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!"

 

[Horwath]

There are no tieflings and warlocks in real life. People are drugged and raped in real life.

We draw the line at being empathetic to people around us.

then you do that at YOUR game. Not overall game.

If we had a rape victim at the table we sure as hell would not go describing any potential rape scenes in R-rate narrative.
We would avoid that unless that person said that she is 100% OK with the narrative. Even then it would be handled in PG13 way, or better yet avoided if not CRUCIAL to the plot.

 

[Garthanos]

The Satanic Temple is more robust than a prank (supporting science and body autonomy with a solid secular humanistic set ot tenets) but yes no magic etc. Bur other than that I agree.

You are seriously equating devil worship, which does not exist, to rape? Come on, man. I mean, we all play D&D here. We should know better than anyone that there is no such thing as real-life Satanism. The Church of Satan is a prank to stop local governments from putting up monuments to the Ten Commandments or whatever. No one is actually engaging in blood sacrifice. But in real life, millions of women (and men) are sexually assaulted every year.

 

[jayoungr]

Having now read the original version of the class, here are my thoughts:

I don't think it is inherently "the roofie domain." Probably 90% of players could play this subclass just fine without being creepy about it.

The problem is the other 10%. And in the hands of those 10%, yeah, it would unfortunately be easy to play in a distasteful way.

I actually think it could still be published as-is with a sidebar saying "Use this subclass with caution."

(PS: For whatever it's worth, I'm female.)

 

[Mr. Patient]

The Satanic Temple is more robust than a prank (supporting science and body autonomy with a solid secular humanistic set ot tenets) but yes no magic etc. Bur other than that I agree.

Yeah, sorry, 'prank' was not the right term for what I was going for. You've explained it better.

 

[Wiseblood]

You are seriously equating devil worship, which does not exist, to rape? Come on, man. I mean, we all play D&D here. We should know better than anyone that there is no such thing as real-life Satanism. The Church of Satan is a prank to stop local governments from putting up monuments to the Ten Commandments or whatever. No one is actually engaging in blood sacrifice. But in real life, millions of women (and men) are sexually assaulted every year.

Satanism is real. Devil worship is too. Some people believe the moon landing was faked. Some believe it was real. Comparing one activity less common (occult motivated misdeeds) to a more common one (sexual assault) does not negate it’s existence.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

then you do that at YOUR game. Not overall game.

If we had a rape victim at the table we sure as hell would not go describing any potential rape scenes in R-rate narrative.
We would avoid that unless that person said that she is 100% OK with the narrative. Even then it would be handled in PG13 way, or better yet avoided if not CRUCIAL to the plot.

Just to back this up a bit. I have seen games wherein rape victims (in one case the dm) preferred zero censorship. Censorship just really REALLY is an item to be dictated by personal and group preference and not hobby-wide fiat. Some people just dont want to be handled with kid gloves. Others do. Either is fine but neither is fine when its not asked for.

 

[Wiseblood]

Just to back this up a bit. I have seen games wherein rape victims (in one case the dm) preferred zero censorship. Censorship just really REALLY is an item to be dictated by personal and group preference and not hobby-wide fiat. Some people just dont want to be handled with kid gloves. Others do. Either is fine but neither is fine when its not asked for.

I agree. Also it is WotC’s company and material they can do with it as they wish.

 

[Rikka66]

I don't think censorship is the topic here. This wasn't an officially released product that people demanded be withdrawn. This was a playtest document, which if it was officially released would have included a request for feedback. The feedback being offered was, while certainly dramatic, boils down to "this is not what we want a Love domain to be."

Obviously, WoTC isn't trying to support pick-up artists, or negging, or roofies. But I don't think it's controversial to say that our modern views of love and the behaviour of deities such as Aphrodite doesn't always mesh well. As far as designing the domain they have to choose whether they want something more like the playtest product, in line with traditional mythology, or something that speaks to a modern, positive view of love.

The fluff included was very much on the "good" scale, so I don't think you can argue they were trying to create a domain that would represent both the light and dark sides of love. And I don't think you could make that domain and satisfy the modern crowd. That was a similar problem with the Death Domain for some people. It was ascribed to deities with a distinct distaste for undeath, despite heavily featuring necromancy.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Id also like to put this out there:

I have had many friends over the decades who have enjoyed and even loved something, a hobby, a sport, sex, art, who due to some horrible event in life have had their capacity to experience that thing damaged, reduced, or tarnished. Rape for instance, losing a leg, going blind. It is actually a tiny minority who never want the topic mentioned around them again afterword. If anything, the majority want vivid details. No dancing around to avoid the parts that life burned them on. They (the majority) get irritated when they ARENT included. When they are babied as several of them will specifically describe it. Just because someone lost a leg doesnt mean they dont want to share a beer with the guys and watch the superbowl or the local little league game. Just because someone was raped doesnt mean they necessarily want certain sexual topics (or rape) avoided or to not be asked out on a date. An artist who loses one of their senses still loves art. All of these are the usual and the opposite is the minority. To avoid stimulating memories of their pain to some is felt just as disrespectful or hurtful as others may consider the opposite to be.

I just wanted to illustrate some examples of what i meant earlier with applicable examples.

 

[Horwath]

Having now read the original version of the class, here are my thoughts:

I don't think it is inherently "the roofie domain." Probably 90% of players could play this subclass just fine without being creepy about it.

The problem is the other 10%. And in the hands of those 10%, yeah, it would unfortunately be easy to play in a distasteful way.

I actually think it could still be published as-is with a sidebar saying "Use this subclass with caution."

(PS: For whatever it's worth, I'm female.)

Problem is, that within those 10% or less, EVERYTHING can be distasteful.

You can be a strong fighter that is great at chopping down "evil" Orcs, but what if you get idea to go to the local orphanage and go "full Anakin" on the Younglings?
Do we ban greatswords or 20 str characters

Or you have Intimidate skill, but you want some bonus on it and by sheer coincidence that afternoon you watched Discovery channel and there was an in-depth episode on medieval torture?
That intimidate check will get real sick, real fast.



But, I agree with you,

Maybe at the beginning of every book should be a disclaimer:

Make sure that everyone in your playing group is on the same level when it comes to the level of violence and in-depth description of violence.