D&D 5E Should WotC Keep the Love Domain as is?

[Son of the Serpent]

wait, are we talking about anger or love now?

Is that a real question? Or are you just trying to confuse people? Honest question.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Yes, we as a species put love on a special pedestal. We are considerably more upset when our feelings dealing with love are manipulated, betrayed, or what have you than if someone just does something that anger us generically. By that I mean something that angers you for a non-passionate reason. But this discussion of anger I feel is irrelevant to the point that the problem for some people was the associating these spells with the domain of love, not an issue with enchantment spells as a whole.



A domain that dealt with both the good and bad, positive and negative attributes of love is valid. But I think people wanting one solely focused on an idealistic perspective of love is also just as valid. And WoTC chose fluff focusing entirely on love as a positive force.

1. I think love is idealistically both

2. How do you think rape happens? Generally? Its usually the positive side of love getting twisted and it certainly can be. To actually represent the "positive" side of love really well it SHOULD be able to be twisted and abused. This seems obvious to me.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

At this point, I'm of the mind that if WotC ever wants to try a charm Cleric again, they should open up the concept to a mentalist Cleric in general, a la the Psionicist Wizard from two UAs back. Make room for all the emotions while dialing back the implications of manipulation and harrassment that qould come from a love specific domain.

 

[Morrus]

But just as there are instances of murder being for the greater good i can imagine plenty of ways the same couod happen with rape.

Why anybody thinks this is an appropriate thing to say anywhere let alone on this forum is beyond me. But you’ll be taking some time away. Again.

 

[Shroomy]

At this point, I'm of the mind that if WotC ever wants to try a charm Cleric again, they should open up the concept to a mentalist Cleric in general, a la the Psionicist Wizard from two UAs back. Make room for all the emotions while dialing back the implications of manipulation and harrassment that qould come from a love specific domain.

There is already a charm Cleric domain - the Order domain from the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Based on the OP's comments on this topic in other threads, I'm guessing this poll is motivated by politics not game design.

I didn't vote.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Reading through some of the comments about Aphrodite and Greek mythology in general, a version I could support would be one with the ability to make an NPC fall in love with somebody other than the cleric. I.e., as an action you make the gibbering mouther fall in love with the paladin it was just attacking, and instead it protects the paladin. And maybe composes some (particularly unsettling) poetry to demonstrate its love.

Because that's what traditional gods/goddesses of love do, right? They make one mortal fall in love with another, sometimes just as pranks.

 

[Eltab]

A "Love" Domain is doomed to fail, because the English word "love" has multiple overlapping meanings. As noted above and in the companion threads, Classical Greek has multiple (5?) words to cover the same ground. Eros, Agape, Philios come to mind quickly. Each of them would I think make a workable Domain, as would their mirror-image counterparts and 'tangent concept' domains.

Agape, selfless love, is close to Sacrifice, giving up something for another to benefit - Cleric of Ilmater, here's looking at you kid.
The mirror-image of Philios, brotherly / familial love, might be named Betrayal.

P.S.: The Beauty domain described upthread reminded me more of a Pacifist cleric.

 

[Umbran]

Based on the OP's comments on this topic in other threads, I'm guessing this poll is motivated by politics not game design.

Mod Note:

How about you stop trying to engage in internet telepathy?

Address the content of the post, not the person of the poster. Stepping into a thread to trash on your supposition of what's in a poster's mind is not appropriate.