-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Should WotC Keep the Love Domain as is?
- Thread starter gyor
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
Truthfully, we know very very little, and much less than what is commonly assumed. Most of the documents we have are copies from nearly 1000 years after the events took place, and most of what we think we know is from events recorded long after the classical era. While I don't agree with you completely that current religions are "all over the place" in what they believe, I will say that it is difficult to extrapolate from the rites of modern Christianity how it was practiced in say 1400. And yes, there were certainly wide variations in belief, piety, rites, and practices, most of which are probably forever lost to us just because we have so little documentation. The situation is further complicated by the fact that most ancient cult practice would have been mystery cults, which different levels of secrets known only to the initiated and/or the priesthood.
So I can only write about what we know, which is little, and what I know, which is even less. But I think that the analysis I'm offering is fair and defensible.
Celebrim
Legend
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?
It's much more complicated in practice then that, she had different aspects like most Gods did, and that is before you take into account traditional Neoplatonic views of Aphrodite which are carnal in the slightest.
Btw I will note combined the two Yes options have a combined rounded value of 68% and this is on a board that I would expect to be more inclined towards no, so that tells me that WotC should give the people the chance to decide for themselves if the Love Domain (or Passion/Lust Domain) should go in.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
A self-selected pool of sixty-nine votes tells you this?
With two answers for Yes and one for No?
Celebrim
Legend
A true statement, but it is equally true that ~72% wanted at least some change, and so WotC probably should have pulled it and reviewed it.
But on the other hand, since absolutely no one on the closed thread argued "the mechanics are creep period" and indeed emphatically argued that any claim that "the mechanics are creep period" was a strawman argument that no one in favor of changes actually believed, I find it really strange to find 19 votes for "the mechanics are creep period" in this thread. But then, I've never really understood humanity.
Possibly, the fact it was the only way to vote "no" was the decisive factor, here.
Rikka66
Adventurer
That is the only "no" option on the poll. And the strawman more has to do with the characterization of these people as angry, irrational people trying to remove all charm spells from the game. Very clearly many of them found the implications unfortunate because of the ties to a character dedicated to the concept of love.
