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!"

 

[Weiley31]

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more!

 

[Celebrim]

You don't see the problem, here?

Unless you are talking to yourself, you are using language to communicate with someone else. And then, if you wish to communicate, what they consider to be valid use of language becomes pretty central to your needs.

Now, in some cases, using words in a way you know are at odds with how others think is entirely appropriate, even constructive.

I agree with both of these points.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, someone in this thread already said that removing the philter of love from the list of magic items would be a good idea. Definitely not straw people.

No, someone joked that people would be clambering to change the name of Philter of Love, and someone else said that it wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened, and it might not be a bad idea. The fact that what you took out of that exchange was “someone said removing the philter of love from the list of magic items would be a good idea” makes it seem like you’re looking for outrage to get outraged about.

Besides, it's pretty characteristic of language that a single word can be used with different meanings to describe many things. Deities of desire/passion/lust have been described as deities of love for as long as I've been interested in mythology - the fictional mythology of D&D or real-world mythology, it doesn't matter.

As long as we don't fail to communicate, you get to decide what constitutes valid use of language for you. You won't hear a word from me trying to invalidate it, no matter how dumb I actually find your use of language to be (and I find a lot of the modern trends on that matter dumb, really).

Once you storm Twitter or any other channel to demand from others that they only use language in a way that's valid for you, you should be prepared to hear from them that, as long as we can keep communication free of violence/offense/prejudice/etc., you don't get a say on what constitutes valid use of language for others.

Are we still talking about the Love Domain here? Cause it seems like you’re extrapolating a lot from a very minor “controversy.” Nobody’s policing anybody’s language here, some folks just felt that the combination of mind-control powers and the name “love domain” was a bit squicky.

And I think this makes even more sense when talking about a concept as abstract and multi-conceptual as "love".

D&D magic can forge/manipulate states of consciousness. Being in love is a state of consciousness. It's fine for D&D magic to force people to love others. Or do you really think the morality of the act perpetrated on the other person changes once you call it "the domain of lust"? It's absurdly immoral in any case, but so is accepting a contract kill, which D&D characters do all the time.

Right, nobody has a problem with D&D characters having the ability to manipulate other characters’ emotional state or even directly mind control them. Heck, the existence of the philter of love generally hasn’t even been particularly controversial. It’s not the morality of charm magic people are complaining about here, it’s the idea of a “love domain” being all about forcing “love.” Call it a “manipulation domain” and nobody would mind. Make a love domain with powers that protect and empower, people will celebrate it. But a “love domain” whose shtick is mind control makes some folks uncomfortable, and they’re entitled to express that opinion in the hopes that WotC will address their concerns.

 

[cbwjm]

Mind control is hardly this domain's thing when looking at its subclass abilities. Only the channel divinity has something like that. It can be used on both allies and enemies to act in the cleric's defence. The bond ability has nothing to do with mind control or manipulating people and seems to be the core ability of the subclass, which enhances the two chosen with bonuses and protections. Other than that, the domain spell list includes charm person which I feel fits the subclass but from reading this thread and others is the only spell people seem to really have an issue with. Still, mind control hardly seems to be the domain's shtick.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Well, I hope this gets resolved in a satisfactory manner. When I heard there was a domain boosting bless and guidance I started to get very excited. Both of those spells are thematically appropriate for a love domain.

 

[Henry]

that's a magic item in the DMG, not a player option. for similar reasons the Death domain and Oathbreaker paladin are also in the DMG (also they're not named the Second Life domain and Mid-life Crisis paladin).

Someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE create a Mid-life crisis Paladin subclass who summons Ferraris as a sacred mount and gains an armor bonus from leather jackets and mirror shades...

 

[Umbran]

Still, mind control hardly seems to be the domain's shtick.

So, removing those aspects shouldn't be terribly difficult.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's always easier to remove things than put them back.

Demons, assassins and half-orcs show that taking them out and putting them back in are trivial to do.

Not having this version of a Love domain, from an unpublished and unannounced supplement, isn't taking anything away from you, especially since I'm confident someone who feels strongly about this has it squirreled away and will make it available online if it doesn't re-appear to their liking.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I didn't.

You equated concerns about consent and sexual abuse to the completely imaginary dangers of the Satanic panic and used a laughing emoji. You absolutely were making light of it and it's insulting to pretend everyone else is too stupid to know that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

some are just criticizing people that feel that they have a right to demand censorship on things.

No one wants the government -- the only ones with the power to censor -- to get involved. Customers saying "yeah, this unpublished, unreleased content doesn't match your stated mission and current work product" is called "feedback."