Haven't read it yet. But I will say that the cover is so awesome, I'd have to resort to words not allowable on a public forum to completely extol its awesomeness. My socks are totally rocked off.
That is a sweet cover. It really makes you think ("Who are these people are what are they doing?"), which is good.
"Get your thrall on", though? That's just bad. Any attempt to make Dragon come off like Maxim or some "xtreme" sporting mag in tone is a bad thing. Please take that down a notch in the future.
I don't know, I LIKED "Get your Thrall on," but i'm a disgustingly huge fan of the demon lords- Espically Juiblex, Orcus and, yes, Pazuzu.
Ah, Pazuzu. Its nice to have you back. Now, to figure out how to shoehorn the demon lords and archdevils into Eberron...
|
Yes, that cover is awesome. In fact, it made quite the impression on my parents. My mom said it was demonic and pornographic.
D&D fans have been trying for decades now to improve the game's image, to let people know that it really doesn't possess you and all that sort of jazz. And then the latest issue of Dragon comes out with this blurb on the cover: "Serve D&D's Original Demon Prince." So much for improving the game's image.
While I enjoy the magazines, out of respect to my parents, I am cancelling my subs to both Dragon and Dungeon.
Huh, my mom was crazy about the cover. I guess everyone is different.
-Amber S.
I can't imagine cancelling your subscription to a D&D magazine because it points out that D&D has been filled with demons since 1974. I mean, you knew that before now, right?
I get the feeling that he's pretty young if his parents are getting a look at his mail. If his mom freaked out at the "Serve the Demons" line and won't trust him to explain the game or what the article means, and she thinks medusa thighs are pornographic, I would think that saying, "But demons have been around since 1974!" wouldn't do much good.
Edit: And if I see a change in general artwork (I don't know what Flinger means by "this many scantily clad women"...as far as I can tell this is the first since the Dragon relaunch 6 issues ago) I will be very disappointed.
Yeah, it is too bad for him, but it's also the nature of the beast. Good luck getting out from under mom and dad's thumb ASAP.
"I don't remeber this many scantily clad women on Dragon covers in the eighties and as a parent I do not look forward to them in the future."
You clearly don't remember the same 80s I do. Elmore, anyone?
Seriously, though, all I can say in response to this argument is a rather curt "Good riddence." The PC, family-friendly mindset is what led to D&D being dumbed-down and sickeningly-sanitized in the 2nd Edition era. That whole minset was simply a disgrace and all true D&D fans spit on its grave. Long live the nude succubi and prostitute random encounter tables of my youth! :)
Just for the record (since I know it will come up eventually), I am an adult, happily married woman and I think the cover is fantastic. If I were as powerful as a medusa (and I looked that good) I'd wear whatever the hell I wanted in my own lair too.
-Amber S.
|
|
I can't imagine cancelling your subscription to a D&D magazine because it points out that D&D has been filled with demons since 1974. I mean, you knew that before now, right?
Yes, I knew it. But I never said that was the reason for cancelling. I'm cancelling out of respect for my parents. They didn't freak out. I am not "under their thumb." They are not making me cancel. I'm cancelling to make them feel better.
I was making two points with that post and you got them mixed up. My remark about the demon blurb on the cover wasn't about how I felt about it. Rather, the point was that blurbs like that do not help do away with D&D misconceptions.
My husband has every Dragon Magazine from somewhere in the mid issue twenties... and this is relatively tame, at least as far as scantily clad women go.
To Flinger - bravo for taking an active hand in making sure your children are not exposed to content that you feel inappropriate. That is your perogative, and it is right for you to exercise it. Personally, I feel that you may be overreacting. Any child can see a more scantily dressed woman during prime time, or on a billboard on the highway. Many of the models in vogue and other magazines make the image seem almost prim and proper. I hope, before you cancel that subscription, that you look at the other magazines on your table, and the tv programs you watch, and do some assessment of whether this cover is any worse.
To Zootcat - I appreciate that you feel a need to cancel your subscriptions... your parents should appreciate having such a respectful child. You complain that D&D fans have been trying for decades to improve the image of the game, and that we don't appreciate it. Please remember, some of us have been doing that fighting for decades. My school tried to keep me from bringing the books in to school - I remember my parents telling the administration to stop trying to tell me what was appropriate reading material. I was lucky... I had parents who, despite disliking D&D, believed in giving me a choice, and in supporting me. Rather than canceling your subscription, I suggest that you let your mom know you understand and appreciate her comments, and while you like the cover, that you would be glad to write a letter with her asking that the covers be toned down, as keeping your subscription is more important to you than the art on the cover. That allows both her and your voices to be heard.
As far as the "Serve D&D's original demon prince" -- the game has demons and devils in it people. It always has. They are intended to be the worst of the monsters you try to fight... what is horrible about that?
- Ashavan
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
"I don't remeber this many scantily clad women on Dragon covers in the eighties and as a parent I do not look forward to them in the future."
Go to #38
Go to #47
Go to #53
Go to #58
Go to #80
Go to #93
Go to #101
Go to #106
Go to #108
Go to #114
Go to #135
Go to #136
Go to #147
Lots of thighs. Lots of shoulders.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
...I'm cancelling out of respect for my parents. They didn't freak out. I am not "under their thumb." They are not making me cancel. I'm cancelling to make them feel better.
That's great that you respect your parents so much. You said the cover was "awesome," so I'm sure you're doing what's best for your household.
Maybe later, after you live on your own, you can buy all the back issues you missed. Heck, that's what I did with Penthou--I mean, Smithsonian.
:)
Tony M
"Feel free to look back at some of the covers from the eighties..."
I did. So did Erik. You're incorrect.
Flinger -
I have a family, and so does my brother.... granted, my husband and I don't have kids, but my brother, also a gamer and longtime reader, has three. There are plenty of covers that I haven't liked... but I'm not going to discount a cover simply because the artist is allowing some of his/her subjects' cleavage show. The covers have to appeal to a broadbase. Ok, maybe THAT cover is appealing more to the teenage boy crowd than most... but then, Medesha started this thread based on how much the cover rocked - and (as she pointedly noted) she is an adult, married woman.
For the reasons why political correctness should almost never be allowed to limit speech, please refer to a classic... Fahrenheit 451.
- Ashavan
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It's worth mentioning that I hadn't widened my 1980s smutty cover search to include simple cleavage (of the kind found routinely on the cover of, say, People magazine). If I had, I would have had to add several more covers to the list of links posted above.
In fact there were only 9 instances of same in the last 50 covers, some of which are very, very tame.
Here they are. I'm interested to hear which of these covers was offensive.
282
287
293
306
307
310
316
326
329
Seriously. Which of these covers constitutes the trend you mention?
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
"So cleavage is off limits, now?"
Yes. And no more objectifying barbarians with those sleazy loincloths. This isn't some kind of lighthearted sword-and-sorcery fantasy game we're talking about. ;)
"So cleavage is off limits, now?"
Yes. And no more objectifying barbarians with those sleazy loincloths. This isn't some kind of lighthearted sword-and-sorcery fantasy game we're talking about. ;)
And Let's not forget the exploitation of the minorities. Not all halflings are thieves.
I personally find nothing wrong with showing a little skin, particularly since it's been a gaming staple since the hobby began, and nearly every piece of classic fantasy art has some cleavage or rippling muscles in it. You need look no farther than the Conan covers to see the evidence of a long-standing tradition of impractical armor.
Flinger -
Here is your opportunity, you've made some statements about finding the covers distasteful, and said this seemed to be a trend... while the evidence Erik has listed would seem to counter both your memory of the covers and the start of a trend, he has flat out asked you what you are finding offensive. Editor-in-chiefs of magazines don't usually do that, so if you have a genuine issue with the magazines, then please present it... you don't have this sort of opportunity every day.
Clearly a lot of us disagree with you, but that shouldn't stop you from letting Erik know how you feel and why. If you'd like to see something change about the covers, take the chance and let Erik know, as he is the man with the power to change things.
- Ashavan
I am now a parent, a 3 and a 2 year old, and having this sort of art on the cover of a magizine that might be on my coffeetable is not acceptable. I don't remeber this many scantily clad women on Dragon covers in the eighties and as a parent I do not look forward to them in the future.
Interesting. See, I'm also a parent. My daughter turns 4 next week and my son turns 3 next month. Frankly, I have no problems with them seeing nudity - not that this cover involved any nudity, of course. I much prefer them to see a (mostly) human body to blood, guts, etc that can been seen regularly on kids programming.
Let's get right down to it - I can see more skin on the Cover of the Sports Illustrated 2004 Swimsuit issue, or the 2003 cover; or let's go back a bit - how 'bout the 1999 cover? Don't want to talk about SI? Well, how about the cleavage on the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine? Perhaps you like People Magazine better? How about some cleavage in Marie claire?
Get over it. There's nothing wrong with the cover. It was a great picture.
Erik
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Covers 310 and 316 were my favorites from the past two years. Elmore and Ryman. Yeah!
Cover from 147 remains one of my favorite of all time.
That said, selecting cover art for your magazine has got to be one of the dicey-est decisions you must make each month.
As these posts illustrate, no one judges art on its merits, anymore.
The idea that art is supposed to be provocative, alluring, compelling -- even, dare I say it -- distateful, seems to be lost in our society.
The fact is, your magazine's covers, while interesting, rarely approaches that level of emotional response. You are constrained by the same market forces as everyone else: Select art that grabs the eye of a potential reader while staying within some arbitary societal norms. You can't afford to offend. Yet here you are. This was not a racy cover by any means, but at least some segment of your readership was still offended.
Look, I'm a father. I'm conscious and protective to what my children are exposed to. And any parent has the same right. Any parent that thinks Dragon is not for their kids should feel to censure that material as they see fit. But I have to echo Zherog's note above. The depictions of violence I see everywhere I go are by far more disturbing than pictures of beautiful, even scantily-clad, beautiful people. And so I would caution anyone against making a reactionary decision against Dragon, such as cancelling a subscription, without judging its content as a whole and for a period of time.
As you are well-aware, Eric, considering the roots of fantasy and Sword n Sorcery literature, Dragon covers are very, very tame. (Readers should check out some old Weird Tales covers, Gor novel covers, Tarzan novel covers sometime to see where the genre's roots truly lie).
I guess I am just sensitive to this apparent backlash against art by adults under the guise of "protecting" ourselves. We've already seen that in the way Avalanche Press was shouted down for their supplement covers. That whole episode still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The material within was never judged on its merit or by market forces. Rather, their products were painted with a rather broad brush by a vocal group who said they were offended by their covers. Look, Avalanche's critics may have been sincere in saying they were offended. But judging from how well orchestrated the response was, I have to say they were targeted by a group people with an agenda. Regardless of what they said, those Avalanche covers were tamer than most ads in Cosmo and Marie Claire and most video game covers and most TV ads.
I've probably said too much in this post. I really do respect people who have genuine, realistic concerns, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post your criticism here. You are entitled to your opinions. But the issue of artistic restraint really compelled me to chime in.
|
I've just gotten my issue today! Woot!
I have not had a chance to read the entire magazine yet, so I will limit this response to the issue of cover art.
I don't really have a problem with scantily clad women in general. I don't really think that this medusa qualifies as scantily clad. However, she is certainly showing some flesh. Normally, if I feel the cover is "too racey" for my co-workers, I will carry it folded inward, so only the back cover shows. In this case, the advertisement on the back also showed a fairly scantily clad woman (perhaps more objectionable to some than the front cover?) meaning I couldn't really "hide" what others might consider objectionable.
Like I said, I don't mind it personally, but I do think that a little sensitivity is a good thing. Well done art, regardless of subject matter is appreciated, though often the type of content will not be immediately understood by the non-gaming public. There are certainly times when I relish the opportunity to induct a new gamer, but there are other times when I would prefer to avoid any of the questions that my hobby may encourage.
Since the paid advertising helps reduce the actual cost to the subscriber, I would have preferred you had held this cover back a month, though I don't know about the practicality of it.
Still, this cover art was far from objectionable. Heightened sensitivity among a small (and vocal) minority, while lamentable, should not be completely ignored.
While the "Serve D&D's original demon prince" could be viewed as slightly not right. . .I don't know that this particular cover is that risque. As for the figure--to borrow a line from Monty Python--all the nasty bits are covered. Museums have paintings that show more skin than this particular cover. My God what would they say about Duchamp's work?
While the figure does has a seductive quality about her, it is connected to the danger that the medusa figure represents. To look is to endanger oneself.
As Americans, we certainly are a stuffy lot. Where is D.H. Lawrence when you need him?
Flinger - while I will have to continue to disagree with you that this cover is in poor taste, I will also have to compliment you on your parenting. I wish more people these days took such an active role in raising their kids.
I don't presume to think my morality is better than yours, just different. In my view of things, this cover is no more revealing than what my kids could see if I took them to the beach.
|
|
As far as the "Serve D&D's original demon prince" -- the game has demons and devils in it people. It always has. They are intended to be the worst of the monsters you try to fight... what is horrible about that?
I understand that, but the blurb doesn't say "FIGHT D&D's Original Demon Prince." Rather, it says "SERVE."
|
|
And so I would caution anyone against making a reactionary decision against Dragon, such as cancelling a subscription, without judging its content as a whole and for a period of time.
I'm not making a "reactionary decision against Dragon" by canceling my subscription. I'm canceling for the sake of my parents. I'm doing it for their peace of mind. I'm not reacting to Dragon. I'm reacting to my parents.
Funny discussion. It's year 2005, by the way, not the 1950's.
As one mentionned, these days many "ordinary" magazines show much more then Dragon covers do. And it's real picture, not drawing. And you get them in the face while waiting at the supermarket cashier.
I'm surprised people are reacting to Dragon, a fantasy game magazine.
My kids watched Francis Ford Copola's Dracula when they were 4 or 5 years old. After I was planing we had a discussion on the movie, to possibly disarm any fear they might have. You know what, nothing. They loved the movie and understood it was it, just a movie. We had discussions on monsters, their powers, etc. They never had any nightmares about that movie or anything else.
They are now 12 and 13, and have a broad imagination and everybody think they are brilliant and charming.
The neighbor's kid? Afraid of everything.
Get over it, it's not what you see that makes you bad or unstable, it's education.
Joël
Hey everyone,
I recently recieved the issue in question and read the posts about the cover. Before responding I decided to try something. I read the magazine. Wow! I know Erik has been monitoring and responding to this message board. So sir, great work this month.
Anyway on to the issue of the cover. As you can plainly see, what we are looking is Medusa one of the gorgons. If you flip to the article "The Petit Tarasque", you'll learn as I did that Medusa was punished to have hair of snakes and a gaze that turns people to stone, because she was a seductress who thought she was more beautiful than the Gods. So actually the cover is quite fitting. If you were an evil monster who slayed your foes by making them look at you. Wouldn't you want to always be an irresistable site?
Now I can understand that some readers might have been offended. Some readers might need to cancel their subscriptions or whatever. However, these readers are severely missing out. Regardless of whats on the cover, what's in Dragon has been amazing lately.
Maybe instead of immediately threatening to cancel your subscription, you could write Erik a letter, or post something here to him. Nicely, ask him why he felt the need to put this cover art on. Remember, he has a job to do. He has all sorts of responsibilities and deadlines. If you really care about Dungeons and Dragonsm, then you wouldn't threaten to drop your subscription. You'd calmly ask the editor to make a change. Let him know that you want to read his mag every month, but you think that this cover could be detrimental to the game, ro at least is unnecessary.
I, however, loved the mag. I also thought the cover was great. Personally, i've seen alot of pictures of medusas and other seductive monsters where they aren't clothed at all, and these were mythology books. So I thought the cover wasn't inappropriate at all. oh well, to each his own.
By the way this is my first post. Hope I was some help to some one.
Jay
|
|
Hi,
I think there might be a rather big difference as to what part of the world you life in. Here in Europe, or at least here in Denmark, a cover like that would definetly not upset anybody at all! I at least, cannot imagine that anyone I know would utter anything negative in that matter.
I am not trying to say that all in the US are the same, please this is not my intention, but I do feel that matters like this are sometimes blow out of proportion in relation to Danish standards.
So just do the covers you feel are appropiate Erik! The way the few magaines I have recieved so far have looked, I have full confidence in your choices of your staff.
Cheers,
Stegger
I, for one, think there should be LOTS more covers with chainmail bikinis. Maybe even a 4 issue series of 8 panel fold outs, that could be taped together and laminated, so I could have a life size image to hang on the wall, hmmm???
(just joking!)
Just to balance out the prudes in the audience: I recently subscribed to Dragon (again, after a few years away), and I have to say when this subscription comes up for renenewal, I will absolutely *not* renew unless I see a Dragon Magazine Swimsuit Issue and/or a cover featuring a fully nude woman. I can point out some great Fastner/Larson paintings that would look spectacular. ;-)
While I enjoy the magazines, out of respect to my parents, I am cancelling my subs to both Dragon and Dungeon.
It's good that your parents have enough respect for you, and faith in your good judgement, that they'll jump to conclusions without asking you what the real story is. :-(
Personally, I'm not a fan of the cover. (Still don't have the mag yet so I can't comment on the contents, sorry.) Not because it's got a scantily-clad woman -- as has already been pointed out, it's still tamer than the covers of most of the cheesy rags you'll find on display at the cash at the drug store -- or because it talks about demon princes, but because it's not D&D.
"Get your thrall on"... Sorry, the wording doesn't do it for me. You're trying a little too hard to be cool. Then again, what else could you put in the big letters? "Serve your demon prince"? That'd cause just too many fights!
No, what I don't like is that it looks like the cover of a cheesy rag with articles like "10 Ways to PLEASE YOUR MAN!!!!!!!1!" or "Lose 10 pounds FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I also don't like the actual artwork... I'm not sure exactly what it is that I don't like, so this probably isn't a helpful comment. ;-) But basically, while it looks no worse than a cheesy rag, it also looks no better, and that's what disappoints me. :-( It's not that she's scantily-clad, it's that she's kind of pointlessly scantily-clad... She doesn't even look seductive to me, she just looks like a drugged-out trollop.
Of course, if everyone saw art the same way, it wouldn't be worth making. So whatever. :-)
I came to comment on the excellent article on Pazuzu, and decided to share my thoughts on the cover too.
While its true Eric, that past covers have had sexy babes, they usually haven't had sexy babes paired with suggestive text (another bad thing about the excessive cover text needed to sell magazines on newsstands). That contextualizes the female form with "gettin it on" in terms of what is communicates and implied by the publisher, instead of what may or may not be inferred by the reader.
The supine pose probably has something to do with it too.
Anyway, the Pazzuzu article was great, expecially the section explaining the modus operandi of pazuzzu's cult: how they seduce people. I hope to see that kind of thing repeated and expanded in future articles in the series (please tell me its a series!)
So cleavage is off limits, now?
--Erik
NO No no! Next they will be putting sappy non game related pages written by simi-celebrities in DUNGEON.
Keep the cleavage, kill Wil Save.
Stop the insanity.
ASEO out
FYI, we've got product review functionality live on the site now.
Want to post your rating of Dragon 329? Go to the product page and add a review!
Erik,
Will the series ever bother to explain who Iggwilv is for that poor, downtrodden non-'Hawker underclass out there in Magazine Land? ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
And will there be any chance to see the Fiend Sage of Rel Astra making an appearance in Dragon??? I know it was mainly a Polyhedron article but it would dovetail nicely with Iggwilv's Demonomicon...
By the way, anyone know what kind of Fiend the sage was???
-I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!
I would just like to say that, as a parent, I want my kids to be exposed to things that are beautiful. Dragon 329 is a beautiful cover and doesn't bother me at all.
While I have found previous covers of both Dragon and Dungeon in poor taste and over the line, Dragon 329 is definitely not one of them.
Yucky: Dragon 306, Dungeon 107, Dungeon 98
Yummy: Dragon 329
Why? I don't know... subjectivity?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
There's some detail on Iggwilv in Dungeon 121's "Fiend's Embrace."
We're really going to blow the lid off her in Dungeon next year.
As for the fiend-sage, who knows? He may appear. For the record, he was a molydeus tanar'ri, a breed that has not yet been updated to 3.5.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
i was just flipping through the issue, and i see that on page 91 that you have the captions for 'awen' and 'triskele' under the wrong graphics. they should be switched!
I would just like to join those approving of the cover art for Dragon 329. Like Myrkul I personally find nothing wrong with a little tasteful nudity in fantasy art, particularly of the fairly tame variety found in Dungeon and Dragon.
Speaking as someone from the UK (which has a somewhat undeserved reputation for sexual repression compared with the rest of Europe) I would agree with Stegger that in Europe (including the UK), a cover like 329 would not upset anybody at all.