Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The_Universe" data-source="post: 2128641" data-attributes="member: 8944">I don't think the semantics favor one way or the other. As storm raven notes, the primary and secondary definitions go either way.  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.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification