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!"

 

[Gradine]

So if it'd been called the Charm Domain or the Enchantment Domain and had the same spell list and the Instant Infatuation channel divinity option, everything would be a-ok?

If that is your opinion, that seems just as pedantic to me.

That's not at all what that word means. In this case, the context is both relevant and important.

 

[generic]

That's not at all what that word means. In this case, the context is both relevant and important.

"That word"? Which word? I'm not trying to be obtuse, because I understand what you're saying, but, clarity is key!

 

[Gradine]

I do not know what this means in the context of what I said. Please repeat, as I am apt to take humor in a manner more autistic than memetic.

My apologies, I was trying to be a bit too clever by half there. This is a reference to an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My point was that the issue wasn't any real harm being caused by the sub-class, but by the implications that could be inferred. The Always Sunny meme was amusing, at least to me, because in that conversation the two characters are discussing consent.

"That word"? Which word? I'm not trying to be obtuse, because I understand what you're saying, but, clarity is key!

My apologies again for the confusion; I highlighted the point where I was called "pedantic" for a thing that has nothing to do with pedantry.

 

[generic]

My apologies, I was trying to be a bit too clever by half there. This is a reference to an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My point was that the issue wasn't any real harm being caused by the sub-class, but by the implications that could be inferred. The Always Sunny meme was amusing, at least to me, because in that conversation the two characters are discussing consent.

Ah, never seen the program, sorry.

 

[Panda-s1]

So if it'd been called the Charm Domain or the Enchantment Domain and had the same spell list and the Instant Infatuation channel divinity option, everything would be a-ok?

If that is your opinion, that seems just as pedantic to me.



So your issue is really with Charm and enchantment school spells it seems like. Not their inclusion on this list.

Charm Person is already present on the: Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, and Trickery Domain spell lists. It's everywhere.

If you have a problem with this the Love Domain as originally published, where is the hate from everyone for the College of Glamour Bard?

College of Glamour:

• Level 3 - Enthralling performance, no concentration Charm against Charisma Mod creatures who can see/hear you. Usable 1/short rest
• Level 6 - Mantle of Majesty, 1/Long Rest, doubles down here
• Level 14 - Unbreakable Majesty. 1/Long rest

That subclass takes away other character's (PC or NPC) agency in a WAY bigger manner than anything the Love domain threw out there.

oh man look at all these examples of love O: except they're not love, they're not called love, and the subclass is pretty clear that you're taking advantage of people like a pied piper. I'm not sure why people keep harping on "BUT CHARM PERSON" when multiple people have already said that's not the issue at hand.

 

[generic]

oh man look at all these examples of love O: except they're not love, they're not called love, and the subclass is pretty clear that you're taking advantage of people like a pied piper. I'm not sure why people keep harping on "BUT CHARM PERSON" when multiple people have already said that's not the issue at hand.

They aren't examples of "love", they're examples of the charm mechanic.

 

[Salthorae]

already said that's not the issue at hand

Right the issue at hand is that some people are upset that the word "Love" was put at the top instead of "Charm".

Is Cupid not a god of love? What is Cupid's arrows if not the same thing that people are complaining about? Taking away the target's agency via love.

Narratively, you don't even necessarily have someone "using love" to do things, at least for the spells.

You have a god of love that gives their clerics the ability to charm people. The exact same spell and ability that one other domain and 5 other classes get, not love. Charm. It's even the same mechanics. There is literally zero difference between the Charm Person from Trickery and this domain, other than the god that grants the prepared spell. Even then, there are easily gods in mythology or d&d pantheons that could grant both the love and trickery domains to clerics.

The infatuation ability isn't "love" either. It literally calls itself infatuation.:

an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone or something.

 

[Panda-s1]

Right the issue at hand is that some people are upset that the word "Love" was put at the top instead of "Charm".

Is Cupid not a god of love? What is Cupid's arrows if not the same thing that people are complaining about? Taking away the target's agency via love.

Narratively, you don't even necessarily have someone "using love" to do things, at least for the spells.

You have a god of love that gives their clerics the ability to charm people. The exact same spell and ability that one other domain and 5 other classes get, not love. Charm. It's even the same mechanics. There is literally zero difference between the Charm Person from Trickery and this domain, other than the god that grants the prepared spell. Even then, there are easily gods in mythology or d&d pantheons that could grant both the love and trickery domains to clerics.

The infatuation ability isn't "love" either. It literally calls itself infatuation.:

this has already been covered earlier. if you want an answer just go through the thread

 

[Salthorae]

this has already been covered earlier. if you want an answer just go through the thread

Lived through it already. Thanks for the pithy reply that responded to my points though!

 

[Celebrim]

I was well aware that mutually informed consent is generally spoken of in reference to sex rather than love, and that you might mistake the similarly for conflation. I stand by what I said.

I am surprised you are choosing to double down, because it seems an indefensible position. But OK.

Depends on your definition of love. You don’t need someone’s consent to be romantically attracted to them. Is that love? I wouldn’t say so, as it is one-sided.

Love does not have to be mutual to be love. One can love someone that doesn't love one in response. (That sounds so awkward that I'm going to use specific pronouns from here on out, at the risk of sounding arrogant.) Indeed, I can love someone that hates me or whom considers me my enemy. It wouldn't be easy, but it's possible. Love doesn't require reciprocation.

Woah, now. Maybe define “acts of love” before claiming it’s perfectly appropriate to engage in such acts towards an unconscious person? For my part, I wouldn’t say love is something one “engages in acts of.”

Love is always an action. This doesn't require a huge explanation, as it is part of even the common vernacular. Someone does some gracious and kind act, and we say, "That is love." The 'that' we are pointing at is an action. Moreover, it's normal in the discussion of love to talk about actions. For example, there is a famous quote, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Again, the love is an action. So I find it strange that you would ask me to define what acts of love actually are, since I would think most people recognize an act of love when they see one.

I’m not suggesting it’s about sex. Sex is not the only thing that requires consent.

Sex is not the only thing that requires consent, but love does not require consent. Moreover, you did not say merely "consent" but explicitly used the language of sexuality, "mutually informed consent". But love does not require mutually informed consent, and it is nonsense to suggest that it does. We would both agree that minors ought not engage in sex because mutually informed consent is not possible, but neither of us actually believes that minors cannot love, nor do either of us believe that minors cannot be the object of love. Surely you have been a child and remember yourself engaging in acts of love? Surely a mother can love her child even though the child cannot possibly yet understand the sacrifices that the mother has made on their behalf. Love does not require mutually informed consent. It doesn't even require consent at all, as surely a parent that yanks a kid out of the path of an oncoming car does not first need to get consent to do so, and yet is surely acting out of love. Indeed, if someone were to rush out in the street and shove you out of the path of an oncoming bus, so that they were killed in your place, then that would have been an act of love - your consent for that to happen was not required.

Whenever you use language specific to sex to talk about love, then you are not speaking clearly. A man who sees the victim of an unconscious victim of attack on the side of the road, engages in acts of love when they protect and care for that person. A medic that rushes out into enemy fire to put a tourniquet around a bleeding man is engaging in an act of love. It's nonsense to speak in such circumstances about "mutually informed consent". "Mutually informed consent" has nothing to do with love. It has to do with sex, which may or may not be an act of love. Sex and love have almost nothing to do with each other except that, in the opinion of some, sex is better if it is with a person you love. But that is a question of sexual morality, and not of love.

So again, your statement, "As for why the association of love and mind control is bothersome, it’s because of the implication that love does not require mutual informed consent to be legitimate.", is nonsense. Love does not require mutually informed consent to be legitimate. I have given numerous examples. Sex requires mutually informed consent to be legitimate. Are you positive you aren't mentally equating the two?