Assuming it were possible, what would such an ability really teach you about that plant? It can teach you where it came from and how it evolved, sure. You can not honestly say that you can make an informed statement based solely on that alone concerning what the plant currently is, how it behaves, and what its traits are. Eventru seems to be doing this, however. "Created with water, then you must be water" is not a very scientific or logical conclusion in this case.

Edit: And as to your edit, Shiri, yes... it is misleading in a sense, but that's mostly because I'll admit I don't really know what the wyrd is and how it necessarily does stack up to taint. Is it apples and oranges? Is it green and red apples? Apples and rotten apples? I don't know... what I do know... I think, is that it was OOCly instituted to untaint Glomdoring, so in terms of OOC discussion, I'm confident in assuming it is, in fact, not taint.

I guess I see what you mean. It is a definite hit to your reputation with Celest when their new god doesn't like stuff for less than absolute grounds (because said grounds aren't available.) I think that's different enough from undoing the work of the wyrd to matter though - you still have that plausible deniability even if this one guy isn't buying it.

No, you do not know that it was OOCly instituted to untaint Glomdoring. It was specifically instituted NOT to untaint Glomdoring, but to give them plausible deniability, because the "we're tainted but claiming we're not" angle was a bit ridiculous.

I read it already, and disagree with most of it.
Still don't see why people are being so ungrateful.

The admin spend a lot of time putting together these events so we can enjoy them, and all people do is (excuse my language)b**** and moan about nonsense.

To be fair, Eventru has opined to Zalandrus about the Wyrd, but then followed up with something to the effect of "But I (We) haven't really looked at it closely yet". I'm not sure if this is meant to be an openness to some flexibility in philosophy (because as Eventru is now, basically he doesn't like anybody but Celest), or if it's just RPing a god newly come to the current world.

Eventru is wholely anti-Taint and anti-Soulless. So, regardless of what the Wyrd is now, I feel like it's justified to dislike it on the grounds that it -used- to be Taint/was made from Taint. Anything the Taint has touched profoundly is evil, to Eventru.

That's my take on it, at least. He seems really cool, and definitely a lot more zealous, crusading, and conflict-causing.

I really don't see why anyone in Glom would care what a Celestian god thinks of the forest. Well, I guess I can assuming that person has a more world view rp than Urazial does, but honestly, I know when Urazial was made I saw plenty of tainted rooms in Glom. The whole "Glom's not tainted" schtick was Vira's as far as I can recall, and when I used to teach novices I sort of explained it away as a god seeing things differently than a mortal would if a question was asked in regards to Vira's not seeing the taint. The wyrd is undeniably tainted in its origin, but then again it is still a force, and the only one that has done so to my knowledge, that turned the taint into something that nature could flourish in. I'm not sure if Nocht's said anything about the wyrd one way or another, but I seem to have heard something about him and mud pies, so doubleplus good for him

So long as we're not treating "wyrd is not taint" as some sort of out of character, known lore fact. Because doing that pretty much forces Serenwilde into being ignorant xenophobes, and that's not a very fair RP structure in any way, shape or form.

It's fine if people want to treat it as ambiguous, or take extreme views in-character. I mean, on the one hand, a Celest-centered godess helped make it what it is, on the other, it's teeming with corruption, mutation, and undeath. We could probably get away with it being tainted, though that would tie it to Magnagora for the most part. But taking it as an OOC given that it's not tainted, while we have the "structured" conflict with Serenwilde basically forces everyone in Serenwilde to be playing an ignorant bigot philosophically speaking. And that would just be dumb.

This was already proven to be fact when Serenwilde was buddy-buddy with Magnagora and attacking Glomdoring for being "tainted". As far as I'm aware, such RP was of their choosing.

...all I can say to that is "no."

Although I guess I have to withdraw even as much understanding as I've given if it's ok when it happens to other people.

Ok, during the actual wyrding event, the text (and I believe this in the events post as well), said that the Taint "burned up" and what was left was the wyrd.

To me, this means that while it is clearly no longer taint, as Hajamin used to say, "Washed dirt is still mud" or something like that. Meaning, It isn't taint now, but he saw that it was tainted, and once tainted always tainted.


I even remember Estarra and Roark going on about just because it isn't taint, doesn't mean you can't hate it. and then used weed examples.

Have to disagree with the generalization that Glom's teeming with corruption. The things that are undead and/or are otherwise twisted by the taint that reside in the forest are that way not out of choice, but by standing up to or victims of Kethuru. Stating that they are corrupted because of that is rather like saying a woman raped is made less a woman or suffers corruption due to the the crimes done to her, rather than placing the blame on the rapist. When a Blacktalon wyrds a forest, they vomit up some disgusting locusts to infest the place. True, on a metaphorical level a locust can be viewed as a corrupting force, but literally it is an insect- part of nature. Glomdoring is decayed, twisted and brutal as a result of Kethuru, not on a wish of Gloriana to take a header into corruption. Those that are undead and whatnot are so because they stayed to give Kethuru the middle finger while the centaurs, pixies and other squeamish folk ran to Serenwilde.

Ok, I have to bring in the forum RP here...the wyrd is clearly tainted because it hasn't changed at all from when it was tainted except in colour and the wyrm (which was in a coccoon) has wings. Wyrd is new and distinct from the taint in that it's taint with heretofore unknown food colouring involved.

None of the above is really refutable even if you resort to obscure analogies involving sugar and water (I think it was.) The point is that there isn't really enough information to decide either way. It seems pretty obvious that it's still tainted but that Glomdoring is supposed to have plausible deniability that it isn't (as was the point of the event) but if we can all on an OOC level concede that it is ambiguous it will be much easier and the arguments less stupid.

EDIT: @Urazial, fair enough as far as it goes but when the people there don't bemoan their corruption but revel in it, claim it's better than everyone else and so on it is not as satisfying simply to claim that the fact they didn't start it means they're not corrupted either.

Yes, it was/would be inconsistent to team with mag and make such a claim (assuming it was exactly how you're putting it, I wasn't even playing at the time), but that does not impact whether or not Glomdoring actually is tainted. A hypocratic stance is not inherently a fallacious one in any event, even if it can be an unpleasant one.

Apart from that though, forcing such an RP position is just obnoxious in an out of character way, nor does it show that Glomdoring is not tainted, or that it is invalid to think of it as so. It doesn't show it is tainted either, but I wasn't trying to say that. Just that an OOC position of "Glomdoring is not tainted and any RP that dictates it is means the character is inherently wrong" is a crappy one. Chalk it up to the forced, diametric conflict system that exists here.

Ok here is my point. Regardless of weather or not you believe that it is tainted or not, here is what Eventru said.

I believe that the bolded part is correct, and even if it is not correct that is what he believed.

And yet, it was as Hyrtakos very well explained, this sniffing as if it was blueberry or apple. However, he admits that it is more akin to a chemical change than a blueberry or apple change. And he "doesn't believe it could happen".. meaning it happened, but he denies it. That doesn't jive with "smell".

My understanding of the relationship between taint and wyrd was exactly how Eventru described it in this post, there was a chemical change and a burning up of the taint.

And I'll stop there.

@raindays: I'd suggest reading the event post again.

Well of course it does. If we were to go about in emoriffic fits whining about the state of things, then we'd be forever victims and rightfully decried victims. Instead, we suck it up and go forth. Now I'm not saying corruption is entirely devoid in the forest, as many of the teachings of Night and Crow can clearly point to that, but that's really a different issue than the wyrd as a whole.

I hate semantics arguments, because I choose words because I like how they sound in a sentence, so I'll just end this here by saying that corruption was probably the wrong choice for a word to use, and I'm not going to argue the point.

Mutation is fair, I think though.

"Just that an OOC position of "Glomdoring is not tainted and any RP that dictates it is means the character is inherently wrong" is a crappy one. Chalk it up to the forced, diametric conflict system that exists here.
"

I agree. The argument however needs to remain in the realm of the "philisophical" or the "behavioral" and not be dragged into the "physical reality" argument that something such as scent implies.

It would be like if I said I could smell Merian on anybody from celest. (even the guy who has been spending the last 40 years isolated and away from merians)

Forcing an OOC fact that Glomdoring is not tainted is as bad and unfair as, say, forcing Noola's article on everything (and thus, including Celest) being tainted in some way as OOC fact. (And Noola herself says that it's just an IC book she wrote- I'm not trying to imply that she was saying otherwise, just using it as an example)

I wasn't trying to stir you up Daganev, nor was I really directly adressing your statements regarding Eventru, just a general sort of sense I was getting from the thread that bothered me, more than anyone's particular statements. I know your argument regarding that was different than a "is the wyrd tainted OOCly" thing.

Not so much no, if you take the stance that glomdoring is a tainted forest. Serenwilde can be opposed to a tainted forest but not a tainted city. For example Seren had needs that magnagora could fulfil (way to attack celest, enchantments, etc) so they buddied up to them, glomdoring does not have such a bargaining chip therefore as a "tainted" organisation that also possesses the ability to kill one of their great spirits they present a threat.

These questions can be asked when celest and glomdoring are friendly too. Celest doesn't like magnagora for some reason but they are happy to buddy up with glomdoring which is a result of the taint as well as having play dates with illithoid. The answer is the same really, they needed alchemy because serenwilde wouldn't provide it so there you have it.

It's not OOC if you go into Glom and survey, and see wyrden rooms rather than tainted forest, tainted underground, etc. Clearly, the wyrd is unnatural, but as the wyrd destroyed the taint in Glomdoring (or merely transformed it, mutated it, whatever you're comfortable with) it still without any ambiguity involved whatsoever removed the taint and allowed nature to grow. Herbs grow just fine in wyrden rooms, whereas in tainted rooms or water rooms they do not grow

EDIT: oopsy, made an error