• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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).

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

JeffB

Legend
Sorry folks- No more Succubi. They charm me , kiss me, seduce me, take away my free-will- all for sex and love and eventually corrupt and destroy me. Heck they can even have me impregnate them and have Succubabies

Why is this monster in D&D? It takes away my PC's free will and offends me.

:rolleyes

The whole argument is stupid.
 


Sorry folks- No more Succubi. They charm me , kiss me, seduce me, take away my free-will- all for sex and love and eventually corrupt and destroy me. Heck they can even have me impregnate them and have Succubabies

Why is this monster in D&D? It takes away my PC's free will and offends me.

:rolleyes

The whole argument is stupid.
well the cubuses (cubbi?) are varying flavors of evil. There is a nuance here that I don't think you get.

And other people might not as well, but I can ignore what they say about the subject just as much as I can ignore you about the same subject.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Sorry folks- No more Succubi. They charm me , kiss me, seduce me, take away my free-will- all for sex and love and eventually corrupt and destroy me. Heck they can even have me impregnate them and have Succubabies

Why is this monster in D&D? It takes away my PC's free will and offends me.

:rolleyes

This is a straw man. I know it's more fun to create straw men so that you can jeer at other people for opinions they haven't actually expressed than to actually engage with the topic, but this is not about not letting evil monsters use mind control, it's about mistakenly describing controlling powers as "love". So let's calm down on the mean-spirited jeering, eh? I've already asked you once in this thread.
 

Sorry folks- No more Succubi. They charm me , kiss me, seduce me, take away my free-will- all for sex and love and eventually corrupt and destroy me. Heck they can even have me impregnate them and have Succubabies

Why is this monster in D&D? It takes away my PC's free will and offends me.

:rolleyes

The whole argument is stupid.
Succubus: A monster whose alignment is explicitly evil taking away your free will.

vs.

The redacted "Love" domain: Equating love (what should be something positive i.e. good) with taking away one's free will.

Your equivalency is false, and you should feel bad.
 

Prakriti

Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
To all the people hoping for Ceremony:

It's an XGtE spell.

All the subclass spells for every subclass released thus far are PHB only spells.
They reprinted wall of water for a race (Tritons) in Volo's Guide to Monsters. They can do the same with a subclass.
 

JeffB

Legend
This is a straw man. I know it's more fun to create straw men so that you can jeer at other people for opinions they haven't actually expressed than to actually engage with the topic, but this is not about not letting evil monsters use mind control, it's about mistakenly describing controlling powers as "love". So let's calm down on the mean-spirited jeering, eh? I've already asked you once in this thread.

The person you quoted has a problem with a in game mechanic removing her imganary person' s free will- that's quotable but everyone can see it in the article,

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of things in D&D that remove your imaginary person's free will.
 

JeffB

Legend
Succubus: A monster whose alignment is explicitly evil taking away your free will.

vs.

The redacted "Love" domain: Equating love (what should be something positive i.e. good) with taking away one's free will.

Your equivalency is false, and you should feel bad.

It's a game silly, I'm not going to feel bad about it.
 

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer
Yeah, because D&D is 100% faithful to those old stories, just look at the Medusas.
Don't even get me started on the Medusas!

To clarify I'm not saying that the old myths justify a piece of material that makes people uncomfortable. I just wanted to point out that there exists such material that the domain was emulating so saying that it failed to live up to the concept off the mark. I think the designers had a goal in mind and met it.

I personally wasn't bothered by the domain as it was written from a moral point of view, but I totally understand why some people were. And if something makes people uncomfortable it's worth it to have a discussion about why and reconsider what is and isn't acceptable. In this case I think pulling the domain is a wise move.

The reason I left the question open at the end of my last post is that I don't think there is a right answer since it's different for everyone. I enjoy those old myths that I read as a kid, but I know that the morality of them is really not applicable to today's society. One must expect some level of reinterpretation when adapting them. (Except in the Medusa case. Using a person's name as the species name is just wrong.)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top