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!"

 

[Mournblade94]

The argument, "Well, lots of bad things happen in real life, so we should not have to consider this an issue," is pretty much displaying an empathy failure.

I disagree with this. I'm a very empathic person in fact my real life job relies on it. If someone has an issue with one aspect of the game, the group should not feature that. I have no problem with consent and protection during the game.

I really don't have a problem reworking love either to be honest. This part of the hazards for characters seems to be getting the most amount of ire for some reason. If something is in the game, people shouldn't campaign to eliminate it, instead let the individual groups decide to police that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

That's not actually a response to anything I said.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I disagree. If something bothers someone within the game it's up to the group to deal with it. Disease really bothers me, I'm not going to campaign WOTC to remove it from the game because the fact it bothers me is MY problem and no one else's.

But you have every right to complain about it, especially if WotC's treatment of certain diseases is cavalier or insensitive or blatantly incorrect. And most likely they would admit their fault and probably try and correct it. I mean if they created a spell in UA called 'Cause Liver Cancer' and people tweeted to them "Uh, really? Liver cancer?", they most likely would re-think whether the spell was necessary at all, or if it could be re-written to be a little less specific a disease. And none of us would think any less of the people who pointed that out to them. And you don't necessarily do yourself any favors by holding in your distaste for something WotC did like that, under the idea that "Well, it's my problem, I should just suck it up." Especially considering it's something easily corrected. It's no skin off their nose to rename something in development if it truly bothers people, so no harm no foul in pointing it out to them.

 

[Wiseblood]

The argument, "Well, lots of bad things happen in real life, so we should not have to consider this an issue," is pretty much displaying an empathy failure.

It is also a case of "whataboutism" (a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy). It is a diversion. What is, or is not, done about some other issue is not material to whether we should handle this issue.

It is a tool of persuasion or rhetoric to ask someone to be consistent. No logic was used. The OP cites only an emotional appeal.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Artistic expression for all. Let’s get the original article back ASAP. I don’t have to like it. People on Twitter don’t. But if we’re not judging folks—then let’s REALLY NOT please!!!

No one's artistic expression is being impinged.

Anyone who feels victimized by this -- which is a whole separate discussion -- you are free to create an identical Love domain and use it in your games. It's out there now, a lot of people have copies of it, it'll be in circulation on the subreddits some of the folks here clearly spend a lot of time in for perpetuity.

Customers are giving feedback on an unreleased, unscheduled and unnamed commercial product. No one has gone to WotC and has thrown anyone's chair out a third-story window and demanded they be fired over this or said that this person needs to be drummed out of the gaming industry.

Freedom of expression doesn't guarantee your expression will be in a commercial product. Speak to anyone who actually creates stuff for a living and they'll be happy to tell you about it at length.

 

[Mournblade94]

But you have every right to complain about it, especially if WotC's treatment of certain diseases is cavalier or insensitive or blatantly incorrect. And most likely they would admit their fault and probably try and correct it. I mean if they created a spell in UA called 'Cause Liver Cancer' and people tweeted to them "Uh, really? Liver cancer?", they most likely would re-think whether the spell was necessary at all, or if it could be re-written to be a little less specific a disease. And none of us would think any less of the people who pointed that out to them. And you don't necessarily do yourself any favors by holding in your distaste for something WotC did like that, under the idea that "Well, it's my problem, I should just suck it up." Especially considering it's something easily corrected. It's no skin off their nose to rename something in development if it truly bothers people, so no harm no foul in pointing it out to them.

I don't have a problem with reworking love domain, so yes I do get that. But I've been seeing the Charm school get attacked as problematic. So I may be expanding the scope. Charm effects are an important part of the game.

The worst offensive thing I have seen yet for me was not WOTC, it was the Book of Vial Darkness a particular type of mage. I bought the book but literally ripped the page of that class out.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Actually, this was kind of my first thought, too. If the love domain is about genuine love, then it should be about its positive aspects and not the abusive part.

For the record, a God of Abusive Relationships (who calls himself the God of Love) would be an interesting evil deity to have in the mix, just as Evening Glory is an amazing goddess that WotC would do well to bring back as well.

But if you're going with a singular Love domain and a singular deity, yeah, let's not have it be the screwed up stuff that pretends to be love.

 

[Morrus]

Artistic expression for all. Let’s get the original article back ASAP. I don’t have to like it. People on Twitter don’t. But if we’re not judging folks—then let’s REALLY NOT please!!!

It's a playtest article for feedback. They got feedback. Everything worked as intended.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Make the Love domain be more about the cleric's love for others, rather than others' love for the cleric.

It could also have some special ability to "inspire love" but perhaps it better be something that affects friends and foes at the same time, like everyone within range of the cleric is charmed by everyone else or shifts attitudes towards friendly. I think the whole idea should be that being a Cleric of Love is to believe in love being the right thing, not just a useful tool.

I hate to say it, but the D&D team should walk down the hall to the My Little Pony folks and get their input on this.

 

[Professor Murder]

For me, having a given element in a given game is complex but comes down to what my audience is comfortable with and what sorts of stories the element permits. D&D is traditionally about using violence to solve problems. Now as the game has evolved, that has evolved, for the better. But violence is baked into the game. As a DM, you have to put that violence into contexts that your audience is comfortable with. Heroic Fantasy in part relies on the idea that there are noble and heroic applications of violence. Do the noble and heroic applications of charm effects outweigh the negative ones? My players trust me to treat things like charm magic in a way that doesn't make them uncomfortable, but I have worked to earn that trust and I work to keep that trust. I feel as if people take for granted behaviors that actually take thought and compromise. The subtext of a Love domain containing charm effects is in part that love is about controlling people. It doesn't bother me because that's not something I would explore. I get people saying that they want to have the right to decide what story elements end up in their own games. However, no one has removed that ability. Arguing that you "would never simulate sexual assault in a game but I want that tool in my toolbox" is a fraught one.