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!"

 

[cbwjm]

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

Probably not, i still think charm person fits the domain spell list, and I don't actually think the channel divinity is problematic, I'd prefer to keep it, but I can understand why others might think it is.

 

[Horwath]

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."

lets not pretend that todays feedback cannot be unhinged raving on Twitter and other social media and it is a part of cancel culture.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Going by this, Charles Manson was a Love domain cleric. After all, look at what all his followers did for him because of the love and devotion they had for him.

I think WotC meant to try and make a True Love domain, not a Manipulation of Love domain, and realized they screwed it up and pulled it down to fix it or remove it altogether from the UA.

 

[Salthorae]

realized they screwed it up and pulled it down to fix it or remove it altogether from the UA.

That remains to be seen. It will be fascinating to see what DOES end up in there once they do publish it and compare it to the original version.

 

[Zardnaar]

For the record, I wasn't making a joke. Cancel culture has its share of strange victims and I am now legitimately wondering if a fairy tale style "Love Potion" in 2020 is going to get the axe because of the dust up over the use of the word Love.

The old give an inch take a mile thing.

I don't care to much one way or another but RPG design via Twitter outrage is a terrible precedent to set.

Feed back could be as simple as change the domain name or replace the ability with advantage/expertise in persuasion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When I imagine what a priest of, say, Aphrodite or Eros would be capable of, I have a hard time not seeing charm effects as part of the package. Cupid's Arrow and all that. But I can also imagine a sidebar spelling out that this brief expression of the god's power is different than real, actual true love and the cleric's mission is to promote the real thing over the long term, like the light-side equivalent of the sidebar in the MM for the succubus explaining that they can't extract souls from charmed people.

If you want to get into the weeds on this, though, the sticky thing is that in the classical worldview, Cupid's Arrow is true love. When you fall head over heels for someone, that ain't your choice, that's the divine archer at work. And there's a recurring theme in the myths of Eros and his mother that this power makes them frightening in ways that Ares and Hades can only envy. So when we see "love domain" in a polytheistic pantheon, maybe we should think less "representative of everything warm, fuzzy, and good" and more "basically, run".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

lets not pretend that todays feedback cannot be unhinged raving on Twitter and other social media and it is a part of cancel culture.

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?

 

[Panda-s1]

For the record, I wasn't making a joke. Cancel culture has its share of strange victims and I am now legitimately wondering if a fairy tale style "Love Potion" in 2020 is going to get the axe because of the dust up over the use of the word Love.

ah yes, cancel culture, not bad decisions, is what "ruins" things never mind the fact all cancelling does is sets up an inevitable comeback as far as I've seen.

Going by this, Charles Manson was a Love domain cleric. After all, look at what all his followers did for him because of the love and devotion they had for him.

I think WotC meant to try and make a True Love domain, not a Manipulation of Love domain, and realized they screwed it up and pulled it down to fix it or remove it altogether from the UA.

okay in what universe is "infatuation" True Love? or even love in general, I'm pretty sure conflating infatuation and love is a huge part of why they got in trouble.

When I imagine what a priest of, say, Aphrodite or Eros would be capable of, I have a hard time not seeing charm effects as part of the package. Cupid's Arrow and all that. But I can also imagine a sidebar spelling out that this brief expression of the god's power is different than real, actual true love and the cleric's mission is to promote the real thing over the long term, like the light-side equivalent of the sidebar in the MM for the succubus explaining that they can't extract souls from charmed people.

If you want to get into the weeds on this, though, the sticky thing is that in the classical worldview, Cupid's Arrow is true love. When you fall head over heels for someone, that ain't your choice, that's the divine archer at work. And there's a recurring theme in the myths of Eros and his mother that this power makes them frightening in ways that Ares and Hades can only envy. So when we see "love domain" in a polytheistic pantheon, maybe we should think less "representative of everything warm, fuzzy, and good" and more "basically, run".

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.

 

[BMaC]

okay in what universe is "infatuation" True Love? or even love in general, I'm pretty sure conflating infatuation and love is a huge part of why they got in trouble.

Since literature and art was invented humans have struggled to understand where the line is drawn between infatuation and love. The most enduring pieces of art, philosophy, and literature from Aeschylus' "love unlovely" to Rimbaud to Boy George quoted above explore the thermocline where love transitions into obsession and infatuation.

 

[Ravenbrook]

I think the main issue is simply the name of the domain. Why not rename into "Passion" domain or something like that, provided there isn't one already?