether that terrain is absolutely wonderful and the best thing in the world, it's not natural.

I'm not sure why people think the current message isn't ambiguous, because it sure as hell looks like it to me. It would be unambigious only if it said that for only part of the terrain types, and not all of them.