Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
The_Universe said:The Universe is the DM.
Good to know! Sounds like an entertaining campaign, to say the least!
Ring of Sustenance and Growing Up
- Thread starter Queen_Dopplepopolis
- Start date
Good to know! Sounds like an entertaining campaign, to say the least!
The_Universe
First Post
I don't think the semantics favor one way or the other. As storm raven notes, the primary and secondary definitions go either way.shilsen said:Come on, Patryn - by definition, the universe is both the DM and on the DM's side
As for the original question, going by the description of the ring of sustenance as written the DM is wrong. He just happens to be making a house rule (which is fine) and trying to justify it through some bad semantics (which is unnecessary). Just rule that this is the way the ring works in this game and move on.
Since the designers clearly didn't include this dilemma in the specific item description, I chose the definition that seemed most consistent with what the ring seems to do.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know *how* the ring works (it doesn't say). In my game, it would not work (because of my understanding of the semantics) to keep an infant alive, except as a short-term emergency measure (it can be a bottle, but not a mother), because of my linguistic understanding of what sustenance means (which, of course, may be a primary or secondary definition). Once the baby were to pass out of infancy, it would become a more realistic option (as would simple cow's milk) because the physiological needs of a growing child are less unique (and less severely different from) an adult's, which is who the ring (in my world) is designed to sustain.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, the item description itself doesn't necessarily preclude doing it the other way. I have NO PROBLEM if someone else wants to let a generation of noblewomen produce "ring babies" since the burden of motherhood can be even further removed from them, or to let it be a common method of child rearing (with no adverse consequence) in their world.
And besides, its a fun discussion!
I'm just surprised no one has suggested opening a gate to the pseudo-elemental plane of Breast Milk....
Last edited:
The_Universe
First Post
Oh it is.Patryn of Elvenshae said:
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?")
Queen_Dopplepopolis
First Post
Actually - all but one are of Good alignment (the only one that isn't is Neutral). The ring is not, nor was it ever actually going to be used... however, that being said, the child is going to be very, very interesting...EvilGM said:
"What do your parents do for a living, Sally?"
"Well... lots of people took care of my when I was little because, when I was a baby, really daddy was fighting an epic war against an evil draconid army and a thousands of years old evil entity... so he and his friends took care of me! One of my mommies is a paladin, one is a bard, and one is a druid! One of my daddies is a fighter-type, one is a monk, and another is a sorcerer!"
Queen_Dopplepopolis
First Post
If I had $.05 for every time I've said that, I'd have at least a full dollar.Corsair said:
But, my paladin has finally given in... can't say she supports the decision - in fact, she thinks its outright ridiculous... But when you're the enemy of the most powerful evil force in the multiverse, you have to protect your children and daddy dearest has dubbed this the best way to keep the child safe... so, the group is doing what they can to make the best of a somewhat unusual situation.
Why couldn't he just keep it in his pants?! Then we wouldn't even HAVE this problem!
silentspace said:But I think the DM is brilliant.
I wouldn't go that far.
It is fairly obvious that a Ring of Sustenance is supposed to sustain you regardless of your nutritional needs:
"This ring continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment"
I think the DM made a bad ruling here, but I also think that his player is kind of forcing him down that path by roleplaying poorly.
Only the biggest MORON in the universe would take an infant adventuring unless he WANTS the child to die or unless he has the infant under the care of thousands of retainers (e.g. in the middle of an army large enough to protect it and if he has that, he could easily have a wetnurse). All an enemy ("when you're the enemy of the most powerful evil force in the multiverse") has to do is wait until the infant in out in the open somehow (which has to happen at sometime, if not just to bath the infant). One fireball. Bye bye baby.
If the PC has an Intelligence stat above 6, the player shouldn't be roleplaying THIS badly. IMO.
Course, that often happens in RPG games. Players do the most ridiculous things under the most extreme rationale that they would never dream of doing if they were actually in that situation.
Queen_Dopplepopolis said:If I had $.05 for every time I've said that, I'd have at least a full dollar.
But when you're the enemy of the most powerful evil force in the multiverse, you have to protect your children and daddy dearest has dubbed this the best way to keep the child safe... so, the group is doing what they can to make the best of a somewhat unusual situation.
Why couldn't he just keep it in his pants?! Then we wouldn't even HAVE this problem!
Indeed. I think this is the part where the father is supposed to leave the baby with a trusted ally/rural priest/venerable retired knight/etc to be raised. I mean isn't the "I'm not actually your father, your real father was Sir Bob The Lecherous But Brave Knight" story line a classic in fantasy literature? If he truly cares about the child, he shouldn't be associating with him any more.
And besides, its a great back story for his next character when you start a new campaign set 20 years later.
