Ring of Sustenance and Growing Up

[Shellman]

So, soon our group will be adventuring with a baby - not just any baby... a newly born infant. To complicate the already complicated situation, the child will be adventuring with its father, no mother to feed it.

This has caused some heated debate about how we are going to keep the baby alive without mother's milk. We have discusses wetnurses along with various other (read: weirder) methods... one of the things is to get the child a Ring (or bracelet or booties) of Sustenance in order to avoid feeding the child at all...

I discussed it with the DM this afternoon and he contends that the Ring of Sustenance would stop the baby from growing up - it would essentially stay an infant so long as it had the Ring on... and, while I don't disagree with him, I'd like to get a feel for what other people think...

How do you think a Ring of Sustenance would impact a growing child - in particular, an infant??

The following comment is no way ment to offend anyone!

That just sounds stupid! If that were the case, then it would be the same for anyone who was wearing the ring. I don't see the sense in thew DM's thinking.

 

[ARandomGod]

Seriously, if the PC are seriously thinking of tagging along with a frail, dependant NPC that is unable to do anything on its own, then they have no reason not to tag along with the mother or at least a nanny.

Pick up a commoner wetnurse with levels of Survivor. An awesome combo for an NPC that can't be killed.

One thing I find funny is that everyone has talked about changing the diaper or what to do with waste - as far as I am concerned, if the baby isn't eating/drinking, then it isn't producing waste.

I thought this very same thing? I mean, where do you think the ring gets the energy to make all the vitamins and minerals and calories the baby needs? Sure, it has to draw some pure magic, but it converts a lot of the waste products too.

 

[ThirdWizard]

One thing I find funny is that everyone has talked about changing the diaper or what to do with waste - as far as I am concerned, if the baby isn't eating/drinking, then it isn't producing waste.

IANAB (biologist)

From my limited understanding of biology, the waste excreted is not necesarily from what you eat and drink. For example, the carbon and oxygen in the CO2 you breath out is not from the air you breath in but from the carbon in carbohydrates (or something along those lines). Likewise, I belive that urine is actually composed partially of the air you breath. I'm sure a biologist could correct me, but its something like that.

 

[DarkJester]

It seems to me, if the ring can provide enough calories/nutrients for a full grown man, troll, ogre, or dragon, it should be able to properly nurish a 8 lb baby.

 

[jerichothebard]

Oh it is.

Don't even start me on what they want to use a ring-gate for.

("Why bring a nursemaid when she could just pop the important bits through the ring-gate?")

That's actually kinda brilliant. Grotesque, yes, but brilliant...

 

[Someone]

hmmm... Wouldn´t the child´s digestive system atrophy because of the lack of use?

 

[The_Universe]

That's actually kinda brilliant. Grotesque, yes, but brilliant...

They're nothing if not...expansive...as to the use of magic items.

hmmm... Wouldn´t the child´s digestive system atrophy because of the lack of use?

In such a hypothetical situation, I'd say that it would. The child would end up with an extraordinarily sensitive digestive track, and lots of food allergies, should he or she ever try to actually eat something later.

It'd be warm, flavorless gruel forever if the kid depended on the ring for too long.

 

[Storm Raven]

In such a hypothetical situation, I'd say that it would. The child would end up with an extraordinarily sensitive digestive track, and lots of food allergies, should he or she ever try to actually eat something later.

That ruling runs counter to current thinking on how food allergies develop. Currently, doctors tell parents to avoid giving certain types of food to young children before a certain age, lest early exposure trigger a food allergy.

 

[The_Universe]

The following comment is no way ment to offend anyone!

That just sounds stupid! If that were the case, then it would be the same for anyone who was wearing the ring. I don't see the sense in thew DM's thinking.

Actually, I said the kid would not develop properly, and would eventually die. Which may be more or less offensive to your point of view, I guess I don't really know.

 

[The_Universe]

That ruling runs counter to current thinking on how food allergies develop. Currently, doctors tell parents to avoid giving certain types of food to young children before a certain age, lest early exposure trigger a food allergy.

Since it's not like the infant is going to be eating tacos, anyway, I think we're actually talking about much the same thing. But, if the body learns to develop homeostasis without eating *anything*, by the time you start introducing food, the body will reject it because many foods contain things that are both harmful and helpful. If it can get by without, why bother?