Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 768743" data-attributes="member: 6777">Not to me.I think the cover has only the most tenuous connection to its associated article, and even less to the rest of the content of this issue. And I don't know if we even want to go into what is "communicated" by the cover, i.e., that a handy visual shorthand for the temptation of evil is to depict a sexually attractive woman. And never mind that half of the 5-page article was about *redemption*.As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think I've encountered a succubus maybe once in 20+ years of playing D&D. Sexual temptation as a facet of evil (i.e., sex = sin) is not an idea that is germane to the game of D&D or an inherrent part of the magazine. It's a convenient excuse to put hot chicks on the cover and sell some magazines. I realize that "chainmail bikini-sim" comes part-and-parcel with the fantasy genre, but, thankfully, that's starting to change.Anyway, even if there was a good reason to have a sexy succubi on the cover (like say, there was actually anything, ANYTHING, about succubi in the issue itself), there were probably a 101 classier ways to depict one than this.As I've been saying, I have no objection to (nor am offended by) sex. I just would prefer if the sex depicted on the cover of one of my favorite magazines didn't make me look like a freaking dork.(And again, the content of this issue is great. I'm just spouting off about the cover, fwiw.)</blockquote>