|
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!
You know, I didn't know what an awen was, but I thought I knew what a triskele was. Then I thought I must have been wrong. I'm glad to know that Dragon made the mistake, not me. Though, in the future, I'd like to be the one to be wrong.
1: great cover.
2: everyone should read more Fritz Leiber (sexy dames abound).
:D
3: in a game where one of the driving principles is "kill people & take the're stuff", a wee bit of skin should not be a big moralistic concern. sort your self out.
4: all the above thoughts came from a Canadian. me. :) cheers.
And here I was starting to think I was the only one that noticed the awen and triskele graphic swaps. In the general sense, the definitions were right as were the descriptions, a tad brief for rather wide spanning symbols. All in all, they didn't do a half bad job though. An injection of Druidry in the Druid class is a nice touch. Toss out the Arabic scimitars and replace scrolls with ogham sticks for druids and they'll be a nice hodge-podge of fantasy druid and Celtic-style Druid.
Beannachd agus slainte!
/|\
After rereading my copy of "Dark Dungeons" from Chick Publications I find it just as frightening now as I did 15 years ago when I found the little comic pamphlet on top of a urinal in a bathroom at the shopping center I used to work at (Kukui Grove Center, Kauai, HI...in case anyone knows the place.) How is it that there are still people in the world with the close-mindedness to think that D&D is devilry wrapped in filth? How is it that we still hear so many stories from kids who's parents disapprove of the content and make them dump their books (though Zootcat claims he's doing it of his own accord there's still obviously the disapproving vibe in his house that has to be of some influence...might want to keep your D&D books out of site lest they too come under scrutiny.)
A salacious cover? Hardly. For one, it's a painting of a medusa, not a photo of some overstuffed Maxim model. And the cover text about serving a demon prince? If one took this magazine as canon for real life like, say, a cover blurb in a workout magazine on how to build better abs or a women's magazine exclaiming they've the ultimate secret for intimately pleasing men then, yes, there could be some acceptable flack from people out there. With Dragon and other fanasy publications, this couldn't be further from the case. It's *fantasy* and moreover, it's for a *game*.
And when did gamers become such stuffy parents? How many parental gamers now handed their Monster Manuals over to their book-banning parents? I'm sure there were a few but I'm also sure that didn't stop them from gaming if for no other reason than to defiantly stick it to their stuffy parents. I remember getting grounded at one point for getting a bad report card. My mom hid my D&D boxed sets (Basic & Expert back then) until I brought my grades up but that didn't stop me from playing. In fact, I'm sure I was playing even more just to stick it to my mom for hiding my books. That's what kids do, have we all forgotten that in our rise to adulthood?
But I've digressed (the hour's late and my coffee's worn off.) Dragon's not pornography, it's not evil...it's a collection of the fantastical for use in a game built on the fantastical. And as a parental myself (a 5-year-old daughter and one due in July) my D&D books will stay on the lower living room bookshelves and my Dragons and Dungeons will probably be on the coffee table near my reading chair. And if my daughter wants to look at any of them, I'll gladly hand her the books (she already knows where my dice are.)
- CHRiSTo
Now for another Canadian's input...me. Personally, I'm glad the cover rant has simmered down. Granted, I never once thought the Medusa was provocative at all (nor do I suspect teenage boys dream of such a creature) and as far as the mention of Pazuzu...uh...roleplaying games do involve something besides playing yourself right? If people think that Dungeons & Dragons and the magazines that focus on them involve, drink blood, worshipping demons and starting suicide cults or any other such stupidity that I've seen mentioned in opinionated and uneducated sources, they should learn to learn. Think and question first, for opinions and rant afterwards if it deserves merit. The stuffy Victorian age is over and it's time to toss out the relics of ignorance humanity has been dragging along for it's most of it's history. Thankfully, going by the posts I've seen, at least most D&D players have absorbed that one.
Truth, Knowledge and Foresight
/|\
First off, props to Paizo for another great issue. Now to the meat of my post. I personally don't find the cover offensive. Certainly not as revealing as People or Us Weekly. Besides, D&D is a game that emulates life in a fantasy setting. To say that sexuality and seduction shouldn't be a part of fantasy life is to reject reality. Murder, sex, drugs, and many other horrible things happen out on the streets every day. And if these things happen today, why wouldn't they happen in a land where you have to fight to survive? While Paizo did pick a provacative cover, it's not nearly as bad as it could have been.
Second, as long as the cover relates to D&D, there's no reason it shouldn't be there. Obviously, Dragon is not a porno, so there's no reason that the cover or any artwork inside should be explicit. However, scantily clad monsters (even though a medusa is a woman, she's still a monster) should create little controversy. Besides, what adventurer with an intelligence of 10 or higher would stop and comment on how pretty a medusa is?
Third, I am not here to say that those who find the cover offensive are wrong. They are merely expressing their opinion, and under protection of law, they have that right. However, you should not demand that Paizo tone down what seems to me, quite a subtle mag. If you are really offended by the artwork, don't look at it. Paizo should not have to change their mag to conform to a select few opinions. You do have the right to censor what you and those you are responsible for see, but you don't have the right to demand Paizo change their tone. Under protection of law, Paizo has free reign to put any artwork on the cover they want. However, I believe that the people at Paizo have a great moral code and only pick covers that relate to the material inside, and for that, I applaud them.
Lastly, I think the wording on the cover is perfectly fine. "Get Your Thrall On", while a little odd, makes perfect sense when you read the article it speaks of. Using such phrases appeals to different types of people, and if you don't like it, then ignore it. And "Serve D&D's Original Demon Prince" is nothing less that what it says. It merely describes a template that can be added to any character. Obviously the Thrall of Pazuzu is going to serve Pazuzu, so the context of the cover explains exactly what it means to.
Murder, sex, drugs, and many other horrible things happen out on the streets every day.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider sex a bad thing. ;)
They are merely expressing their opinion, and under protection of law, they have that right.
Well, not to get overly involved in technicalities - but freedom of speech laws don't apply to this message board. The US Constitution only says the government shall not censor the people (though even that has exceptions, such as shouting, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). As this is not a government run site, Paizo is free to apply any rules they want to censor people here.
Now, all that said - I don't think anybody has been "silenced" for saying they found the cover offensive. Certainly, people (such as myself) have asked why, and have even gone on to express diametrically opposed opinions.
I'm probably getting nitpicky at some of your choice of words, so I'll stop here. :)
So cleavage is off limits, now?
--Erik
BACH.....man, i may only be a teenager still in highschool and fighting for every right i now have to read D&D books/mags at school but to be perfectly honest, even the most b@@++y (excuse me if im not allowed to say that) teachers love the covers to the mags....they say that if my imaginiation works like that then it explains my crative writing....but in any case my point is cleavage is perfectly fine...even by my teachers and parents (who for the record love the mag and books for every aspect, pix, ideas, etc)....keep up the good work and dont let the cover artwork conform to popular contraversy....keep it in the spirit of D&D...whatever that may be in your own minds
Personally, I've always liked the covers, although they've gotten weak from time to time (not recently). What I want are covers that spark my imagination as a DM. Dragon #329 and #330 certainly do that, as do the "demon" covers on the recent Dungeons. I built a whole campaign off that old cover (pre #100) with the female warrior in the Underdark who'd just slain some strange worm.
All that said, I do have a 2 year old, and she does see mags and game materials I leave around the house. The only one she's ever noticed is Dungeon #116, to which she said, "That's scary."
My reaction is please keep the covers coming, but I'll have to learn to keep them out of sight for a few years.
--Eric
Here's some food for thought. I'll ask my four heterosexual male players and my two bisexual female players if they find the cover provocative or sexual in any way. I'll also ask my mother, a preschool teacher if she would be afraid to have the cover visible in the preschool. These kids are three and four years old. A little survey should cover the bases. I suspect I know the answers but why not? I'll even quote them.
|
All that said, I do have a 2 year old, and she does see mags and game materials I leave around the house. The only one she's ever noticed is Dungeon #116, to which she said, "That's scary."
My 2 1/2 year old is obvilously the daughter of a gamer geek...Most of the time when she sees the covers to the mags she thinks they are either pretty or funny. The last three issues of Dungeon (well, issues 118-120) all got cute comments.
#118 (the Frost Giant getting ready to pummel the paladin (and that's not a euphamism)) "He is VERY rude!"
#119 (the Drow/Displacer Beast cover) laughing "She have a naughty kitty."
and probably my favorite...
#120 (Demogorgon) "Bad Monkey!!" and if that ain't worth working into the adventure in some way, I don't know what is.
#120 (Demogorgon) "Bad Monkey!!" and if that ain't worth working into the adventure in some way, I don't know what is.
:rofl:
How about "greater cleavage?"Err... I mean... "Great cleavage?"
.
I'll drink to that!
Erik-
I posted this note on the ENWorld boards, responding to an inflammatory thread about Dragon. I like Dragon- love it, in fact. The changes to Dungeon were welcome improvements, and I look forward to your efforts to focus on Dragon. In the hopes that the baby will not go out with the bathwater, I thought I would counter all the negativity on this thread [edit: I am referring to the ENWorld thread, not this one] with what I *like* about Dragon (and hope will stay in it) using #329 as my baseline:
The Legacy of Beowulf: This is great, great, great. I love the idea of using mythos not yet widely explored in D&D. I like the idea that you could pull out pieces to use- even just Beowulf for a Fighter character. This might be a trend with the Lovecraft material before it- I hope that continues. Good stuff.
The Petit Tarrasque: This is an interesting concept, although I think the article would benefit from tighter editing- it dragged on rather long. I am not sure this is really directly useful for gaming, but that is OK with me, I am still interested in reading it. (I felt the same way about the samurai versus knight article- it was just fun to read. I liked that one more than this one, though.)
Mesopotamian Mythos: This is great. Dieties do not need statblocks IMO (no offense intended, Erik...).
Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Pazuzu: This is pretty interesting by itself, although I think a series of demons and/or devils would get old, just like any subject done too much. Instead, a more general focus on organizations- cults, religions, thieves guilds, etc. might have broader appeal. Still, I liked it.
The Ecology of the Kenku: These articles are really fun. I like the in-depth coverage of different creatures. Complimenting the other articles in the issue with related races is a useful trick to make the whole better; I think I really liked the Incursion and Gladiator issues of two years back for that reason.
A Novel Approach: Eberron’s Marked for Death: Blah.
Class Acts: These articles are wonderful. I love the ideas, and have used several with real and direct impact on my characters. I am not an 'intuitive' rules guy, so the suggestions here help me avoid boner mistakes. Showing people how to use (not abuse) the rules without creating new ones is a really great idea. (As an aside, I enjoy Skip Williams' Rules of the Game article series for the same reason.)
Bazaar of the Bizarre: Whatever you call these articles, I like them.
Under Command: I have no strong opinion on these. I do not play the D&D minis game, but can see how they are an important product to cover.
Silicon Sorcery: Some of these are good, some bad. The #329 one was weak.
First Watch: I like these. I buy game stuff like mad.
Scale Mail: Well, what can you say about a letters column?
Sage Advice: This is useful to me. I think that Skip Williams gets too much flak here on-line (much like Paizo, now that I think about it...)
Comics: The Dragon comics are great. The Dungeon comics are the ones that need serious work (except for Tony M.'s.)
Crunch/Fluff Ratio: From your comments here and in your editorials I think that you feel the ratio of crunch to fluff needs to swing to fluff. I cannot disagree with that, as reading fluff is generally more entertaining than reading crunch, at least to me. But, I honestly feel that is is pretty balanced right now, and has been roughly since the 'relaunch' last year. Maybe 50/50 is too much, but I would hate to see it become, say, 25/75 OR 75/25- too much of either is not the right approach.
I hope that this feedback is helpful.
|
|
I'd just like to point out that if we are going to go for more tight black leather & bustiere/corset Lord and Lady stuff (of which I *fully* approve) then it needs to be on the cover of Dungeon, not Dragon as:
1 - I am sure to buy it that way; and,
2 - The subject matter of the painting along with the title is sure to amuse the postman. :)
Zootcat, what gives, man? So you're parents say, "Zootcat, that cover is demonic and pornographic." So you say, "Yeah, you're right. I'll cancel my subscription right away."
Do your parents know you play D&D? How about explaining that it's just part of a game and that the chick on the cover is a medusa. They know what a medusa is, right? Have them open the magazine up. You already know it's just gaming articles inside. Explain it to them. You have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of (I think). It's a great game that helps people expand their imagination and socialize with other people in a creative way.
Anyway, that just bothered me and I had to add my own 2-cents. You do what you need to do. For my part, I thought the cover was great. Yes, it's evocative, but then, that's the whole point, isn't it? Look at the petrified horn-dogger in the background. Nuff said.
I have to say that I find it rather disturbing that anyone in their right minds would find the 329 medusa pornographic. I mean, really, she's sexy and everything, but does the painting really turn you on? It certainly does nothing for me, and I would imagine that if the sight of the painting were real, I'd be running for dear life. Snakes coming out of her HEAD?!? Gettoutofmyway! I guess I find the thought that anyone would find the picture sexually arousing disturbs me.
Moreover, this picture is done in very good taste. Certainly much better than any so called "gentleman's" magazines and even quite a few computer and gadget magazines in the market today. Aesthetically better and sexually more toned (down).
In fact, there are quite a few entries in the Louvre and in other museums that I would find much more sexually explicit AND arousing, despite their being aesthetically superior. As a parent, I would very much want my children to be exposed to the sight and form and beauty of human adult bodies at an early age. Children deserve to be educated about what the human body is about, just as much as they deserve to know what toes and feet and hands are. What is the point of keeping them in the dark about nude adults? So that they can have difficulty adjusting when they're in their teens and have much more pressing matters to be thinking about? So that they'll be ignorant and vulnerable to immoral publications and infomation? So that they'll be driven to seek true information for anywhere other than the home?
That's not good parenting. The concern is admirable, but the sheer ignorance is quite unfortunate. With all due respect, you have to realize that children don't even have sexual drives to speak of. When they see a nude adult, they do not see sexual creatures - they see, well, a nude body in an asexual manner, very much like you would look at a nude female sponge display, perhaps. So childhood is perhaps the best time you can acclimatize them to the form when they don't have the mad urges yet. That way, they don't associate the form with the urge.
Lots of societies around the world live with breasts showing out for all the world to see. Ancient Egyptians live that way, and records show many many premodern countries adopted like practices. These societies were not known for having incurably sexually aggressive people. In fact, the occurence of aggressive sexual meaning being given to the breasts is almost entirely a post-Victorian development. Heck, the Greeks conducted public sport completely in the nude!
Do your kids a favor. Familiarize them with how nude adults look like early. I'm glad that Dragon has the good sense and the good taste to present this image in this manner.
Moreover, this picture is done in very good taste. Certainly much better than any so called "gentleman's" magazines and even quite a few computer and gadget magazines in the market today. Aesthetically better and sexually more toned (down).
In fact, there are quite a few entries in the Louvre and in other museums that I would find much more sexually explicit AND arousing, despite their being aesthetically superior. As a parent, I would very much want my children to be exposed to the sight and form and beauty of human adult...
I feel very similarly, Roxlimn. There are certainly images in the checkout line at the grocery store that are a lot more sexualized and less tasteful. The painting is quite beautiful, and for that reason I am happy to let my kids (girls 7 and 4) see it. Then again, I was a dance major in college, so I guess I'm over the whole "our bodies are *bad*, m'kay?" thing that lurks deep in the American collective psyche and makes phenomenons like Britney Spears and Lil Kim possible.
In the end, people just have different world views and have different levels of comfort with themselves and the world, and I hope we all respect that. For example, I'd wager serious money that a healthy portion of the US population would find the caption at the bottom left by far the most offensive part of the cover. Serving a demon price? Holy crap! No way could I show that to my in-laws.
ok everyone........i say.....we.....GO TO GERMANY YAYAYAYAYAYAY