Unearthed Arcana WotC Removes Latest Unearthed Arcana

WotC has removed this week's Unearthed Arcana from its website. Not only has the article's web page itself been removed, the actual PDF has been replaced with last month's "Subclasses, Part 1" PDF (although it's URL still reads... /UA2020-Subclasses02.pdf).

The article included three new subclasses, the bardic College of Creation, the cleric's Love Domain, and the sorcerer's Clockwork Soul.

[NOTE - NSFW language follows].

I don't know if it's linked, but WotC came under criticism on Twitter for its treatment of the Love Domain. The main argument isn't that mind-control magic has no place in the game, but rather that coercive powers should not be described as "love", and that the domain might be poorly named.

People like game designer Emmy Allen commented: "It seems WotC have tried to create a 'Love' domain for clerics in 5e. By some sheer coincidence they seem to have accidentally created a 'roofie' domain instead. Nothing says 'love' like overriding your target's free will to bring them under your power."


That domain was introduced as follows: "Love exists in many forms—compassion, infatuation, friendly affection, and passionate love as a few facets. Whatever form these feelings take, the gods of love deepen the bonds between individuals."

The powers were Eboldening Bond, Impulsive Infatuation ("Overwhelm a creature with a flash of short-lived by intense admiration for you, driving them to rash action in your defense”), Protective Bond, and Enduring Unity.

Whether the criticism was a factor in the article's withdrawal, I don't know. It might be that it just wasn't ready for prime-time yet. It seems the domain itself would be better named a "control" or "charm" domain than a "love" domain, which seems to be the main thrust of the criticism on Twitter.

WotC's Jeremy Crawford commented: "The official version of the Unearthed Arcana article “Subclasses, Part 2” is still ahead of us, later this week or sometime next week. Our team will hold off on answering questions until you’ve seen the real deal!"

 

[Laurefindel]

Well, yeah; but what you're describing is coercion, not love. So call it the Coercion Domain, and it works just fine.

Agreed 100%, but I think their point was that at the time of the myth that inspired this domain; that was considered love; a sentiment outside your control and at the whim of gods

 

[Prakriti]

Even the Genie in Aladdin couldn't make people fall in love.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Agreed 100%, but I think their point was that at the time of the myth that inspired this domain; that was considered love; a sentiment outside your control and at the whim of gods

Which is a point that is apparently not acceptable to some segment of the modern audience. So it is not unreasonable that the producers may want to retract the material while they consider how to handle that.

 

[Laurefindel]

Which is a point that is apparently not acceptable to some segment of the modern audience. So it is not unreasonable that the producers may want to retract the material while they consider how to handle that.

no it is not (acceptable that is), and that’s why IMO it can’t be. As a modern game, D&D cannot ignore modern sensibilities and values, regardless how they have changed over the last centuries.

 

[Undrave]

Hmmm.

So, on the one hand, I can definitely understand why there is a ... desire ... for a love domain. You can't shake a stick at real-world pantheons without running into some sort of Love Deity. And given the prevalence of various Love Deities, there should be a corresponding Love Domain.

And there is a long tradition of various charm spells that continues in 5e. So, yeah, it almost seems like a no-brainer.


But on the other hand ... it makes EXPLICIT what is a usually un-remarked aspect of those various charm/domination/command/compel spells. It's one thing to charm the guard to get into the city, it's another to specifically flag these abilities for their ... well, rape-y and roofie aspects.

I'm not sure that there is an easy answer to this.

I get the backlash, but I also get why it was in the domain from a trope perspective.
How often in literature and other media do we see people seeking "love" potions to get so-and-so to fall in love with them? And the village witch/apothecary obliges. Usually this ends badly for our protagonist and they learn a life lesson. Huzzah. But... maybe this one is ... awkward.

And I agree with @lowkey13, I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this either.

I kinda like that the Love domain isn't squeaky clean, that it could be used by Evil Clerics and Evil Deity of Desire. It's sort of like a two-faced coin. If its called out that the Love Domain includes both selfless 'true love' and selfish desire for control then I don't think it would be out of whack fluff-wise. You could easily just use your Channel Divinity only on your willing allies who would then get to attack with their reaction, or always use it on enemies, all depending on your Alignment.

As Lowkey said, Charms are always creepy... but I think as long as we're aware of it I think we can deal.

 

[Rhianni32]

Oh man, people don't want to be reminded of gross injustices and horribly things while doing something that is supposed to be a distraction from the crappyness of real life, imagine that!

racial profiling non good humanoids, murder, and stealing their treasure is still cool though right?

 

[Undrave]

Calling it "Love" and then making it have a class feature to override free will...yeah, probably not the best thing to have released close to Valentine's Day. If you got a glimpse of it before it went down:

• about 1/2 of the spells take away another person's free will. Don't roofie me and call it love.
• The big one is the Channel Divinity feature that lets you override the free will of another so they'll be willing to kill for you. Anyone see the first season of the Netflix series Jessica Jones? If not, take a watch. That's not love. That's assault.

The rest is about buffing two allies, whether they really love one another or not.

Ultimately, someone screwed up on this one. We've always had compulsion & mind control spells. This isn't about that.

To get a bit more serious and dark, the error is about intermixing the term "love" with infatuation and violence. My real-life job involves working with victims and survivors of sexual violence, and there's a twisted mentality to many abusers that their victims secretly "love" it and want it.

If the designers want to rename it something else, the "emotions" or "passion" domain and suggest we're dealing with manipulating people, or enhancing others by upgrading the force of their emotions, that's one thing. But, I think the damage is probably done.

Maybe the Desire domain?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

racial profiling non good humanoids, murder, and stealing their treasure is still cool though right?

I mean, I try not to do that sort of think in my D&D games so I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I kinda like that the Love domain isn't squeaky clean, that it could be used by Evil Clerics and Evil Deity of Desire. It's sort of like a two-faced coin. If its called out that the Love Domain includes both selfless 'true love' and selfish desire for control then I don't think it would be out of whack fluff-wise. You could easily just use your Channel Divinity only on your willing allies who would then get to attack with their reaction, or always use it on enemies, all depending on your Alignment.

As Lowkey said, Charms are always creepy... but I think as long as we're aware of it I think we can deal.

I think I'd make a Beauty domain for two-sided powers of charm.

 

[RogueJK]

Just to help put this in context, can anyone clarify what 4E's Love Domain entailed? Did it involve charm/mind control too? (I never played 4E.)

What about 3E? Did 3E have a Love domain? (I don't remember, and seem to recall there being at least a more hedonistic Lust/Pleasure domain, but it's been a while.)