Babies

[The_Universe]

Kennon's concern with the ring is that it would prevent the baby from growing - at all. So long as the ring remains on, the child would remain an infant... posted a thread about it to see how other gamers would handle it...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2128202#post2128202

"Sustenence" means "to provide the means to sustain."

The infant needs more than to sustain - it must grow. The infant would simply waste away, since though it would be provided with the means to sustain its existence, it would severely insufficient at providing the means to sustain the child's *growth."

Sorry gang - the OFFICIAL DM RULING is "no" on the ring of sustenence.

Secondarily, a boob through the ring-gate just isn't going to cut it. It might work as a VERY temporary solution, but as you might recall, there are a number of things that could endanger the ring-gates existence (recent confrontation with Mordenkeinen's Disjunction notwithstanding) and thus the food supply. Secondarily, not having any "real" contact with a living mother (or surrogate) is likely to do some serious psychological damage. You need a live, person as anything but a VERY SHORT substitute.

If you have to get two people (a maid and a guardian), so be it - but trying to do this ANY other way will severely endanger the child. There's wiggle room within that, of course - which people? But there's too much room for failure (and none of the capability for replacement) with the other ideas.

 

[Laurel]

This is only dealing with the mother attachment issue

Secondarily, not having any "real" contact with a living mother (or surrogate) is likely to do some serious psychological damage. You need a live, person as anything but a VERY SHORT substitute.

The child has six individuals acting as a family- one the actual father figure and another as a step mother figure the rest as aunts and uncles. By what you said above it means a child can not exsist in a single home environment.

the child would get it's milk for a detached thing, but it would still be recieveing lots of love and care and affection from others.

If what you posted above is true this also means L'Aurel has some serious issues.

 

[The_Universe]

The child has six individuals acting as a family- one the actual father figure and another as a step mother figure the rest as aunts and uncles. By what you said above it means a child can not exsist in a single home environment.

the child would get it's milk for a detached thing, but it would still be recieveing lots of love and care and affection from others.

If what you posted above is true this also means L'Aurel has some serious issues.

L'Aurel had a mother as an infant - she died later.

The act of nursing is an actual necessity - even chinese orphanages bring in nursemaids for this very reason.

Modern single-father homes are a far cry from a battlefield baby.

As an older child, NONE of this will be necessary - I'm talking about infancy, alone. That will be the largest challenge. After that, things are much easier.

 

[Xath]

"Sustenence" means "to provide the means to sustain."

The infant needs more than to sustain - it must grow. The infant would simply waste away, since though it would be provided with the means to sustain its existence, it would severely insufficient at providing the means to sustain the child's *growth."

Sorry gang - the OFFICIAL DM RULING is "no" on the ring of sustenence.

While I don't agree with the principle, I accept your ruling.

Secondarily, a boob through the ring-gate just isn't going to cut it. It might work as a VERY temporary solution, but as you might recall, there are a number of things that could endanger the ring-gates existence (recent confrontation with Mordenkeinen's Disjunction notwithstanding) and thus the food supply. Secondarily, not having any "real" contact with a living mother (or surrogate) is likely to do some serious psychological damage. You need a live, person as anything but a VERY SHORT substitute.

This, however, I don't agree with. I think there are more dangers to a live nursemaid than there are with a ringgate. Any damage spell can take out a person, but the number of things to cripple a magical item are limited. Also, it's not as though people would begin specifically targeting the Ring Gate to get rid of the child's food supply. A nursemaid, on the otherhand, will only be seen as an ally, and thus will be targeted by our enemies.

Also, the nursemaid isn't meant to be the mother substitute. That's what the "mom" figure is for. Xath isn't the baby's real mother, but she'll be willing to take up the role. It's not as though the ring gate idea is to plop the baby on the ground and hand it the gate to feed itself on its own accord. Think of it, instead, as a bottle. The mother/father can still hold the baby and use the ring gate to feed the child. Just like any normal bottle-fed baby. It's a way to feed the child while still giving it parental affection. Bottle-fed babies do not have psychological trauma because they're bottle-fed as far as I know. The ringgate boob is a magical version of formula baby.

If you have to get two people (a maid and a guardian), so be it - but trying to do this ANY other way will severely endanger the child.

Why?

There's wiggle room within that, of course - which people? But there's too much room for failure (and none of the capability for replacement) with the other ideas

Ring gates are replacable. More replacable than people, I would say. I realize we have more people than ring gates but that doesn't mean we should undervalue the importance of human life for the sake of quantity. We could even order a new set of ring gates to be kept in Hyrwl in case we ever need them. I'd rather do that than risk more lives.

 

[Archon]

She has a point, the ring gate is A LOT harder to kill then some softy nursemaid type. and even if we get a guardian to go with the nursemaid it's just one more life in danger that doesn't need to be. Plus "The Boob Through the Ring Gate" plan lets Xath bond with the child as a mother if she holds the ring and the baby.
See, this lets us travel as the Circle without having to worry about weaker NPCs (besides the kid).

 

[Xath]

It's not as though without a nursemaid the child will be wanting for mother figures.

 

[The_Universe]

It's not as though without a nursemaid the child will be wanting for mother figures.

I don't have time to answer this right now in any detail, but the reason is basically that the psychological development of newborn infants DEPENDS on the act of nursing, albeit for only a relatively short while.

After that point, things can become much easier on that front - but I'm telling you that there are simpler solutions than the ones you're trying to create. A nursemaid is the SIMPLEST option, and though that nursemaid might die, there has to be a point at which you judge the life of a child *more important* than the life of someone else. If Jenny the peasant mom dies to defend the life of the secret princess Arendorr, you'll make sure her child is cared for (or maybe she already lost it) but you can't imagine that the sacrifice wasn't (or wouldn't have been) worth it.

This child is the last hope if the current line is corrupted - a HUGE burden will be placed on her shoulders from a very young age. Turning to magical maintenance of the child is not the best way to do make sure she's ready for that kind of burden.

There are already THOUSANDS fighting and dying on nothing more than a word or two from you - and this child's life is arguably more important than the whole war.

LASTLY, take it as a DM hint, using a boobie-gate is not a good idea. There are a uncountable ways that the cruel universe could turn that against you, and the child.

 

[Laurel]

L'Aurel had a mother as an infant - she died later.

The act of nursing is an actual necessity - even chinese orphanages bring in nursemaids for this very reason.

Modern single-father homes are a far cry from a battlefield baby.

As an older child, NONE of this will be necessary - I'm talking about infancy, alone. That will be the largest challenge. After that, things are much easier.

The ring gate provides the nurse and the mother figure Xath holds the child or we pass it through whatever.

The child would get the food and still be held during the process, and at all other times it has a mother figure it has someone singing to it, cooing at it, changing it's diapers, cleaning it's clothes, and all those other facets of baby life.

The fact that the mother figure -Xath- is not the one supplying the food should have no physcological repercussions.

I doubt all those nursemaids in China loved all those babies.

And I conceed after reading it that Xath makes a much better laid out argument for this (Drat her!)

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

After that point, things can become much easier on that front - but I'm telling you that there are simpler solutions than the ones you're trying to create.

Not meant to offend, I'm making a very serious effort to understand why we are bringing this child with us...

Even simpler than that? Having the child raised in some secret location by Preston, Dorn, or Tara until Archonus can concentrate a little more fully on the raising of his child. If you look to the Ring of Sus. thread, it's said time and time again that having the child with us is not the best of plans anyway - regardless of the magical or non-magical ability to provide food and psychological development... and, since the beginning of the entire baby thing, this has been my opinion.

I think that having the child with us is going to cause some major IC and OOC issues that we haven't even begun to discuss - having this child with us is going to change the way the game is played (from sneaking to planning to sleeping - everything is going to be different).

We all want the baby to stay safe and alive, I just feel there are too many barriers to bringing the baby with us that could be very easily avoided by keeping the child protected by a noble and trustworthy individual or group of individuals.

So, if you have the time Mik, please convince me otherwise.

 

[Archon]

Not meant to offend, I'm making a very serious effort to understand why we are bringing this child with us...

Even simpler than that? Having the child raised in some secret location by Preston, Dorn, or Tara until Archonus can concentrate a little more fully on the raising of his child. If you look to the Ring of Sus. thread, it's said time and time again that having the child with us is not the best of plans anyway - regardless of the magical or non-magical ability to provide food and psychological development... and, since the beginning of the entire baby thing, this has been my opinion.

I think that having the child with us is going to cause some major IC and OOC issues that we haven't even begun to discuss - having this child with us is going to change the way the game is played (from sneaking to planning to sleeping - everything is going to be different).

We all want the baby to stay safe and alive, I just feel there are too many barriers to bringing the baby with us that could be very easily avoided by keeping the child protected by a noble and trustworthy individual or group of individuals.

So, if you have the time Mik, please convince me otherwise.

you've said it before Liz, the safest place in the world is at the center of the Circle of the Phoenix . We keep the artifacts close to us for this reason and we will keep Archon's child even closer for the same reason. There will be obstacles but we'll get around them. Ultimately it's Archon's choice to bring the child. He is more then willing to listen to the suggestions of his friends though and will take their opinions into consideration.