It says Wyrd now, even with Taint, and its being worked on according to Viravain to reflect which environment is actually there.

Hmm... I don't really see them as the same thing. The word taint in that case is an OOC descriptor to give the person a sense of what is going on. Your character doesn't actually see the word taint inscribed over something, they just have a sense that it's tainted. I actually felt that arguing "It SAYS tainted! Hah!" was somewhat OOC, because there was no "say," just a sense that the character could feel that might make it tainted (and other characters could not feel / denied).

Whereas this is sensing actual rebellion, repression, and a desire to return to its natural state... something which can't really be mistaken (though I suppose you could try to read the impression differently if you wanted to).

You'll note when Xenthos is arguing his reaction to this ICly, he doesn't copy/paste the wording. He simply relays the impressions he is FEELING when performing the act (which makes it very difficult to explain, but he manages).

You do realize it says that everywhere, right? So, Celest rebells against being flooded, and the hills of the Serenwilde rebell about being forested. We have no IC reason to think the terrain is really rebelling violently against it except when magic is applied to make the land rebell.

Of course it does! But why would Celest care if the land rebels against their floods, or why would Magnagorans care if the land rebels against their taint? That's the entire point of elemental magic-- it's not natural.

Further:
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 forest, and so you let its true nature reveal itself as that of sylvan forest.

This is nothing about MAKING the land rebel, simply sending your senses into the ground, and feeling what is already there, and THEN helping it break free.

Thank you for making that reference. We're talking about OOC descriptors, and Xenthos is using one small reference as a guide to try and convince Hartstone novices they are wrong and are harming nature, so it's the exact same thing in my mind. Also, stay away from our novices we don't bug yours! Trying to change the opinions of newbies is very wrong, and is the reason guides don't let that sort of thing onto the Newbie channel.

How many novices do you have that actually forest in Faethorn, by the way?

I can answer that for you. Zero.

Further, he is not using an OOC descriptor when he discusses it with the Hartstone who do it. Copy/pasting what the text is WOULD be an OOC descriptor. Describing what is felt when he does it is *not* OOC, but is in fact very IC.

Stay away from our youngins anyway.

Edit:Actually, take them. If they're stupid enough to listen to someone who raids us I don't want them in the wilde.

So by that logic, Hartstone are free to continue going by the old message of the "taint" seeping out when they forested over Blacktalon wyrdrenness, but add a warning message when talking to anyone about it that the taint of the wyrd seems to be spreading insidiously and must be fought against more vigorously because the recent perception changed for no reason. Same as we might as well keep saying the same about spiritbonding with Night, since that message was changed away from feeling her "tainted presence." Neither change was done at the time of the Event that changed Glomdoring from "tainted forest" to "wyrdren forest."

And if we might as well not bother with things changed to keep up the (apparently) desired ambiguity, they might as well not have been changed in the first place.

Actually, it would be more like if the old message remained the same, but with an OOC note attached to it each time that said, "Well, you can't use this ICly. So this would be a good time for you to think about what exactly you're seeing. How would you describe it without the word taint?"

If you use the word darkness to describe it ICly... "So? Of course the darkness is draining out, you just removed the Wyrd."
Illness? "You believe that it was sick, when it was actually strong. Your trees may look healthy, but in fact they are quite frail."
What, exactly? You can't explain the word taint in that context ICly in a way that can't be debated, the only reason for saying it was tainted was because "the word says so!"

Whereas in this case, I can quite easily describe how I feel the land rebelling, how I feel it wishing to be free. I do not change it, I do not restore it, I simply help the rebellion succeed.

And, heck, ICly you've argued that the Wyrd and Night are still tainted after the change. I expect that you will keep doing so.

And we have to argue that we feel the land embracing the touch of the Nature Spirits, healing and becoming healthier. Only there is a game message that says we're wrong, that somehow everyone has gained druidic powers and can 'feel the earth' NOT wanting to be healthier.

We don't even need that big of a change...

You close your eyes and let your etheric senses extend outside yourself into the world around you. You decide the environment here should not be forest, and so you allow the dormant underlying reality to express itself as that of sylvan forest.

Edit: I'm sure if the admin had thought this envoy suggestion would be used as IC justification for a point of view, they would not have written it as it is.

Then they obviously don't pay enough attention to the game that they Admin over

No, the reason for saying it's still tainted is Tsuki's view, as follows.

--------------------
Tsuki's view:
A + B = C

That means that C contains A.

A = taint
B = efforts of Elder Goddesses on taint
C = wyrd
--------------------

Which, granted, I'm not terribly fond of math, but that's made better sense to me than the following:

--------------------
Glom's view (as I've heard it):

D + A = AD (statement 1: original tainting of Gloriana into Glomdoring)
AD - A = D (statement 2: Viravain +Isune event that brought about the Wyrd)

A = taint
AD = tainted forest
D = forest (statement 1)
D = wyrd, which is similar to but not the same as forest (statement 2)
--------------------

Of course Tsuki's argued that ICly. But I was also the one, or one of the ones, who noticed that the spiritbond Night message hadn't been changed after the event and made an IDEA about it to help the ambiguity y'all wanted.

So, according to Tsuki:

Wood + Effort = Broom therefore everything made out of wood must be a broom?

Even that simple math made my nose bleed. I math!



No, in her analogy that would be stated as "Broom contains Wood" (A+B=C thus C contains A)
oh wow! I made math!

Yeah, and now part of my brain is running around trying to remember 11th grade chemistry (ack, that was 9-10 years ago?! ) and how to write equations with processes. And wishing I could designate one of the D's as D prime but I don't think I can have superscript on here.

Edit: So Tsuki's view isn't perfect, but it's closer than having water and sugar, mixing them together for sugarwater, then letting it settle and straining out the sugar ... but instead of water you have coffee! Magic!

Can't you just use D' as D prime?

Details ...

S'all magic. Glomies can think/say what they want, and Tsuki can think/say what she wants. That was the point of the change for more ambiguity.

Ambiguity for all!

You know who wrote this, right? If it wasn't Estarra or Roark, it was some part-time coder who needed to throw in some text to make it sound right. I doubt that the composition of the text was so carefully thought out to be the basis of this argument.

If the one who wrote that were reading this, I'm sure they're laughing their off.

Some slightly easier math for you that will make more sense to the mathematically challenged:

F (+T) (-T + W) == F + W. These letters should be pretty self-explanatory.

However, it's quite apparent that the Taint at least was more of a surface phenomenon. Under Kethuru's grasp, it was an amazingly strong "acid" layered over the forest, causing death, pain, destruction, mutation, and insanity. Without Kethuru, it became a much-diluted form of acid layered over the forest. It scarred and hurt the wood, but it was not strong enough to kill them. In fact, in some locations the trees grew strong enough to even thrive under the adverse conditions. The creatures also changed in this manner. Did they look pretty? Not really, but they didn't need to look pretty. That wasn't what made them strong.

Then came Viravain and Isune. They spent over a month exclusively devoted to modifying and changing one thing- the Wyrdling. It was to become their tool, and it needed to be just right. When they were finished, the Wyrdling *sucked off* all the Taint from the forest... which further emphasizes that it was a surface phenomenon. The trees were not restored to health from this act... obviously not, they had spent centuries underneath the corrosive agent, and its simple removal would not be immediately obvious in the disposition of the plantlife. Things do not change THAT quickly in nature.

Finally, the Wyrdling vomited out some substance known as the Wyrd, and this is where the true question lies. Is the Wyrd taint? Is it modified taint? Is it something completely different? It should be pretty obvious to everybody that Wyrd != Taint. It does not kill herbs, it has many other identifiable differences. This leaves us with, "Is it modified taint, or is it something completely different?" It's possible that it's something completely different, but for the sake of this discussion I'll shelve that argument.

What, exactly, is Taint? It's a corrosive substance that is harmful to life. It causes change, mutation. However, it is not immediately deadly any more, and life *can* survive being warped by it... but it will be warped. There is no constant where Taint is concerned. If the corrosive element is removed... what is left? Something, but does it have a name? It's no longer harmful, it no longer has any of the components that we associate with Taint.

Before you immediately begin jumping up and down saying, "That's not possible," you should look into the concept of water purification. This is a very old art, as old as water's existance upon our planet. Long before humanity arrived, water was being filtered through layers of rock and sediment. Why, then, would it be so hard to believe that not one, but TWO Goddesses could perform a similar act upon this tainted substance, filtering out the elements that are harmful? This would, of course, require the belief that Taint is a variety of components instead of one raw material, but that is not far-fetched at all. Things tend to be a combination of elements-- take a look at your own body, for example. Why would a secretion of Kethuru be any different? Just because it came from Kethuru? It quite obviously had some different components to it, as it was stronger with Kethuru present and directing it, but did not completely go dormant when he was bound away.

So, now you have this substance that cannot really be called Taint any more. It exhibits no more of the actual characteristics of Taint. A possible comparison would be if you were to equate contaminated water with Taint. There is a base, the water, but the active (and potentially deadly) parts are the actual contaminants. You don't throw your hands in the air and give up. Instead, you apply an actual lesson from nature itself and filter the contaminants out, giving yourself pure liquid, the base. Now, in the Real World, more things are added to this base in order to make it "better": disinfectants, fluoride, perhaps certain other minerals in order to make an "improved product." Water treated this way is no longer contaminated. In the same way, Taint treated this way is no longer tainted (I've already delved into a short discussion of the attributes of taint above). The Wyrd, like treated water, builds off of this base to create something better for the population.

Now, is this accurate? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's ambiguous. I'm merely demonstrating that it is QUITE possible for there to be different interpretations that make sense instead of "putting your fingers in your ear and crying that one plus one could not POSSIBLY equal two!" Should this short essay change your opinion of the Wyrd? Odds are, no. However, it should at least help certain intelligent individuals realize that there ARE alternatives, though you may not personally put much credence in them.

Wow, just wow. Neat way of looking at it.