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]

that's not the point, having love out of spontaneity is not the same as someone zapping it in your brain.

So we have a spontaneous event and we have a god whose domain is that event, but the god has no control whatsoever over the spontaneous event?

Isn't this like saying that the storm god has no say in where lightning strikes? Isn't explaining spontaneous events kind of what gods are for?

 

[Panda-s1]

So we have a spontaneous event and we have a god whose domain is that event, but the god has no control whatsoever over the spontaneous event?

Isn't this like saying that the storm god has no say in where lightning strikes? Isn't explaining spontaneous events kind of what gods are for?

y'know last I checked the gods ("the gods") were wary of just handing knowledge down to humans out of fear of what they would do with it, there's no reason to believe a god of love wouldn't exercise the same level of restraint.

also it's not really spontaneous if a cleric willingly uses a power to make it happen.

 

[ad_hoc]

How many stupid, idiotic and maybe sometimes illegal thing did we do in our lives because we were "head over heels" in love?

Well, this is now the grossest and most vile thing I've read on this board.

It doesn't matter how much one person is "head over heels" the other person still needs to consent.

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter how much one person wants it.

It being okay in the past for men to coerce others into sex doesn't mean it's actually an okay thing to do. It wasn't okay then and it isn't okay now.

 

[Olrox17]

Mike Mearls or whoever: "oh man guys, the survey gave the Love domain a 7.2, that means it's not morally objectionable no matter what twitter says!"

Yeah, because professionally made surveys are easily condensed in a single, absolute, numerical value. Whatever.
Also, Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t, be the ultimate judge of anything, let alone morality.

 

[Panda-s1]

Yeah, because professionally made surveys are easily condensed in a single, absolute, numerical value. Whatever.
Also, Twitter isn’t, and shouldn’t, be the ultimate judge of anything, let alone morality.

a tweet that says "the love domain is icky": bad, unruly, not at all valid criticism
the same tweet, except in a box that literally says to put whatever comment you'd like: valid, constructive, a means to change the content

I have a feeling you don't know what these "professionally made surveys" are actually like.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, this is now the grossest and most vile thing I've read on this board.

It doesn't matter how much one person is "head over heels" the other person still needs to consent.

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter how much one person wants it.

It being okay in the past for men to coerce others into sex doesn't mean it's actually an okay thing to do. It wasn't okay then and it isn't okay now.

I don't report people, but if I was going to report someone it would be you.

As far as I can tell from what you quoted, the poster in question in no fashion implied anything about rape and in no fashion tried to justify it. Yet you immediately went there.

The grossest and most vile thing you can usually do with written speech is slander. Be careful that you aren't engaged in it.

 

[ad_hoc]

I get it, and I respect your take here. But I still think there's a pretty good possibility that the developers themselves, once the concern was pointed out them, were glad to pull it and rethink their approach, rather than feeling pressure to do so. Like @Salthorae said upthread, we can't really know this, and, well, fair enough. I have zero proof. But I think if you have a look at the social media feeds, public statements, and overall online personae of (most of) the developers, you'd have a pretty good impression of where they stand on these sorts of issues.

Yeah. It's weird that people are acting as though the D&D designers aren't agreeing with the people who pointed out why its problematic and are only changing it due to 'pressure'.

5e makes the attempt to be as inclusive as possible. The result of that is the 5e population of players is much more diverse than it has ever been. I think non-men now comprise over 40% of the player base.

Wanting a Love Domain to have mind control powers is such a weird hill to die on. I have to ask, is it more about being exclusionary to all these new faces playing the game? People with different desires, perspectives, lived experiences, etc. In other words, people they don't have much in common with. Someone playing the game for 30 years has no more authority or weight than someone whose first experience with hobby gaming is 5e - which is most of 5e players (unless we're considering Setters of Catan to be hobby gaming). Maybe that is what is irksome.

 

[Horwath]

Well, this is now the grossest and most vile thing I've read on this board.

It doesn't matter how much one person is "head over heels" the other person still needs to consent.

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter how much one person wants it.

It being okay in the past for men to coerce others into sex doesn't mean it's actually an okay thing to do. It wasn't okay then and it isn't okay now.

wow, you quoted one sentence and got everything wrong.

1. Truth can be vile to you, but it is still the truth,

2. When I wrote that one person is "head over heels" in love, that person can be exploited not the other. And because you are in love, you give consent by default (as your brain is working in "low power"),

3. see No. 2

4. I don't know where did you pull this one out. I never refer to sex. But yes, when you are in love with another person you do generally want to have sex with them. Disclaimer; I am talking about romantic love not family love. Just to be extra clear.

 

[CleverNickName]

So they did, by appearances, change it based on the Social Media backlash. That's disappointing.

I don't think it's disappointing at all. I would be disappointed only if they noticed the backlash and decided to ignore it.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind with Twitter and/or social media, and not with Wizards of the Coast.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The grossest and most vile thing you can usually do with written speech is slander. Be careful that you aren't engaged in it.

That's not the worst thing you can do with writing by a long shot.