I'm in love :P
She overpowers my usual aversion to blondes.
|
OK, what's up with those wings? They are also prominently displayed on the picture for the Savage Tidings in Dragon 351.
Creative Director
|
OK, what's up with those wings? They are also prominently displayed on the picture for the Savage Tidings in Dragon 351.
That's actually her cloak; it's made of giant dragonfly wings and is probably a cloak of flying. But mostly, it's just Wayne Reynolds giving her a cool looking cloak.
More WAR art please; I can never get enough.
Wayne is scheduled to do several covers for us in the next few months.
AWESOME! Best art ever.
Does she have a name or stats?
And for the rest of us, mayhap some more shots of the nifty hunky monk fellow with the big stick?
Just sayin'.
I like Wayne Reynolds art and I am all for perfectly shaped bodies (I am a fitness instructor), but I really disliked that her breasts are practically falling out fo the sides of her top. I think that was uncalled for for many reasons I can go into later if anyone asks.
I'd like to hear your reasoning, but female nudity in D&D art is what you might call a tradition.
That most time-honored of traditions -- personal gain :)
That most time-honored of traditions -- personal gain :)
And you know... beauty is nice.
Heh- fantasy + nudity existed long before Dungeon and will live long after.
My reasons for disliking this aspect of the picture is predominately religious. For those of you that don't care about Christian beliefs, don't worry, I'm not going to start writing of fire and damnation.
But I will say that our society has become too perverse. We need to treat our bodies as holy temples, not incouraging sexual thoughts from anyone that looks at us. We become sexual objects, and nothing else.
Granted this is a drawing, not a real person, but the same applies. And children can purchase this magazine without showing any ID. I wouldn't allow any of my children to buy Cosmo, Maxim, or any magazine that has sexual content in it, drawings included.
Now to the practical aspect of the picture. I don't know of any women that would wear something like that top for any type of extreme activity. Just a quick turn of the body will cause a breast to pop out.
I have seen other posts purtaining to inappropriate covers and the answer is always that partial nudity-sex sells. Where is Paizo going to draw the line? When will the line get pushed further?
I could go on about the immorality of the subject, but I won't unless someone has some specific questions to ask. I enjoy the content of Dragon & Dungeon. I enjoy great looking art. The woman on the cover could have looked as cool and awesome if she had a little more on.
We need to treat our bodies as holy temples...
I couldn't agree more. I'm thinking of some of the temples of India, the ones where sculptures of men and women decorate the outside, acting out sacred geometry. This cover art also brings to mind The Song of Solomon, and Chapter 7 in particular.
POsting as a christian. People can turn anything they want into porn, from visual arts intended for athat purpose to the a picture in Time Magazine. It is not a matter of whats out there but whats in the heart. In Victorian england I hear the big thing was womens ankles. In the modern west it is breats. Both wizards in this discussion are covered enough given the angles for general publication. Yes there are hints of sexuality but not anything more than you get walking down the street.
We need to treat our bodies as holy temples...I couldn't agree more. I'm thinking of some of the temples of India, the ones where sculptures of men and women decorate the outside, acting out sacred geometry. This cover art also brings to mind The Song of Solomon, and Chapter 7 in particular.
Holy in that context means clean in the eyes of the God of the Hebrews. The temples you are describing would not be considered holy but rather unholy. :) The cover art only brings to mind SoS 7 if you let it. I see no naked women on the cover. In fact she is fighting which is not what the woman in SoS is doing. At all. Pornography is attempting to draw the infinite from the finite. SoS is not immune.
This art is fine.
Holy in that context means clean in the eyes of the God of the Hebrews. The temples you are describing would not be considered holy but rather unholy. :) The cover art only brings to mind SoS 7 if you let it. I see no naked women on the cover. In fact she is fighting which is not what the woman in SoS is doing. At all. Pornography is attempting to draw the infinite from the finite. SoS is not immune.
This art is fine.
The cover is pornographic. You can see the sides of her breasts. God's laws do not change. They are the same now as they were before. Man changes the laws to suit their whims. It is culturely acceptable, not morally, to have something like this on the cover of a magazine that anybody could buy.
Yes, the dress is unrealistic. So are her magical powers. In fantasy, both women and men are cast under the auspicies of traditional beauty. Men are unrealistically muscled and have nicer teeth than normal people. Women have bigger breasts and leave less to the imagination.
As for the idea that god's laws never change, only man's interpretation of them, two hundred years ago, the commandment against graven images was interpreted to mean that pictures of living things were against god's law (engraved = graven, get it?). Some sects still live by this. Do you? Man, sounds like you keep putting words in god's mouth to fit your lifestyle.
God's laws do not change. They are the same now as they were before. Man changes the laws to suit their whims.
Abinadi, if everyone agreed with your interpretation of morality and its source, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Attempting to dictate morailty from a viewpoint your audience doesn't share isn't going to win you any converts; On the contrary, it usually offends.
Oh my.
I cannot believe had incredibly lame this discussion has become. Religion? What's next? Hey, let's discuss politics! That should be a fun little debate!
Let's move the topic away from breasts --
I love Wayne Reynolds' style. He has a real knack for drawing very pretty faces for his female characters. I also love the amount of detail he puts into all his characters' clothing, weapons, and equipment.
More Wayne Reynolds cover art, please!
And by the way,
I hate oozes.
Personally, my favorite part of the cover is the little imp familiar attempting to mimic his master's pose. But honestly, it's hard for Wayne to do much wrong where I'm concerned.
-James
(P.S: Compared to the standard chainmail bikini, I think the wizard's costume is downright viable. With a little tape, you can wear just about anything...)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Abinadi's point is taken. I can understand why the woman's outfit might offend some folks, and I'm sorry that Abinadi was upset by this issue. We try to provide provocative (not always sexual) images on our covers to attract attention and sales. While it is possible that we can "cross the line" and produce something that offends a small portion of our audience, we make considerable effort to keep the magazine within the bounds of good taste. Unfortunately, in this case we crossed that line with Abinadi, and his response is something we'll think about in the future.
That said, there's a good chance we'll offend more people in the future, especially if they do not like looking at pretty women. The number of folks this type of cover turns off is tiny in comparison to the number it brings to the table, so it is safe to say that there will be more pretty ladies on our covers in the future.
All of that said, I'd like to ask the posters here to refrain from mocking the religion of Abinadi or any other user. There are plenty of other forums available for people who want to talk about religion on one side of the issue or the other.
This isn't one of them.
Thanks,
Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
|
The cover is pornographic. You can see the sides of her breasts. God's laws do not change. They are the same now as they were before. Man changes the laws to suit their whims. It is culturely acceptable, not morally, to have something like this on the cover of a magazine that anybody could buy.
As another with an ongoing relationship with God, I'd like to contest your viewpoint. First, there is nothing inherently sexual about that picture at all. She in the middle of combat, about to rain flaming death upon her foe. Second, I see as much (if not occasionally more) breast exposure everyday I do to work (at a retail clothing store) or even when I'm just out in public.
In fact I feel that it's this very kind of prudishness that causes nakedness (especially that of women) to be sexualised in the first place. Actually, I find that this level of prudishness is dangerous in that it causes people to feel ashamed of their own bodies, of nakedness and of sex--which usually manifests in adulthood as unhealthy sexual hangups (including, for example, being grotesquely obsessive about sex).
With respect to everyone, I'm a little distressed at the direction this discussion has taken.
I don't find the cover of 143 to be offensive -- most seem to share that opinion. Abinadi does, and said so plainly and without hostility.
I think some of the response has been unfair and disrespectful, and not representative of this community in general. Thanks to Erik for his considerate, reasonable, and honest response.
Regards all,
Jack
|
Abinadi's point of view is interesting, even if I disagree with it. I do agree that, in practical terms, I can't see an active wizard, or anyone else, going down a dungeon to fight monsters dressed in fetish wear, given the impracticality of such garb. However, such images are really so ingrained in the fantasy genre in general, and in the imagery of the game, that I'm surprised that Abinadi would get particulalry offended by this one (though I am aware he/she did not kick off the post). Yes, it is a tittilating image - but I quite like a bit of tittilation. I don't think it is pornographic or corrupting - just a bit silly, to be honest.
I would like to apologize myself. I don't usually voice my opinion, especially when it comes to religion. I have strong religious beliefs, and one of them is to not judge others. But I am only human. I would rather post things about what I like about the magazines, not what I dislike. Unfortunately it is easier to critic than to praise.
You won't see me posting anymore my religious beliefs unless someone has an honest question and I will try and make the answer as diplomatic as possible.
As I have written before, I do appreciate the human body and what we can do to make it healthy, beautiful and respectful. I work in an environment that sometimes tests my religious beliefs, but that is the price that I pay in order to help those who want to become healthy.
I just want Paizo to know that I did not buy Dungeon #143 because of the cover. I bought it because it has an Eberron adventure. Those are the only ones I get.
I applaud Wayne Reynolds for his artist skills. He is one of the handful of D&D artists that I really like. Unfortunately, this is not one of those that I did appreciate. "Nobody can please everybody all of the time," as the saying goes.
So I appologize to anybody that was affended by my comments. I hope that in the future, as our posts cross paths, we can have honest and adult conversations. Enjoy the magazine.
Just to be clear Abinati, I was not saying that the laws are changeable. My email is beowulf47 at comcast dot net. Send me a mail and we can talk about Mark 7:1-23 and Romans 14 and how they apply to art and lust.
oh and wayne's art rocks. Apologies for offtopicness.
Regarding the wizard my daughter wanted to play a character that would look like her "but with more clothing on top." My wife and daughter enjoy both Dungeon and Dragon; I got the subscriptions from them for Christmas and my birthday respectively. :)
I was thinking the small winged creature was a homunculus instead of an imp. I would think an imp implied a Lawful Evil wizard although an LN alignment might be possible. What was the name of those creatures in the Lost Island of Castanimir?
If they do have stats for the magazine Iconics it would be great to see.
Her familiar is actaully a quasit. She is, at best, chaotic neutral.
That's my favorite alignment to play -- ABCN.
It's a great action-oriented picture. WAR is fantastic, but variety is the spice of life, so don't exclude other promising artists.
Suggestive in a good way, but not pornographic. I've seen worse from some of the 12 year olds at the mall, mom and dad in tow. One is even a preacher's daughter. If you do not like the cover, then rip it off so you do not have to look at it.
It's a great action-oriented picture.
I agree. I liked this cover where as I disliked the female depicted on issue #137.
This is the kind of cover I would have no trouble with my female neophyte gamer seeing. The response is likely to be "I wanna be liker her!" Something that I can't see any new female player saying regarding the female on the cover of issue #137.
Of course, we don't have the wizard's/sorcerer's opinion on this matter. If some lout of a man decided to make some inappropriate comment about her breasts I'm almost positive that she would be aiming a scorching ray at his privates!
Also, did anyone notice that her quasit is completely naked? How shameless!
By the way, none of this humor is meant to offend anyone. I'm just pointing out that there are other places to discuss matters of morality and this thread isn't one of them. Of course, Erik said the same thing, but no one listens to him!
This is the kind of cover I would have no trouble with my female neophyte gamer seeing. The response is likely to be "I wanna be liker her!" Something that I can't see any new female player saying regarding the female on the cover of issue #137.
I had the same thought. The artwork on 137 was fabulous, but I wondered how it sits with women that might buy Dungeon.
On that note, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the readership is female. While I would think it's fairly small, the old thread on readers' ages surprised me -- maybe this would, too.
#137 didn't bother me. More skin is shown on women's mags than what was shown on the Dungeon cover in question - at least the aranea had a commanding presence about her rather than a vapid one.