Re: "rules Clarification" Thread

[*Mabus]

* A Child is any being that is the equivalent of a human between ages 0 and age 12. So something like a Dwarf that's 20, or an Elf that's 30 or 40 (I'd like to note here that I am not actually running calculated numbers. Use your judgement.)

Granted these ages are comparatively, between these races, the equivalents, If you put a newborn Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc. who were all born at the exact same moment, and they all grew up to the age of 18, they would all be the same age, and have the same equivalent amount of life experience. Therefore they would all be pretty much the same. The only difference is that some of these races would live longer, gathering more accumulated experience in the long run.

But my point being that there shouldn't be any difference in what age they can partake in whatever indulgence as an elf of age 20 would not really be any different from a human age 20. ...until the human dies of old age and the elf is still in their prime.

[*Mr_Otyugh]

I agree with Mabus, in some parts. I think DnD maturing scales are silly at best in DnD. Dragons are similar, they grow aeons while largest animals in reality take fraction of time to reach maturity. But at the same time, I think it's best to just go by racial ages despite it being ridiculous, to avoid all possibilities of explicit underaged content. Technically in DnD campaigns you shouldn't be underaged at all.

[*Scintilla]

I think it's more taking in the age of maturity in relation to race, rather than direct relation to an age of consent. Different races hit their age of maturity at different times and in different cultures. Races that mature more slowly or live longer, might well see '18' as the equivalent to a toddler.

Now, I'm not an expert on the matter, and admittedly haven't read up on it in any depth, so I'm going to leave clarification on this one up to Slimy as this was his lil' project.

[*Sinlinara]

I don't think it's a big deal, but I also couldn't help but point out the silliness in using comparative ages. At one point I pointed out that it was funny how a significant portion of the adolescent dragon PCs would be restricted in some way despite being a hundred or so years older than their comparatively adult Human companions. And then at the same time, we have characters like Gnolls Royce, Esq. who for all intents and purposes may as well be an adult, but is actually like seven years old.

Personally, the way I read the announcement was: Just use your best judgement and common sense. If common sense says it's a child then don't do these things with it.

[*Whitefly]

Ah yes, the dragon age of consent, an important weapon in the fight against Wyrmlingophiles.

[*MimiFearthegn]

Just use your best judgement and common sense.  If common sense says it's a child then don't do these things with it.

This is basically it. If you don't mean your character to be underage (and no one else takes them as underage), you are probably fine.

[*WhenWizardsWar]

I personally am glad for these clarifications of the rules regarding the potential younger members of sigils population.

Particuarly because of Miranda and her son Edwin, eventually when he is old enough to become very mobile and sentient and starts to develop a sense of independance, i have a list of potential players who i would love to hand him over to them as a potential pc so I myself am bound to reference said rulings in the near or far future.

Great job on clarifying Slimy.