D&D 5E Should WotC Keep the Love Domain as is?

[Bohandas]

Really?

In a fantasy or science-fantasy setting definitely. Dave Chapelle did a whole comedy routine about this where he pitched a movie about an edgy superhero who gets their powers from sexually assaulting people.

 

[CleverNickName]

I still don't understand why this is so much more controversial than all the other magical effects that manipulate people's emotions.

If you honestly cannot understand why this topic is so painful and disturbing for some people, you should consider yourself lucky. Not everyone has that luxury.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Celebrim]

...can we talk about something else?

Yeah, I'm not that happy with how the conversation is now drifting.

 

[Bohandas]

Because of the association with love, specifically how we in the modern world like to think of as being it's more positive form.

Perhaps, but there also seems to be an implication that love is somehow more important or sacrosanct than other emotions.

I can see how manipulating it could be more damaging than manipulating some other emotions, as it has a higher than average potential to cause insane behavior, but there are also spells that inspire rage and actual lasting insanity, so surely its at worst as bad as those. Isn't being angry for no good reason analogously worse than justified anger?

 

[Panda-s1]

Perhaps, but there also seems to be an implication that love is somehow more important or sacrosanct than other emotions.

I can see how manipulating it could be more damaging than manipulating some other emotions, as it has a higher than average potential to cause insane behavior, but there are also spells that inspire rage and actual lasting insanity, so surely its at worst as bad as those. Isn't being angry for no good reason analogously worse than justified anger?

wait, are we talking about anger or love now?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Also. Gods forbid that something NOT DESCRIBED AS GOOD ALIGNED could twist something we hold dear. How can you take a game's idea of "horrible" seriously when its not "horrible"? Love can do wondrous things in your life. Love can also do horrible things like drive people to suicide. I think that if ita not possible to go EXTREMELY far in both directions you do a disservice to the concept of love. Unless you want to force others to accept as standard a "love" domain that is childish and all roses.

Love should be as love is. Highly volatile.

 

[Bohandas]

If you honestly cannot understand why this topic is so painful and disturbing for some people, you should consider yourself lucky. Not everyone has that luxury.

It could be seen as making light of real problems that people have experienced, but analogously Crushing Despair, Insanity, and Feeblemind could just as easily be seen as making light of depression, psychosis, and intellectual disability, respectively.

 

[dave2008]

This accusation is often made when I start digging into what a word actually means, and I suppose on some occasions I can understand that it would seem that by insisting on transparent definitions I'm getting off topic.

But I think it is obvious that almost the entirety of this controversy was over whether the word Love was appropriate, and as such surely what the word "love" means and how the idea of "love" has been conceived over time is entirely on topic. After all, even people who hated the domain professed they would have been happy with it had another word suggesting coercion been used, and that their objection was not that magic could allow for coercion but solely that any one should suggest or imply that "love" is coercive.

If we can't explore concepts of love in a discussion over what the proper conception of love in published gaming materials ought to be, when can we do it?

First, I wasn't accusing you of doing that - I'm as guilty as anyone (time and time again).

 

[Rikka66]

Perhaps, but there also seems to be an implication that love is somehow more important or sacrosanct than other emotions.

I can see how manipulating it could be more damaging than manipulating some other emotions, as it has a higher than average potential to cause insane behavior, but there are also spells that inspire rage and actual lasting insanity, so surely its at worst as bad as those. Isn't being angry for no good reason analogously worse than justified anger?

Yes, we as a species put love on a special pedestal. We are considerably more upset when our feelings dealing with love are manipulated, betrayed, or what have you than if someone just does something that anger us generically. By that I mean something that angers you for a non-passionate reason. But this discussion of anger I feel is irrelevant to the point that the problem for some people was the associating these spells with the domain of love, not an issue with enchantment spells as a whole.

Love should be as love is. Highly volatile.

A domain that dealt with both the good and bad, positive and negative attributes of love is valid. But I think people wanting one solely focused on an idealistic perspective of love is also just as valid. And WoTC chose fluff focusing entirely on love as a positive force.