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!"

 

[ad_hoc]

Did I say that wouldn't be a sensible thing to do? Maybe your mixing me up with someone else.

Then what, exactly, is your issue?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also am curious to know how the issues with this break down by age. I recall a number of aphrodisiac sex comedies from my youth that are super rapey now.

Bill Cosby's jokes about Spanish Fly were on a hit comedy album (what people were forced to make due with before Comedy Central and YouTube came along) that every family in America seemed to own in the 1970s.

Today, he's sitting in prison for the attitudes on those tracks.

Times change.

 

[DemoMonkey]

We need to let the wisdom of Zardoz guide us in these turbulent debates.

 

[Bolares]

Phew... read the entire conversation here.

I've seen one thing come up repeatedly, and it baffles me:

- People who don't like the subclass: "This subclass has problems and shouldn't be named the Domain of Love. Signalling that mind control and loss of agency equates love in your games is problematic in today's culture."

-Peoplewho disagree with the people above: "Why do you want to remove Charm spells from D&D? Why do you want to censor WotC?"

As I've seen the argument was never about the charm spells, mind controlpowers or options that take the agency away from characters, but posing that as something that represents well the metaphisical representation of love.

 

[TwoSix]

New UA article is up. Domain is now called Unity, and has some different flavor text. Crisis averted.

 

[Celebrim]

I get it. I really do. And on some level I'm very glad the culture is by a round about route coming around to my philosophical point of view.

Mind control is a terrible evil. "Charm Person" in my game is a spell that gets you burned at the stake, even if you didn't use it to commit an overtly evil act, the mere implications of removing the free will of a person strikes most people in my game as a terrible evil. It is not "OK". It's almost always one of the first things I have to explain to any character that plays an arcane caster: "Most people in this world are OK with magic, but there are some things that magic can do that they are very much not OK with, and one of the first ones that is going to be available to your character is..."

And I'm glad people are really seriously considering the meaning of "love". I've been most of my life fighting against a culture that could write lyrics like, "And if you can't be with the one you love(?), honey, love(?) the one you are with.", and define itself by that sort of thing, and which doesn't get what's wrong with that whole paradigm, or how much confusion in their ideology comes from shifting between meanings of the word "love". And my response to #metoo was in large part, "It's about time."

But, for all of that, still don't feel like this is coming entirely from a rational place, and there is way too much simplification and not enough thinking going on here.

So let me throw this out there.

In the beginning of the movie "The Golden Child", the villain rounds up a group of hard-hearted thugs and massacres some monks in order to kidnap a Sacred and Holy child - the virtual physical embodiment of Good. And when it comes time to take captive the child, the villain tells his minions to be careful to not let the child touch them. Invariably, this seriousness of this warning is not headed, and one of the murderous minions is touched by the child, and a spark of righteousness passes over to the minion. Immediately, the minion's countenance is transformed, and a look of joy and enlightenment comes over the minion. The minion then proceeds to attack his former colleagues in an effort to protect The Golden Child, only to be eventually slaughtered.

Was the minion raped? In D&D terms, does what happened in that scene translate to something very different than "Charm Person" or "Dominate Person", and if so what does it translate to? Or to get down to the heart of the matter, did the minion's behavior change because he had less volition or more volition? Do you want to change in your mind the natural interpretation of that scene because it's disturbing? And is it what you'd expect of Love and Good or not? Can in fact the presence of Good transform your volition, and if it can how would you mechanically represent that in a gameable and balanced fashion?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

And who said Charm spells should be removed from the game exactly?

I think if WotC released a new “Hygene domain” that had lots of disease spells, you’d have a strong case for saying it was poorly named.

 

[Rikka66]

New UA article is up. Domain is now called Unity, and has some different flavor text. Crisis averted.

They also changed the domain spells and the channel divinity option, which were what people were complaining about in the first place.

 

[Salthorae]

They also changed the domain spells and the channel divinity option, which were what people were complaining about in the first place.

So they did, by appearances, change it based on the Social Media backlash. That's disappointing.

 

[prabe]

So they did, by appearances, change it based on the Social Media backlash. That's disappointing.

I'd say they improved it. I'd probably call it "Community" rather than "Unity" but I'd be happier with it in my world, now, all-around.