I think technically it never was Raven. But I never saw the transformation from Crow to Raven, only that from Raven to Crow.

That's what the outside world saw, according to a post above in this thread somewhere. Dunno what Glomdoring saw.

Thats what Glomdoring saw

There was no transformation message? There was a huge long transformation sequence of going from Raven to Crow, was quite elaborate and cool.

How do you dress a bird in a bird suit?

Crow is ever the trickster! He has his ways.

No, I was talking solely about how Kethuru appeared this time and why no one would be able to sketch him.

As for Raven, White Hart confirmed some things when I talked to him and it was cool to see Raven untainted. The Glomdoring had songbirds and bluebirds return to the forest and Raven was untainted and Rowena was acting all pre-taint so yeah, wyrd is taint. I'd say the reason there wasn't a more complete untainting by the serpent was because of how the wyrd had been created and monkeyed with so it was more resistant to being destroyed. Of course, that just makes it a more dangerous type of taint.

I don't think one thing about this event confirmed nor denied wyrd as taint, but I find people still wanting the question answered highly amusing.

Let it go! When will you all realize that it's purposely ambiguous and not a question meant to be answered?

For all intents and purposes there is no question about it for me. I tried damn hard to take the viewpoint that Glomdoring was something other then taint, that it was an example of nature thriving in spite of the taint and all kinds of things. I tried to set up a lot of interaction between the communes that I thought would have been fun specifically because of the ambiguity.

Nothing panned out, hostilities broke out in Ethereal again and no players on either side showed much interest in anything else. So nuts to that, the new approach for me is that its all taint and can burn in hell.

Actually she wasn't

She remembered giving birth to the faelings who are the guild teachers.

She wasn't acting at all like she is portrayed in the early histories, she was acting much more like how Viravain was when she first showed up. Yet at the same time, she thought she was the queen of Night.

But she was not acting at all like anything I have seen her portrayed as.


Actually now that I think about it... Everything was acting how the Original Viravain saw the glomdoring after the Kethuru event. It was acting how Kethuru touched Viravain saw Glomdoring.

Oh, come to think of it you're right. I forgot about some stuff. Your explanation seems quite accurate.

..which makes it twice in two days we've agreed with each other. I'm scared.

Personal bitterness does not make your theories right or wrong, but you are certainly welcome to any view that suits you.

The players being unable to do anything other than beat each other up doesn't answer the question either.

I'm not sure why ambiguity is so upsetting to some, but, as I said, I am always amused by declarations of certainty.

You're certainly welcome to the belief that its bitterness. It isn't though. I'm not taking it seriously enough anymore to be that broken up about it. All that happened was I tried an approach I thought would be fun for me, it wasn't and so I made changes that would let me have fun.

So no, not upset in the least.

So they were acting pre-Wyrd and so.. Tainted?

But it makes sense that the Undead were (mostly) effected by this, Undead is a form of the Taint. You couldnt be undead without being a Necromancer (tainted skillset) or by being touched by Kethuru (Surge of Taint). Crow changed from the Taint, so as that aspect was drawn from the Wyrd, he was able to revert back. Makes sense in my mind.

Don't forget that undeadness existed pre-taint as well. During the Vernal wars.

Not in Glomdoring. And not in the games Modern Times.

You guys are all Wyrd.

O RLY?

Forren get back on, we need to do something

Mudsex?