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!"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

okay but this is a fantasy world, we can have a deity of love that has a more modern idea of what love is. idk why we keep geting hung up on trying to emulate "ye olden days", but are perfectly fine handwaving it at seemingly random times.

Sure. We can also have constitutional democracies, automobiles, and an electric grid. But the PHB and DMG spend a lot more time talking about kingdoms, horses, and magical superstitions. Maybe you can tell me what the appeal is; you're playing this game same as I am.

Anyway, what I'm really trying to get at has nothing to do with "olden" vs. "modern". It's that the ambiguous implications of "love" here are more than a matter of some underpaid game writers choosing their words poorly while trying to make a deadline. There are stories behind the idea that have been retold for generations, because they get at something deep in the human experience. Love can be scary. Love can feel like a complete loss of control. Love can make you do things you wouldn't want to do otherwise. You don't have to pick up a book of Greek myths to find these themes; you can just as well turn on a top 40 music station. Very few pop singers sing of their rational and voluntary decision to fall in love.

Are there alternative ideas of what love is? Of course. If you don't like the model provided by polytheistic gods of love, there's also a monotheistic one who is quite famous. A love domain could be focused not on fanning the flames of romantic love but rather expressing the character's own universal love through protective and particularly self-sacrificial abilities. But going that route might open a whole different can of worms.

 

[Horwath]

As opposed to the criticism of cancel culture on Twitter and other social media, which is always coherent, well reasoned, and delivered at a polite speaking volume?

ofcourse not. But, then again, that is the Way of the Internet sometimes.

but that Twitter post was;

I read it, and only conclusion is that D&D is promoting "roofies are OK" attitude.

if cleric domain couses emotion of love, than to the subject that love is real, no matter the cause of it.
We can only discuss the morality of that action and aftermath of it.

Or as Morpheus asked Neo; What IS real?

 

[jedijon]

Might as well get rid of all the Charm spells now or any mind altering ability. Illusions. Fear.

The Woke have Spoke.

Artistic expression for all. Let’s get the original article back ASAP. I don’t have to like it. People on Twitter don’t. But if we’re not judging folks—then let’s REALLY NOT please!!!

 

[Lylandra]

Are there alternative ideas of what love is? Of course. If you don't like the model provided by polytheistic gods of love, there's also a monotheistic one who is quite famous. A love domain could be focused not on fanning the flames of romantic love but rather expressing the character's own universal love through protective and particularly self-sacrificial abilities. But going that route might open a whole different can of worms.

Actually, this was kind of my first thought, too. If the love domain is about genuine love, then it should be about its positive aspects and not the abusive part. And maybe about more universal aspects other than romantic love as well - we're living in the post-Frozen age, dammit. So maybe: Defensive abilities, synergetic buffs, healing, removing negative emotions, inspiration, heck, even a frenzy or an atonement.

Nothing wrong with an enchanter or charm spells. Or even a charm/desire subdomain. It should be subject for the DM's thoughts - depending on your DM and players - but in general, those are fine.

For example: Are charms legal/illegal in your local city? What about self-defense? What limits does a 'good' character apply when dealing with people he or she has charmed or dominated? Also, how do you compare the morals of compulsion (or possibly memory alteration) to killing someone?

 

[Panda-s1]

Sure. We can also have constitutional democracies, automobiles, and an electric grid.

so it's just like Eberron.

But the PHB and DMG spend a lot more time talking about kingdoms, horses, and magical superstitions. Maybe you can tell me what the appeal is; you're playing this game same as I am.

I don't see how any of that dictates we need to have gods of love with rapey aspects.

Anyway, what I'm really trying to get at has nothing to do with "olden" vs. "modern". It's that the ambiguous implications of "love" here are more than a matter of some underpaid game writers choosing their words poorly while trying to make a deadline. There are stories behind the idea that have been retold for generations, because they get at something deep in the human experience. Love can be scary. Love can feel like a complete loss of control. Love can make you do things you wouldn't want to do otherwise. You don't have to pick up a book of Greek myths to find these themes; you can just as well turn on a top 40 music station. Very few pop singers sing of their rational and voluntary decision to fall in love.

yeah, no, don't bring up "ambiguities". the ability they gave to LOVE clerics forces someone to be INFATUATED and be mind controlled. that's an actual fact.

also while we're here, there are pop singers who sing of coercing women into sex acts, so don't make it sound like this isn't also part of modern culture.

 

[Lylandra]

also agreed that we shouldn't try to faux-historize here. It leads nowhere. The history of derailed and closed threads should be a warning sign for all of us.

Long story short: D&D isn't a historical times sim. And unless you're a real historian with a focus on late medieval/renaissance you'd better not try make it one as you will fail even in the basics.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, I agree that a Love domain should be more about protection and self-sacrifice than mind control.

This.

Make the Love domain be more about the cleric's love for others, rather than others' love for the cleric.

It could also have some special ability to "inspire love" but perhaps it better be something that affects friends and foes at the same time, like everyone within range of the cleric is charmed by everyone else or shifts attitudes towards friendly. I think the whole idea should be that being a Cleric of Love is to believe in love being the right thing, not just a useful tool.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

also while we're here, there are pop singers who sing of coercing women into sex acts, so don't make it sound like this isn't also part of modern culture.

Don't make it sound like I said anything of the sort. Go read what I wrote again. The person you're getting outraged at exists somewhere behind your retinas; it's not me.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

also agreed that we shouldn't try to faux-historize here. It leads nowhere. The history of derailed and closed threads should be a warning sign for all of us.

Long story short: D&D isn't a historical times sim. And unless you're a real historian with a focus on late medieval/renaissance you'd better not try make it one as you will fail even in the basics.

In this conversation D&D's nature as a legend and folklore sim seems more relevant. If there were no, say, Storm domain, it would be a perfectly valid question to ask, "Hey, what would it look like if there were a Storm domain for Zeus-y/Thor-y-type deities?" (Moreover, I think this is precisely the question that the writers asked themselves when they wrote the actual Storm domain.) A response of "This is a fantasy game and there's no reason why there should be a Zeus-y/Thor-y-type deity in any given setting" does not answer the question, even though it is strictly speaking entirely correct. Sure, a setting could have a single all-powerful zebra god or friendly cloud-seeding aliens or some other arrangement entirely. But given the overall milieu presented by D&D material and in particular all the other deities who resemble other classic polytheistic archetypes, a Zeus-y/Thor-y-type is a pretty reasonable inclusion.

So ditto for a Aphrodite-y/Eros-y-type. And I believe we're basically on the same page here -- you mention a "charm/desire" domain. I just think saying that this isn't "real love" is selling Eros short. Desire and infatuation, and the pain and confusion that can sometimes accompany them, make up a significant part of the human experience of love.

 

[Bluddworth]

Murder Hobos don't run into these problems. We don't charm characters into doing things against their will, we just kill them of they don't do what we want. Their free will is to fight or take flight.

It sounds like some are putting too much social role playing into their characters, and too much value into their character's survival as well.