Animael

There is no way currently for the druids that have died to be brought back in any way other than through what is basically Ouija summoning unless we like. Pull some avatar state shit. But I doubt that would get passed

@ChuuwysObserver on this situation so do not take my word as janny enforcement or admin ruling on why things are enforced as they are currently. 

First situation, there were no saplings. This situation, there's saplings but they're being left in a chest and not being touched when there's a redline specifically saying how you keep the sapling alive. In both cases lore is being cherry picked and ignored (intentionally or unintentionally). If this were an incident where they were not touched for a few weeks and this was being debated, those affected would have more of a leg to stand on to argue their position because you're correct in that it doesn't give any specific times or expectations of how often these saplings ought be nurtured. But red lines are not flavor text. They clearly state how they are meant to be kept alive even if they give no specifications on how much they needed to be taken care of. And according to ST admin some of these saplings were not touched since map launch. This is improper handling. A mechanic was brought up to me by another player (I haven't verified through my own search of Tree Lord lore to better understand the situation nor do I exactly agree it should be allowed but allegedly is current) was that these sapling items could've been soulbound by players instead of leaving them in a secret chest to have at least minimal interactions with them instead of zero but still did not. At that point, the redline is being ignored and it took an unfortunate narrative like this for ST to realize this redline was not being abided by. This is something that those participating in this lore should have gotten clarified instead of ignoring. For the more erroneous offenders, they've had more than 20 weeks to do anything fulfilling this part of the lore and did not. I understand my opinions on the issue may come off as cold and bot and I don't wish any negativity on those affected by the situation but this situation could've been avoided or been less impactful as it has been had lore been followed on the player end.

@AnimaelThat'd be up to our admin and ET management to fulfill, I can only give my input on the lore side. However I believe a resolution like this would not be very fair to other magic groups or player groups in general that have mass PKed and would set a bad precedent of ST having the power to decide who has the chance to reverse their PK clauses they agreed to and those who can't although I do appreciate the kindness you're exhibiting to those you have minimal to no ties with. Best middle ground I'd come up with if it were desperately needed is a lore injection of Tree Lord after amendments are made that would clear up misconceptions and set 2026 standard expectations on this half a decade old lore write. Currently though I don't know if a lore injection is really needed after this incident yet.

the redline saying how doesn't really say "how" past "druidic energies", there's no specificity on how to take care of it past that so people just apparently carry it, regardless if there's any supposed self-rp with the sapling or not. ive joked about it but this has basically boiled down to saying "yeah i give it a kiss and a gogurt and put it back in the box, job done." which, to me, is stupid. plus, again, we're not really sure just how far past the 30 day mark the saplings were. if the saplings were within the 30 day window when the OOC freeze went up, and then were only over afterwards despite the fact it technically would have been in the same time-frame IRP, shouldn't the saplings still be alive? shouldn't a player have been allowed to go in and logically go get them, which i know for a fact is exactly what taters' character would have ensured?

this was kind of fooldudes argument in a sense, there was an OOC rule that made it so the event concluded an IRL week later, but the event was technically meant to occur IRPly within the same "day", thats the entire justification for why there was a freeze and no new rallies against the raid to begin with. if we couldnt counter rally because it was all in the same day, why should they be punished for the saplings AFTER the freeze went down if they might have legally been alive within the time they were unable to interact?

to add to this, taters seemed pretty sure that the saplings were okay where they were, which implies to me that between an old bad faith event that shouldnt have been allowed, to now a good faith one where the saplings were available but IRPly couldnt be interacted with because of a freeze, then that to me reads less like a failure on the player who didnt know and was never informed but also partially on whatever precedent players have set on a subject thats never properly set into stone. this is a "if you dont know to ask, how are you meant to know" thing imo, and like animael said, should have resulted in a warning rather than a mass PK. if its meant to be soooo obvious, and yet apparently wasnt, then theres a flaw somewhere.