Ring of Sustenance and Growing Up

[Gez]

Here's the problem with the "Leave it with someone" solution:

Scrying and Divination by the Bad Guys(tm).

Sure, you could drop off the baby. And the Evil Guys could swing by and pick him up. Custody switch!

Well, the solution then is two have two babies. Leave them to two different caretakers, like one to a farmer and one to a king. Then when badguys use their divination to know where your kid is, they get "in the hands of farmer and king", don't get what it means, and call their hotline, assuming their crystal ball is bogus.

I mean, that's what happened in Star Wars.

 

[Jack Simth]

There are other options for hiding the kid than the purely mundane - A Permanent Mage's Private Sanctum comes to mind (or several - given enough time and EXP, you could cover a sizeable estate); A Screen (Sor/Wiz 8, Trickery 7) would do the job, but it only lasts 1 day, and can't be made permanent (although you might be able to make a minimally intelligent item that can cast it once per day, and does so every day at the same time with the same illusion on the same criteria so that the place is always covered (24 hour duration)); an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location will help (but only makes scrying unreliable, doesn't stop it - good for day trips, but not much else); a permanent Prismatic Sphere/lots of Permanent Prismatic Walls would make a good bedroom for the kid (hard to get past THAT barrier, if you can pull it off).

However, if you are going for a magic item/ring/golem nanny, make it intelligent with:
Resiliant Spehere (Sor/Wiz 4) (Quickened (+4), if feasable): For a quick way to keep the kid safe if trouble pops up (only a relative handful of ways to defeat it). (Good candidate for a Dedicated power - protect young children/babies)
Dimension Door (Sor/Wiz/Travel 4) (Quickened (+4), if feasable): for getting the kid out of trouble when Resiliant Sphere just doesn't cut it. (Good candidate for a Dedicated power - protect young children/babies)
Secure Shelter (Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 4) or Tiny Hut (Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3): So the kid always has shelter available (may skip, as Resiliant Sphere should be able to protect quite well... but it's nice to have on hand so the parent can care for the kid overnight).
Mage Hand (Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0), Unseen Servant (Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1), or Telekinesis (Sor/Wiz 5): Handle mundane chores, like clothing changes, or pushing a baby carriage; also permits the item to move around and find the kid if they get separated somehow.
Create Food and Water (Cleric 3): Make sure that the kid always has something to eat
Prestidigitation (Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0): Mostly for the Cleaning aspect and Flavoring aspects (Created food and water is rather bland) - a dirty diaper qualifies as "soiled", right?
Possibly Floating Disk (Sor/Wiz 1): Instant Baby Carriage over virtually any terrain.
Mending (Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0): Don't want the kids clothes having holes, do you?
Possibly Message (Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0): so the item can talk with the kid, sing quietly to it, et cetera, at will, or call for help from the party, if the intelligence on the item isn't high enough that it can do that kind of thing anyway.
Edit: A few other nifties would be the various Hand spells - Helping Hand (summon the party, Clr 3), Interposing Hand (keeping enemies at bay, Sor/Wiz 5) or Forceful Hand (keeping enemies at bay, Sor/Wiz 7), and Invisibility (Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2, Trickery 2, for keeping the kid out of sight).

That said, however, he does still need a parent - the above just handles the mundane aspects (feeding, changing, protection, et cetera). Kids need someone to run to when they are scared, when they need advice, someone to talk to, et cetera.

 

[The_Universe]

Well, the solution then is two have two babies. Leave them to two different caretakers, like one to a farmer and one to a king. Then when badguys use their divination to know where your kid is, they get "in the hands of farmer and king", don't get what it means, and call their hotline, assuming their crystal ball is bogus.

I mean, that's what happened in Star Wars.

My players are totally on top of that - the baby in question is half of a set of twins.

However, the twin that was supposed to be the "normal" one has already been stolen, so this could all end up not mattering except as an interesting intellectual discussion to them.

But this is certainly fun to read.

 

[Corlon]

I guess this is one of those discussions that crops up every time D&D and science collide.

I think the point of the ring is to allow someone to live and develope completely normally, just without the need to eat or drink.

The pyschological affects can be argued (as we've seen these 3 pages ), but I'd just leave it as a normal baby, just without the need to be fed.

Then again, if the party and DM get enjoymen out of finding ways to protect the baby that's a great thing to put in, if the DM is just arbitrarily putting this in and the player's don't like it, then I'd keep it out.

I'm not sure this makes much sense this late (early I guess), but there's my 2 cents

 

[Chronosome]

*free bump*

Great thread!

 

[ARandomGod]

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

Not unless an adult's would too. I know adventurers who've gone YEARS on the ring. There's been no meantion of the fact that they can't go back.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I left that out because of the DM ruling that the Ring of Sustenance wasn't such a good idea. Though you have a good point there.

P.S. Infants on breast milk very rarely have bowl movements. As infrequent as once every 10 days. So with a wet nurse or gender-bent "dad" if you are willing to mop up or Presdigitation the excess moisture periodically from the BoH or whatever diapers aren't even a nessesity. If you put then on a gruel diet though get ready for the stinkies.

This isn't typical. Breast milk contains a laxative substance that stimulates bowel movements. Usually breast-fed children get into a routine where feeding automatically stimulates elimination. Bottle-fed children are more prone to constipation than breast-fed children, since many of the proteins in cow's milk are more difficult to digest, and tend to gum up the works a bit. Cow's milk also ends up being somewhat more smelly. I can't say for soy formula, because I don't know.

Of course, it's not uncommon for children to go several days without a bowel movement, and it seems to vary more with the child than with the diet. However, breast milk tends to encourage regular, routine bowel movements.

[edit]

If I were an adventurer who had to raise a child, I'd just summon a celestial through lesser planar binding and see what they wanted for a few years of nanny service. They'd get the opportunity to raise a child in accordance with whatever alignment ideals I happened to summon, plus some kind of quest on my part. I get a child raised by an Exalted nursemaid who will do everything in their power to make sure the kid grows up healthy, well-adjusted, and kind.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Once again, this is an analysis directly counter to all current thinking on how children develop. The body is able to process food because of genetic encoding in our DNA. It isn't something that must be "learned".

Ahh, the nature vs. nurture fallacy...

The person is able to do X because genetic encoding in the DNA predisposes that person to be able to learn to do X, and would not be able to learn to do X if the DNA had not provided the instructions that allow the person to learn to do X. The person may be more or less well-equipped to learn to do X than the next person over, and this is a consequence of the genetic bias. However, in the absence of some sort of training, all the natural talent in the world won't prepare anyone to do X.

I can speak because my DNA encodes language faculties, which are completely useless unless I'm exposed to language for the first few years of my life. I have an immune system that is hardwired to respond to my environment by learning response mechanisms to pathogens that are introduced into my body, some of which have never been encountered by any other human being ever.

Nature vs. nurture is a false paradigm, although it makes for lots of convenient padding for the "letters to the editor" page of social science journals.

 

[Storm Raven]

The person is able to do X because genetic encoding in the DNA predisposes that person to be able to learn to do X, and would not be able to learn to do X if the DNA had not provided the instructions that allow the person to learn to do X. The person may be more or less well-equipped to learn to do X than the next person over, and this is a consequence of the genetic bias. However, in the absence of some sort of training, all the natural talent in the world won't prepare anyone to do X.

This would be a wonderful analysis, if digesting food was a learned behaviour or skill. It is not, and you just look silly making this sort of comparison.

 

[The_Universe]

This would be a wonderful analysis, if digesting food was a learned behaviour or skill. It is not, and you just look silly making this sort of comparison.

Which is, of course absolutely true.

People develop digestive problems that are entirely learned, ALL THE TIME. My wife, for instance, can't keep broccoli down under any circumstance if she knows it's broccoli - the taste of it inspires vomiting because of a bad experience she had with it, and has nothing to do with an actual physical aversion.

I feel approximately the same way about asparagus - at least I did for a time.

The fact of the matter is that not all digestive processes occur independent of the mind - few do, really. Digesting food is a learned behavior, at least in part, and you just look silly dismissing this kind of comparison.