As I mentioned, my concern is mostly for the hobby as a whole--there ARE still some good, concerned parents out there who MIGHT get second thoughts about letting their kids play D&D if they find such magazine covers as 341 being displayed.
If you look at my post, I addressed exactly this. If they are good, rational people, then they won't freak out over this. They will accept a logical explanation.
And it won't hurt the hobby as a whole. I doubt a few parents getting upset over this will end up destroying all new interest in the hobby. In fact, cowering and worrying that any title might offend someone is much more likely to hurt the hobby.
It seems to me you are saying you are uncomfortable with it,and that we fail to see how it drives people away. No one says that. The response is that you MAY be getting a little carried away, since culture has shifted significantly since the older scares happened.
Your worry is noted, and it is comendable that you care for the hobby so much. However, you seem to be pushing this point REALLY hard about how bad it COULD be. There was no backlash from any of the previous demon-related covers, like the Thrall of Pazuzu title; did you lose any players then?
No, I didn't lose any players. I'm not consciously pushing the point, I was just clarifying my thoughts on the issue after reading the responses. I concede that those who are not concerned by this are probably right and that I shouldn't worry about it. My overly active participation in this discussion might have made it seem like I was pushing this point, but I wasn't trying to.
It was an interesting discussion, though--I didn't think I would find more than one other person agreeing with me and I was quite prepared to be lambasted by everyone for being too paranoid. I think I'd rather have my argument or position shot down here by you guys than anywhere else on the web.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was an interesting discussion, though--I didn't think I would find more than one other person agreeing with me and I was quite prepared to be lambasted by everyone for being too paranoid. I think I'd rather have my argument or position shot down here by you guys than anywhere else on the web.
I can call you paranoid again if it will help set your mind at ease. ;-)
This has been a good discussion for the most part, and I think everyone has enjoyed it even if there hasn't been total agreement.
Heck, if it will provide some comfort to the paranoid portion of the gaming community, I say reduce the demon/devil references too. No point in upsetting the core audience.
Heck, I love having Orcus and Baphomet in the game for the paladins and clerics to wail on, so cutting down on the references or inclusions doesn't do much for me. And I am looking forward to the Fiendish Codex as well. Its just the "bow down and worship" that might put some of our minds at ease if it were scaled back.
Ironcially, I have enjoyed this issue more than the last several months issues, as it really fueled my imagination about things that I can use in my campaign, including Baphomet and including his aspect as the leader of a few cults. Just to give credit where credit is due. Great issue this month, really!
I can call you paranoid again if it will help set your mind at ease. ;-)
Would you please just whisper, point, then quickly look away? Just "calling" me paranoid doesn't cut it, you know ;)
Yes, it was a great issue. I even renewed my subscription to Dragon while we were talking about this topic. I've really been happy with a large percentage of the magazine lately.
Hey working in a small backward town in a really good game store, I must agree we need to be careful. We have already got some parents who have said and I quote " Is that Devil stuff like D&D?" This stuff dies hard and I dont see adding fuel to the fire as a good thing.
But on the other hand they are stuip people who would never allow there kids to play anyways, but why allow ammo for there represive believe's. So I guess that is the back of the hand? Ok. Alright they are pretty dumb so I dont have all the answers but maybee we need to be cautious in Bush's America
My 12 cents
Could you repeat that a little bolder? Oh, and where does your gaming cell -err, group- meet?
Special Agent G
NSA Special Anti-Sedition Police
I think I'd rather have my argument or position shot down here by you guys than anywhere else on the web.
Fair enough. Did any of this put your mind at ease?
My only issue with the cover line is that Dragon may be evangelizing (devangelizing?) to me about the worship of Almighty Demon Prince Baphomet. I always thought that one of the nicest things about Satanists was that they didn't stand out on the street or in the subway car telling us all about how Satan and his worship helped them to a better life or performed miracles for them or bought Metallica albums for them when their parents had forbidden it. And now, my comfortable stereotypes have been shattered. For shame, Dragon. For shame.
Besides, the Christian groups that were very anti-D&D are more the marginal Jack Chick types that people don't take seriously. I don't think most mainstream churches (even conservative mainstream churches) have an anti-D&D attitude.
I know many conservative christians now who still profress satan's hand in D&D.
Beware dragon magazine the true dark lord is not amused and demands blood and souls to be appeased
|
F2K,
don't even worry about being called paranoid, as you said, you and a good many of the rest of us remember the bad ol' days of the 80s and the McCarthy type witch hunts, and gamer bashing that went on...
I don't think that any of us are trying to say it couldn't happen now, it's just that the people who would do so are preoccupied with other petty hatreds of things they don't understand...
what I'm trying to say is this, were here in one big community to help and support one another. you brought up an issue of possible concern to our community, due to the experiances of the past...
Game on, most noble sir
|
|
I'm also of the opinion that the cover line was a bad idea.
It definitely made me uncomfortable. Not so uncomfortable that I chose to bring the subject up, but since it has been brought up, I don't mind chiming in.
Personally, I hope that most of us are free to make decisions for ourselves, without pressure from people that don't take the time to evaluate our hobby fairly. However, I also recognize that hoping human nature changes to allow for more tolerant viewpoints is a waste of time.
Now, Christians are not the only ones that might be offended, but that includes both the actual people and also, for younger gamers, their parents.
Some players (and some parents) have problems with the characters worshipping a "false" god. Just as Pelor is not real, so these demons are "imagined". Still, considering that this aspect of the game does make some people uncomfortable, why throw it in our faces?
This particular tag-line is unlikely to bring in new players. It probably won't drive away many. But it seems that it is more likely to drive players away (or cause their parents to restict their access to the game) than it is to bring in new players, so why include it?
I don't consider it self-censorship (gamers censoring themselves) but I do consider it a smart idea.
And just a side note. The whole anti-D&D thing wasn't just a "conservative Christian" issue. Remember the whole "Mazes and Monsters" Tom Hanks movie? A lot of psychologists spent a lot of time telling parents that THIS kind of imagination wasn't a good thing, and that it was going to make kids think they could ressurect the dead and fly.
Groups of well meaning but underinformed psychologists have done as much damage to pop culture trends as any religion. Frederick Wertham had Congress convinced that if kids read about Batman and Robin and Wonder Woman it would confuse their ability to determine gender roles and it would "give them gay" (to use Homer Simpson's parlance). He also said that if you read Tales from the Crypt or and of EC Comics crime comics that you would go out and become a criminal, and likely would tie up women and torture them for fun.
Well meaning people that don't know enough about a given topic can do a lot of damage, no matter what reason they have for being concerned in the first place.
|
|
Well meaning people that don't know enough about a given topic can do a lot of damage, no matter what reason they have for being concerned in the first place.
Amen
It's also funny that people even become so concerned with topics they know nothing about. Of course it is always a lot easier to bash something you don't understand :)
you know, the real problem with "Bow Down Before Baphomet" line is that the guy on the cover is not Baphomet! some people will get confused as to who they are supposed to be bowing down to! :)
Since a couple people have claimed that the 'devil worshipping' backlash doesn't happen today, I have a story for you...
Last year, while running some demos at the big LGS, a girl came in to interview people for a paper she was doing at school. She was looking for non-Christians who played D&D. She wanted to ask them about their views on religion and the occult.
Do you think a high school student just had the idea pop into her head? Or do you think someone planted it there?
As a side note, the first 4 people she asked were Christians...
Yes, I got the D&D is evil thing back in HS too (I started a D&D club, so I made myself a target). I had parents (not mine) who claimed that I had broken my arm while acting out D&D, when in reality I broke it playing football.
It doesn't take much for the ignorant to find something to use against you, why make it easy?
And Stryper was cool, how dare you say otherwise!
|
Although I'm not usually one to stir the pot, I am a great believer in civil liberties (freedom of speech). This topic seems to be similar to the recent issue with the Danish publication that printed the muslim-offending cartoon of the prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb-turban. Should they have done it? probably not. Can they? sure.
Although publications have a certain ethics code they should follow, they need to target their audience. Although printing this sort of offensive tag-line may not expand the reader-base as much as another, maybe it isn't such a bad thing.
If someone isn't mature enough to deduce that Dragon is just presenting an eye-catching, gaming-related tagline, then maybe this game isn't for them. (And if they can't BS well enough to convince their parents to get it for them, they should hone those skills a bit more before gaming.)
(And if they can't BS well enough to convince their parents to get it for them, they should hone those skills a bit more before gaming.)
LOL!
It doesn't take much for the ignorant to find something to use against you, why make it easy?
Because I don't want to spend all of my hobby time walking on eggshells, worrying about what thing might potentially possibly offend someone.
You can't possibly think this is a solution. Like you said, it doesn't take much. So should I just not ever use anything or have anything or do anything they don't like, because it makes it easy for them?
This is the point. People might be closed-minded, and not willing to be rational. However, it is not a proper response for us to just give up because someone might not like us. I'm going to play my game, and enjoy it. I'm not going to play to please a few ignorami.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It doesn't take much for the ignorant to find something to use against you, why make it easy?Because I don't want to spend all of my hobby time walking on eggshells, worrying about what thing might potentially possibly offend someone.
You can't possibly think this is a solution. Like you said, it doesn't take much. So should I just not ever use anything or have anything or do anything they don't like, because it makes it easy for them?
This is the point. People might be closed-minded, and not willing to be rational. However, it is not a proper response for us to just give up because someone might not like us. I'm going to play my game, and enjoy it. I'm not going to play to please a few ignorami.
Right on Luke! The attitude of "If I don't make him angry, he won't hit me" doesn't actually solve the problem of being abused.
Here's my response to people that think D&D has ties to satanism. It's a little mantra you should say to yourself whenever someone tries to suppress you for your evil activities. Dragon should run it on the cover. "You're an ignorant a%%%~+$. I don't care what you think or how angry you get. Go f!!* yourself."
Hmm...coffee #2 is making me punchy...
....and if sales aren't hurt by the defiance of the ignorant, then by all means, let's carry on with the defiance. Luke and Sebastian have the right attitude towards the stupid people of the world, hurrahh! (I'm not kidding, I do agree with them on that point)
I never said we should self-censor the content of any of D&D's publications.....just maybe think about the image the cover might give to those who are thinking about getting into gaming.
Not everyone thinking about trying D&D for the first time is going to have an experienced and trusted gamer at their side to walk them through their jitters. Sometimes the publications have to stand on their own. Provocative and defiant in your face titles don't help them do that. Telling nervous new gamers to go f@@! themselves if they are jittery about the satanism isn't going to help our hobby.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Telling nervous new gamers to go f~@% themselves if they are jittery about the satanism isn't going to help our hobby.
But it's fun to say and will make you feel better!
f2k, you're right, it won't help the hobby by scaring off new gamers. I think there is just a fundamental difference in our perceptions on new gamers coming into the hobby and the influence of closeminded bastards on those people. I believe that the people who've already made their way to the hobby store intending to purchase D&D products have already considered and overcome any reservations based on satanism. I know I did when I bought my first product (I was, back in the day, one of those neophytes who discovered the hobby without any guidance).
Because I don't want to spend all of my hobby time walking on eggshells, worrying about what thing might potentially possibly offend someone.You can't possibly think this is a solution. Like you said, it doesn't take much. So should I just not ever use anything or have anything or do anything they don't like, because it makes it easy for them?
This is the point. People might be closed-minded, and not willing to be rational. However, it is not a proper response for us to just give up because someone might not like us. I'm going to play my game, and enjoy it. I'm not going to play to please a few ignorami.
Right on! I don't "roll over" well, and I don't intend to start (unless it means getting published of course ;) ). The idea of "rolling over" for this makes me want to cry. There's always going be something offensive to some person if you look hard enough, but censorship should be fought at every step.
...ignorami.
Ooh ooh... how about Ignoratti! They're an evil, clandestine organization infiltrating every nuance of our society, and they won't rest until they've taken all the flavor out of the entire world. ;)
But it's fun to say and will make you feel better!f2k, you're right, it won't help the hobby by scaring off new gamers. I think there is just a fundamental difference in our perceptions on new gamers coming into the hobby and the influence of closeminded bastards on those people. I believe that the people who've already made their way to the hobby store intending to purchase D&D products have already considered and overcome any reservations based on satanism. I know I did when I bought my first product (I was, back in the day, one of those neophytes who discovered the hobby without any guidance).
I do believe you're right, good sir. My concerns about the title are based on my personal experience with new gamers and my stepbrothers' grandmother in recent years. I can see how someone wandering over to the D&D rack at the FLGS to peruse product may have already addressed that issue in their mind.
Oh come now, for the last 130+ issues Dungeon has had the word "Dungeon" written on it in big bold letters, but we have yet to see a leathered up 400 lb. dominatrix roughing up some chained gimp with a zipper mask, right?
Would that be on the cover soon? LOL
- Neomorte
Heh. Yeah, the name of Dungeon magazine can be a little provocative, especially when you're looking for the website for the first time and actually type Dungeon as the keyword. Scary.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Heh. Yeah, the name of Dungeon magazine can be a little provocative, especially when you're looking for the website for the first time and actually type Dungeon as the keyword. Scary.
Steve! What's up with the new avatar? I associate the mask so strongly with you that when I flipped through the Dragon Compendium and saw the picture there, I immediately expected to read Steve Greer below it.
All you regular posters need to not go switching avatars on me. I know it's tempting w/all that new fangled avatar technology, but some of us are old and learn slowly.
I know what you mean...I may get to meet Steve in real life in June and if he hadn't shared a picture of himself with the other were_cabbages last year, I'd be looking for the dude with the mask myself as well.
....and if sales aren't hurt by the defiance of the ignorant, then by all means, let's carry on with the defiance. Luke and Sebastian have the right attitude towards the stupid people of the world, hurrahh! (I'm not kidding, I do agree with them on that point)
Exactly. I think a thing to remember is that these people are not buying our stuff anyways, and if they can scare people out of it then those people weren't likely to be long time players anyways. I don't thik it will ever seriously hurt sales.
|
Contributor
|
I took issue 341 with me to Jury Duty and it didn't get me pulled from the pool. Nobody cared, nobody looked twice. I didn't even get booted from the case. I thought telling the lawyers that I was a Dungeon Master might even get me excused, but no such luck.
On another note, I was happened to see an episode of Two and a Half Men the other night where Charlie Sheen has sex with thrirteen witches as part of a ritual to spawn the Baby Gigamesh and usher in a new age of darkness. He wakes up the next day with a bad hangover and an upside down pentagram carved on his belly, to which his fearful reaction is that he has been converted to judaism.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I'm pretty sure that the hardcore persecution of our hobby has ended.
Yep, I think I've been convinced that there's nothing major to worry about...I guess not everything was better in the 80's....I enjoyed this discussion.
Yep, I think I've been convinced that there's nothing major to worry about...I guess not everything was better in the 80's....I enjoyed this discussion.
Not everything? Suggesting that most things in the 80s were better? You trying to start another debate?
;)
Yep, I think I've been convinced that there's nothing major to worry about...I guess not everything was better in the 80's....I enjoyed this discussion.Not everything? Suggesting that most things in the 80s were better? You trying to start another debate? ;)
Nah, just getting nostalgic as middle age approaches....please excuse me, I have to go shopping for a Camaro....
Oh come now, for the last 130+ issues Dungeon has had the word "Dungeon" written on it in big bold letters, but we have yet to see a leathered up 400 lb. dominatrix roughing up some chained gimp with a zipper mask, right?Would that be on the cover soon? LOL
- Neomorte
No, but I'll bet there's one planned with red robed church inquisitors from Spain on it. Bet you weren't expecting that from a magazine named Dungeon.
;)
GGG
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh come now, for the last 130+ issues Dungeon has had the word "Dungeon" written on it in big bold letters, but we have yet to see a leathered up 400 lb. dominatrix roughing up some chained gimp with a zipper mask, right?Would that be on the cover soon? LOL
- Neomorte
No, but I'll bet there's one planned with red robed church inquisitors from Spain on it. Bet you weren't expecting that from a magazine named Dungeon.
;)
GGG
No one expects THAT...
Tim... dude... I laughed so hard at that episode of 2 1/2 men. and when their Mom comes in and recognizes the gf, who in turn recognizes the Mom... and panicks. Then Mom Warns her off from her 'sons'... I pee'd I laughed so hard. The realization that Mom is more powerful than a coven of thriteen witches! Now that's comedy. Bow Down before MOM! yipes
k. So, back to the topic...
I don't believe Dungeon OR Dragon magazine will keep the generations to come involved in RPG, I don't believe it's the reason RPG's are involved with it now. I believe it's the users of forums like this one that keep RPG alive and will continue to do so in the generations to come.
I'm sorta black and white. "People" are pretty much morons... I think some dude named Kay said it the best:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals... and you know it."
and some other guy named Ron said, "You can't fix Stupid"
A person can edge-you-cate themselves about something, or not. A person can read the magazine, or not.
Wanna see a kick and scream session? Let's see if we can get Paizo to have Brocal Remohi or Dorian Cleavenger to do some cover art for them :) It would bring a WHOLE NEW meaning to "Let's get some Dragon tail!" :D
\Ramble off
time to find my blood pressure medication.
~Craig
you know, the real problem with "Bow Down Before Baphomet" line is that the guy on the cover is not Baphomet! some people will get confused as to who they are supposed to be bowing down to! :)
And thats a shame because Baphamut needs love too.
Well damn it, then they got it all wrong. I got into this DMing gig to form a cult of personality around myself (oh, and my dark master La'Driew Lord of the Abyss). ::rolls eyes::
Oh well, I guess I could go into politics.
GGG
PS maybe there's a naughty hidden side game in D&D Online. If there isn't, we put one in. It just doesn't seem like D&D if people aren't burning it in effigy, and complaining about how players' souls are destined for Hell.
|
|
The paizo boards are going to experience the most traffic from people that are very interested in the game.
As such, the perception among the people here will tend to run towards acceptance and even praise for what Paizo does. Any negative reaction (no matter how small) is significant because it implies that the most devoted games (and perhaps largest supporters of the hobby) are, to some measure, dissatisfied.
Now, I can't speak for all gamers, or for those who might be entering the hobby, but I can speak for myself.
I find the tag line offensive.
I don't like it.
It doesn't bother me so much that I'll stop buying the magazine. It didn't even bother me enough to comment on it. But it bothered me enough to encourage me to offer my opinion on the matter.
As such, the perception among the people here will tend to run towards acceptance and even praise for what Paizo does. Any negative reaction (no matter how small) is significant because it implies that the most devoted games (and perhaps largest supporters of the hobby) are, to some measure, dissatisfied.
This seems to be saying that since the sycophants on this board are saying they don't like it, then many gamers must not like it.
I don't think that is logical or fair; quite a few people are not bothered by it.
Really, this is a case of people being reactionary worry-warts. Everyday games, TV Shows, and movies offer far worse to the public at large, rarely with any outcry. Because of a fear of the spectre of satanism, people want to play this up as being some mistake. It's not; it's one sentence on a cover with alot of text.
What is offensive? Bow Down before Baphomet? After a book like the Book of Vile darkness, or Monster Manuals full of devils and demons. If you recall the frenzy of D&D-as-Devil worship, this is largely what caused it- stuff in the books, or in the game itself. Not magazine titles.
If there is a danger of D&D being misrepresented as satanism, it starts WAY before the magazine cover.
What is so bothersome about this? Why is it so offensive in a game that regularly portrays killing sentients as an everyday activity, warfare as a reasonable answer to problems, presents magic and polytheism in a generally positive light, and containts numerous references to devils and demons, including three other magazines with entire articles devoted to said demons, sometimes with art of these evil beings on the cover.
To DeadDM, I say: I cannot fathom how 4 words from a cover is offensive in this light. To others, I say: I cannot understand how anyone can think this will lead to an avalanche of anti-D&D activity, or a drop off in players. In fact, the magazine has been out some time now, and the hobby still persists.
actually, i've been worshipping the devil since Dragon #341 came out. it really turned my life around.
|
|
The fact that you can't see why the cover line is offensive probably indicates a lack of empathy. On the one hand, it doesn't matter why I find it offensive. While it might be reasonable, it might very well be unreasonable. There certainly in a line that all individuals must walk. I certainly don't think Paizo intended the cover line to be offensive. But, that doesn't mean that it wasn't.
Now, you've asked why I find the line offensive, and I can tell you. First of all, though, I'll explain that I understand that we're not all the same. We have different likes and dislikes and we play the game in different ways. I'm mature enough to understand that we can all enjoy the game, even though you might not like playing in my group and I might not like playing in yours. That isn't to say that your style of gaming is bad or wrong - it just doesn't suit mine.
Now, personally, I consider D&D the opportunity to play heroic fantasy. Games that are "evil" can offend my sensibilities. When I was much younger I tried to DM for my friends in Junior High. When I told them that they could not play evil characters they put "good" on their sheets, but they played them as "evil". I understand now that they were objecting to what they saw as me trying to "control their chracacter". I also know that I won't DM for people that insist on playing evil characters. I find it offensive. These players in the course of the worst session I've ever been witness to killed a female NPC "plot-hook", raped her corpse, then defiled it.
Now, worshipping Baphomet may not be as severe. In fact, it may not have anything to do with my experiences as a gamer. But, I can't help but see it and think about my experiences with "evil" in the game. And that is what I find offensive.
Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I understand that most people don't. But, I don't think I'm the only one that felt that way. As a "hardcore" gamer (3 games/week) and a supporter of Paizo (Dungeon subscription, Dragon subscription, Shackled City Hardcover and soon the Dragon Compendium) I think that my opinion probably deserves consideration. As I said, I'm not going to boycott Paizo for their cover line, or give up D&D. I'm a reasonable person, really. But, that line didn't sit well with me.
I won't believe that D&D is veiled Satanism - I know the hobby too well. But I can still find it offensive. People that aren't in to the hobby might find it offensive as well, but they may not have the background to understand it - though spelling out that Baphomet is a Demon Prince may make it plain enough.
As a final point - I think it is obvious that the line wasn't intended to be offensive. Most of the things that people take offense to were not intended that way. Be that as it may, sometimes offense is still generated. Rather than tell people that they need to be more thick-skinned, one should consider if they might be able to avoid such slights by being slightly more empathic. Sometimes you'll still accidentally offend someone, but at least then you can genuinely apologize for causing the offense that you didn't intend.
actually, i've been worshipping the devil since Dragon #341 came out. it really turned my life around.
Preach it brother!
Speaking of preaching I was wondering if someone could point me to all sycophants romured to lurk here on the boards. I need a pascel of them to test out my Kool-Aid(TM) on.
As to the cover. I think from now on we should have nothing but small, pink, furry, genderless creatures who wander about hugging one another in a non-sexual manner on every cover. This way people aren't offended by excess cleavage, overabundance of certain ethnicities, free speach or any other possible offensive material (even accidentally). There probably shouldn't be any weapons (like in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2), or spike armor (you could put out an eye). Oh, and there shouldn't be any words on the cover as that might offend people for whom English is their second language.
As to early pubecent violent role-playing - let's face it, some kids can be stupid, insensitive jerks (it has been known to happen) and role-playing is about doing stuff you might not ordinarily do (like killing and robbing people who look different than you in their own homes). Imagine the chargrin of all those folks who believe in pacifism (or even PETA) looking at that Samurai v. Yeti cover. Now, whose feelings are being trampled on? Really there doesn't seem to be an argument here (escpecially since most of the folks who found it offensive basically said it wasn't offensive enough to bother them into starting a thread about it, cancelling their subscription or even tearing the silly thing off). Everyone is going to be offended inadvertantly at some point in their lives, but walking on eggshells out of fear you're going to offend someone is not the answer. So far the covers and their verbage have done a fair shake at not stepping over into flagrant disregard-ville.
The game is about armed conflict in the war of Good vs. Evil. Look at the Player's Handbook, how many pages are dedicated to combat, alignment, and spells that are alignment specific? The players ordinarily play the good guys and the DMs routinely play bad guys. Where do these bad guys come from and what makes them so bad? The answer is usually either the DM's twisted imagination or some printed source. If you can't print a bad guy with any worse vices than j-walking and littering you really don't have much reason (if you're the good guy) for killing him. Demons therefore should always be pretty bad and regardless of what people say or try to do Dragon is just as much a DM's mag as it is for players, hence there is a certain appeal to highlighting a bad-ass on the cover.
Sycophantically yours (kind master),
GGG
|
|
As I've already admitted, there is a fine line between being outright offensive and being "acceptable". I don't think Dragon should try to make itself completely bland to avoid offending anyone. It won't work, and the end product would not be as good as the current product.
So, while Dragon shouldn't make dramatic changes (in my opinion) they can still consider whether this coverline was a good idea or not.
Cleavage on the cover may offend some, and therefore cause them to avoid purchasing said magazine. It may draw others in. I know that Sports Illustrated (or at least I've been told by the News) does best with their annual swimsuit issue. While it may be offensive to some, Dragon ultimately has to look at the bottom line. And if they're more profitable, we'll probably get more content to boot.
Still, I can't imagine that people are so in love with the coverline that they bought the magazine because of it. I could be wrong - I know the Demonomicon articles are extremely popular.
But, Dragon is seen as a magazine for players. While "bad guys" ought to get there share of space, it shouldn't blatantly support evil characters (at least in my opinion).
However, Dragon has been very good about that balance in the past. I think the chromatic dragon progressions are a good example of that. They weren't originally going to include them because D&D is supposed to be about heroic fantasy (in the editor's opinions) but popular demand forced their inclusion. They still didn't make a big deal about how evil these dragons were. They didn't run a tag line like "NOW YOU CAN DEMAND VIRGIN SACRIFICE!"
It was handled well. This could have been handled better.
As I've already admitted, there is a fine line between being outright offensive and being "acceptable". I don't think Dragon should try to make itself completely bland to avoid offending anyone. It won't work, and the end product would not be as good as the current product.
So, while Dragon shouldn't make dramatic changes (in my opinion) they can still consider whether this coverline was a good idea or not.
Cleavage on the cover may offend some, and therefore cause them to avoid purchasing said magazine. It may draw others in. I know that Sports Illustrated (or at least I've been told by the News) does best with their annual swimsuit issue. While it may be offensive to some, Dragon ultimately has to look at the bottom line. And if they're more profitable, we'll probably get more content to boot.
Still, I can't imagine that people are so in love with the coverline that they bought the magazine because of it. I could be wrong - I know the Demonomicon articles are extremely popular.
'Nuff said. Next witness.
GGG