I'm building a new character (a Tiefling cleric) and I want his divine domain to be lust. Is that even available for purchase on D&D Beyond? If it is, does anyone know where to buy it?
I've seen it referenced several places though and I thought it was already in the 5th edition? It's so hard for me to tell what is official and what isn't in D&D... :/
There may be a Lust Domain, but I guarantee that WotC didn’t publish it. The closest they ever got to anything even remotely close to a “lust domain” was called the “Unity Domain,” but it was generally considered so creepy as to be, shall I say, “highly unacceptably inappropriate” to the point of promoting consent violation as acceptable, so they killed it within days of it starting playtest. RIP, pushin’ up daisies, dead dead dead.
If something is officially published by WotC it will be for sale here. If you go to the top of the page and punch in the name of a subclass or something and it’s for sale here it will pop up in the search. If you click it and it displays for you then you own it. If it redirects you to the marketplace then you can buy it. If it tells you no results were found, 10:1 it’s not a WotC. Product.
There is a Lust Domain in the 3rd Party book "Deep Magic" by Kobold Press, so that must be where the OP is finding it. It is in the section all about evil characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi, I'm Raccoon_Master, a young genderfluid actor, writer, explorer, and bass vocalist. Pronouns They/Them/Theirs
My Characters:Brorminthe Devout Crusher; Ellorathe Romantic Rookie
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lust in TTRPGs practically invites creepiness. It rarely avoids being either creepy or comical, from what I've seen. The latter's not bad actually but can ruin the tone (if the campaign is more on the serious side), the former is self explanatory.
I can see why WotC avoids that.
I'm curious about this Unity Domain though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lemme ask you, how would you create a “lust domain” that didn’t mention sex at all, and had no mechanics that would in any way influence another creature to either want to do something or not want to do something that they would not already want to do or not do?
Lust in TTRPGs practically invites creepiness. It rarely avoids being either creepy or comical, from what I've seen. The latter's not bad actually but can ruin the tone (if the campaign is more on the serious side), the former is self explanatory.
I can see why WotC avoids that.
I'm curious about this Unity Domain though.
You can check out the Unity Domain in the archived UA articles on WotC’s D&D page.
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
Interesting. I don't really see the consent violation aspect of it since it always conditions it upon "willing" and is mostly stuff of the "you get these benefits when within a certain distance" variety, which isn't uncommon. I could see how it could be spun to be awkward though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lemme ask you, how would you create a “lust domain” that didn’t mention sex at all, and had no mechanics that would in any way influence another creature to either want to do something or not want to do something that they would not already want to do or not do?
A lot of the third-party lust domains that I've seen include charm spells that can only be used on targets with a certain level of willingness within the context of the story. Like with a lot of things, context is important. While I could see that negating the effectiveness of a lot of spells, it could still be useful. There's a way to write spells oriented around lust, love, or desire without it violating consent. For example, a spell that amplifies a targets preexisting desire for something, sexual or otherwise. The word lust isn't always used in reference to sex anyway (i.e. Lust for power, lust for wealth, bloodlust, etc.) Besides, there are playable evil alignments, evil spells don't necessarily seem out of the realm of possibility.
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
This is really more along the lines of what I was thinking. :) Although lust could be used in a variety of contexts and I don't really see it being any more narrow than order or war if written right. They can write conditions and clauses that encourage it to be used in a consensual way.
Interesting. I don't really see the consent violation aspect of it since it always conditions it upon "willing" and is mostly stuff of the "you get these benefits when within a certain distance" variety, which isn't uncommon. I could see how it could be spun to be awkward though.
That's how I always thought of it. Magic users in a lot of media use charm spells on targets who are already willing. Even if it was used more nefariously, so are a lot of other spells in D&D. That's why there are evil alignments. But I could see the other side too. :)
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lemme ask you, how would you create a “lust domain” that didn’t mention sex at all, and had no mechanics that would in any way influence another creature to either want to do something or not want to do something that they would not already want to do or not do?
A lot of the third-party lust domains that I've seen include charm spells that can only be used on targets with a certain level of willingness within the context of the story. Like with a lot of things, context is important.
Given the way charm spells work in 5E, if the target is already wiling, the spell is redundant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
There have been quite a number of deities throughout history who’s domains were “lust,” “physical love,” “carnality” or “carnal love,” or other concepts that could be considered as “lust.” For example:
Kamadeva (aka Kama [as in the Kama sutra], aka Manmatha) god of erotic love, desire, pleasure and beauty and his consort…
Rati goddess of love, carnal desire, lust, passion and sexual pleasure
Those are all just from eastern Eurasia, I didn’t even look for lust gods/goddesses from around the rest of the world. And, those are just specifically the “lust” deities from that region, I left out all the “lust” deities who were also significantly also deities of other stuff like: the sun, the moon, forests, spring, summer, marriage, procreation, death, war, fertility, freedom, the dawn, wine, etc., etc., etc., as well as deities of general/generic love, love of all aspects, and lovers. If I had included those that👆list would be twice as long. For example, note that I omitted Aphrodite/Venus, Eros/Cupid, Dionysus/Bacchus and others from the Greek/Roman pantheons. And I didn’t mention any of the Slavic, Celtic, or Norse-Germanic deities either because they all had some of those other domains I just listed as significant domains included in their repertoires.
So I don’t think that “lust” would be too narrow of a concept to be its own domain. But I definitely understand why WotC wouldn’t want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
There have been quite a number of deities throughout history who’s domains were “lust,” “physical love,” “carnality” or “carnal love,” or other concepts that could be considered as “lust.” For example:
Kamadeva (aka Kama [as in the Kama sutra], aka Manmatha) god of erotic love, desire, pleasure and beauty and his consort…
Rati goddess of love, carnal desire, lust, passion and sexual pleasure
Those are all just from eastern Eurasia, I didn’t even look for lust gods/goddesses from around the rest of the world. And, those are just specifically the “lust” deities from that region, I left out all the “lust” deities who were also significantly also deities of other stuff like: the sun, the moon, forests, spring, summer, marriage, procreation, death, war, fertility, freedom, the dawn, wine, etc., etc., etc., as well as deities of general/generic love, love of all aspects, and lovers. If I had included those that👆list would be twice as long. For example, note that I omitted Aphrodite/Venus, Eros/Cupid, Dionysus/Bacchus and others from the Greek/Roman pantheons. And I didn’t mention any of the Slavic, Celtic, or Norse-Germanic deities either because they all had some of those other domains I just listed as significant domains included in their repertoires.
So I don’t think that “lust” would be too narrow of a concept to be its own domain. But I definitely understand why WotC wouldn’t want to touch it with a [Tooltip Not Found].
I didn't mean it was too narrow a concept for a deity in general, but they've generally gone with more general stuff when basing a subclass around it. Like instead of an animal domain, a forest domain, and a harvest domain, we just have "Nature". I just think if they want to dip a toe in that pool, they'll go for a wider "interpersonal relationships" domain rather than a single relationship dynamic.
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lemme ask you, how would you create a “lust domain” that didn’t mention sex at all, and had no mechanics that would in any way influence another creature to either want to do something or not want to do something that they would not already want to do or not do?
A lot of the third-party lust domains that I've seen include charm spells that can only be used on targets with a certain level of willingness within the context of the story. Like with a lot of things, context is important. While I could see that negating the effectiveness of a lot of spells, it could still be useful. There's a way to write spells oriented around lust, love, or desire without it violating consent. For example, a spell that amplifies a targets preexisting desire for something, sexual or otherwise. The word lust isn't always used in reference to sex anyway (i.e. Lust for power, lust for wealth, bloodlust, etc.) Besides, there are playable evil alignments, evil spells don't necessarily seem out of the realm of possibility.
Power, wealth, blood… those are the wrong sins there. Not so much lust as pride, greed, and wrath. 😉
Also, you said “lust,” not “love.” Those are two things are often conflated, but in reality are actually so drastically different and significantly removed from one another that treating them as an any way even remotely synonymous is far, faarrr less accurate than saying eating and pooping are the same thing. At least eating and pooping are intrinsically and fundamentally linked with each other, yet you really, really don’t want to get them confused. At all. Love and lust are not. While love and lust often do happen to coincide lots of the time for lots of people, they each also occur independently from one another just as often if not more so. I can honestly say that I have deeply loved, and do deeply love people that I have and do not lust after. I can also just as honestly say that I have lusted and do lust after people I have never loved, do not love, and never will love.
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
There have been quite a number of deities throughout history who’s domains were “lust,” “physical love,” “carnality” or “carnal love,” or other concepts that could be considered as “lust.” For example:
Kamadeva (aka Kama [as in the Kama sutra], aka Manmatha) god of erotic love, desire, pleasure and beauty and his consort…
Rati goddess of love, carnal desire, lust, passion and sexual pleasure
Those are all just from eastern Eurasia, I didn’t even look for lust gods/goddesses from around the rest of the world. And, those are just specifically the “lust” deities from that region, I left out all the “lust” deities who were also significantly also deities of other stuff like: the sun, the moon, forests, spring, summer, marriage, procreation, death, war, fertility, freedom, the dawn, wine, etc., etc., etc., as well as deities of general/generic love, love of all aspects, and lovers. If I had included those that👆list would be twice as long. For example, note that I omitted Aphrodite/Venus, Eros/Cupid, Dionysus/Bacchus and others from the Greek/Roman pantheons. And I didn’t mention any of the Slavic, Celtic, or Norse-Germanic deities either because they all had some of those other domains I just listed as significant domains included in their repertoires.
So I don’t think that “lust” would be too narrow of a concept to be its own domain. But I definitely understand why WotC wouldn’t want to touch it with a [Tooltip Not Found].
I didn't mean it was too narrow a concept for a deity in general, but they've generally gone with more general stuff when basing a subclass around it. Like instead of an animal domain, a forest domain, and a harvest domain, we just have "Nature". I just think if they want to dip a toe in that pool, they'll go for a wider "interpersonal relationships" domain rather than a single relationship dynamic.
I'm building a new character (a Tiefling cleric) and I want his divine domain to be lust. Is that even available for purchase on D&D Beyond? If it is, does anyone know where to buy it?
There’s no way that Wizards would ever publish something like that.
I've seen it referenced several places though and I thought it was already in the 5th edition? It's so hard for me to tell what is official and what isn't in D&D... :/
There may be a Lust Domain, but I guarantee that WotC didn’t publish it. The closest they ever got to anything even remotely close to a “lust domain” was called the “Unity Domain,” but it was generally considered so creepy as to be, shall I say, “highly unacceptably inappropriate” to the point of promoting consent violation as acceptable, so they killed it within days of it starting playtest. RIP, pushin’ up daisies, dead dead dead.
If something is officially published by WotC it will be for sale here. If you go to the top of the page and punch in the name of a subclass or something and it’s for sale here it will pop up in the search. If you click it and it displays for you then you own it. If it redirects you to the marketplace then you can buy it. If it tells you no results were found, 10:1 it’s not a WotC. Product.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a Lust Domain in the 3rd Party book "Deep Magic" by Kobold Press, so that must be where the OP is finding it. It is in the section all about evil characters.
Hi, I'm Raccoon_Master, a young genderfluid actor, writer, explorer, and bass vocalist. Pronouns They/Them/Theirs
My Characters: Brormin the Devout Crusher; Ellora the Romantic Rookie
Check out my EXTENDED SIGNATUR (hasn't been updated in forever, fyi) and don’t forget to join the Anything but the OGL 2.0 Thread!
"I don't make sense to you, and I don't make sense to myself. Maybe the only one I make sense to is God" ~ Me, trying to sound smart
Ohhhhh, okay, that makes sense! It's really weird to me that they couldn't write a Lust Domain that's not so creepy or inappropriate. To me it doesn't seem that hard but I understand why they would avoid it. Thanks for explaining! :)
Lust in TTRPGs practically invites creepiness. It rarely avoids being either creepy or comical, from what I've seen. The latter's not bad actually but can ruin the tone (if the campaign is more on the serious side), the former is self explanatory.
I can see why WotC avoids that.
I'm curious about this Unity Domain though.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Lemme ask you, how would you create a “lust domain” that didn’t mention sex at all, and had no mechanics that would in any way influence another creature to either want to do something or not want to do something that they would not already want to do or not do?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You can check out the Unity Domain in the archived UA articles on WotC’s D&D page.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"Lust" specifically is too narrow a concept in general, and definitely something they don't want to build a subclass around for a game where teenagers are a significant target audience. I wouldn't hurt for them to come up with a domain that can cover love in general; would be the right area for that kind of social emphasis, and if your group is okay with it (group consent is very important if you're gonna explore this), you can then flavor your character's deity as the lusty type.
Interesting. I don't really see the consent violation aspect of it since it always conditions it upon "willing" and is mostly stuff of the "you get these benefits when within a certain distance" variety, which isn't uncommon. I could see how it could be spun to be awkward though.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A lot of the third-party lust domains that I've seen include charm spells that can only be used on targets with a certain level of willingness within the context of the story. Like with a lot of things, context is important. While I could see that negating the effectiveness of a lot of spells, it could still be useful. There's a way to write spells oriented around lust, love, or desire without it violating consent. For example, a spell that amplifies a targets preexisting desire for something, sexual or otherwise. The word lust isn't always used in reference to sex anyway (i.e. Lust for power, lust for wealth, bloodlust, etc.) Besides, there are playable evil alignments, evil spells don't necessarily seem out of the realm of possibility.
This is really more along the lines of what I was thinking. :) Although lust could be used in a variety of contexts and I don't really see it being any more narrow than order or war if written right. They can write conditions and clauses that encourage it to be used in a consensual way.
That's how I always thought of it. Magic users in a lot of media use charm spells on targets who are already willing. Even if it was used more nefariously, so are a lot of other spells in D&D. That's why there are evil alignments. But I could see the other side too. :)
Given the way charm spells work in 5E, if the target is already wiling, the spell is redundant.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There have been quite a number of deities throughout history who’s domains were “lust,” “physical love,” “carnality” or “carnal love,” or other concepts that could be considered as “lust.” For example:
Those are all just from eastern Eurasia, I didn’t even look for lust gods/goddesses from around the rest of the world. And, those are just specifically the “lust” deities from that region, I left out all the “lust” deities who were also significantly also deities of other stuff like: the sun, the moon, forests, spring, summer, marriage, procreation, death, war, fertility, freedom, the dawn, wine, etc., etc., etc., as well as deities of general/generic love, love of all aspects, and lovers. If I had included those that👆list would be twice as long. For example, note that I omitted Aphrodite/Venus, Eros/Cupid, Dionysus/Bacchus and others from the Greek/Roman pantheons. And I didn’t mention any of the Slavic, Celtic, or Norse-Germanic deities either because they all had some of those other domains I just listed as significant domains included in their repertoires.
So I don’t think that “lust” would be too narrow of a concept to be its own domain. But I definitely understand why WotC wouldn’t want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I didn't mean it was too narrow a concept for a deity in general, but they've generally gone with more general stuff when basing a subclass around it. Like instead of an animal domain, a forest domain, and a harvest domain, we just have "Nature". I just think if they want to dip a toe in that pool, they'll go for a wider "interpersonal relationships" domain rather than a single relationship dynamic.
Power, wealth, blood… those are the wrong sins there. Not so much lust as pride, greed, and wrath. 😉
Also, you said “lust,” not “love.” Those are two things are often conflated, but in reality are actually so drastically different and significantly removed from one another that treating them as an any way even remotely synonymous is far, faarrr less accurate than saying eating and pooping are the same thing. At least eating and pooping are intrinsically and fundamentally linked with each other, yet you really, really don’t want to get them confused. At all. Love and lust are not. While love and lust often do happen to coincide lots of the time for lots of people, they each also occur independently from one another just as often if not more so. I can honestly say that I have deeply loved, and do deeply love people that I have and do not lust after. I can also just as honestly say that I have lusted and do lust after people I have never loved, do not love, and never will love.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They tried that and called it the “Unity” domain.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting