For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

[Wolfspider]

King Stannis, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I just take it very personally when someone implies that I'm a hypocrite. I've tried to live a life free of hypocrisy, so I'm a bit touchy about such loose accusations.

However, it is not hypocrisy to be able to put an issue in context. That's why, for example, we have judges and juries. If all murders were considered to be the same regardless of the context in which they are committed, then our justice system would not be very just at all, in my opinion. Is this hypocrisy? No, I don't think so. It's living in the real world, where such black and white distinctions simply don't exist.

It's similar with the covers we're discussing. One has as its centerpeice a half-naked woman in a sexual pose; the other has two half-naked women depicted in an action scene. Sure, they both have half-naked women. But that doesn't mean that they are equivalent. The Avalanche cover is focusing on the sexual nature of the woman; the S&S cover is not.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having cover art that is sexual in nature; I merely think that it should fit the product, and the covers done by Avalance press (with the sole exception of their first book on Constantinople) focus more on the near-naked women instead of the subject matter of the book.

Am I a hypocrite still? Am I one of "the elite"? Call me what you will. Judgement cannot exist without context.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

this is why, in my opinion, you have to be careful when you take stances like this. sexy women and fantasy art have been close partners in the last 20 years. i see no problem with that.

20 years? Way to short a period. The fantasy and SF pulp zines in the 1940s were rife with scantily clad women. Frazetta and Boris became famous for such work.

Now that's not politically correct. Tough It still is fun, and it sells.

Gary

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations,

Assuming this is a response to me..

With your stance, every time a woman of a native culture is photographed and put into a National Geographic magazine is pornagraphic by default.

And what stance is that?

Have I mentioned my opinion on the matter?

There IS a difference - and the difference is the context.

The only difference I can see is a modern artist using the nearly-nude female body to attract sales and an ancient artist using the nude female body for religous propoganda, story-telling, and perhaps the sale of icons/statues.

If you want to take the "stance" that because the use of the female body is acceptable because it was done by someone in the past, then fine.

Avalanche will just have to wait a hundred years or so.

It's not all one extreme or the other. There are gradients here, there are issues of context and exploitation here,

Again- where have I stated my opinion or suggested that exploitation is not the issue?

and ignoring them makes the discussion nothing more than pointless attention-seeking, time-wasting, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Err.. we are in a roleplaying game forum- what exactly is not time-wasting about that?

However, if you need to devalue an opinion that has yet to be stated, then go ahead.

FD

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: *rolls eyes*

...If you can't tell the difference between a bad-ass demon who is as she is presented in mythology in context with the scene and a chick wearing next to nothing with the "screw me" pose of every Avalanche cover girl to date, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. With your stance, every time a woman of a native culture is photographed and put into a National Geographic magazine is pornagraphic by default...

Well, say what you will about ass-kickiness (ok, that's not a word), but the S&S people chose an awfully marvelous (borderline silicon) chest image for their "Bad-Ass Demon"

I'd call National Geographic cheescake as well, if they only chose the prettiest girls from whatever "native culture".

So I don't think S&S gets to take any high ground here.

In any event, I like Avalanche's stuff to date. They are right behind Mongoose as far as I am concerned.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re: For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

...Now that's not politically correct. Tough It still is fun, and it sells.

Gary

As always Colonel P, you have distilled it down

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: Re: Re: For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

As always Colonel P, you have distilled it down

Dude, that was easy. Besides I like to look at "cheesecake."

Guess I am now relegated to some hell now for that, not prefering "Art" to such illustrations.

Gary

 

[Ashtal]

Grrrrrr....

I'd call National Geographic cheescake as well, if they only chose the prettiest girls from whatever "native culture".

Do you read National Geographic?

Cause you'll see the whole range there, from the boobs of perky youth to those you'll all be staring at when you're married and 75. It's not all pretty people. The articles try to tell a story, to paint a compelling picture of a culture as it lives and breaths. There is, once again, a difference.

As to Furn, your opinion is fairly well implied in your post by calling your fellow posters hypocrites and the examples you gave. My stance is not about WHEN such an event occurs, but it's CONTEXT. And it's context, in many instances on RPG covers, is titilation, pure and simple. Usually inelegant, irrevelant and degrading. And no, this is not a "Cheesecake is the Devil" reaction. Sheesh. Everything in it's place.

Anyway, enough. My temper's flaring. Considering my position, I should probably step aside from this thread now.


Ashtal

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

Guess I am now relegated to some hell now for that, not prefering "Art" to such illustrations.

Salutations,

Good thing that D&D was really made by Satan- they must have kick butt campeigns down there.

But you better get some of those crystaline dice- the plastic ones might melt.

FD

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Grrrrrr....

As to Furn, your opinion is fairly well implied in your post by calling your fellow posters hypocrites and the examples you gave. My stance is not about WHEN such an event occurs, but it's CONTEXT. And it's context, in many instances on RPG covers, is titilation, pure and simple. Usually inelegant, irrevelant and degrading

Well, you would be wrong.

I agree that it is tasteless to use half-naked women on covers and I tend to avoid such products. I have yet to buy an avalanche product, and will not be purchasing Demon God's Fane- though I had planned on it.

I like looking at beautiful women, but I don't buy gaming products for beautiful women. Such covers are usually a sign of odd priorities, and brings the quality of the product into question.

However- I will call someone a hypocrite when they are one- even if I agree with them. Otherwise, I would be a hypocrite.

My stance is "context" is a nice little rationalization for hypocritical behavior.

If you think a naked demon women is not titilation because it is mythological, then I question your resolve on your stance.

"Context" should never be used to find acceptance of questionable behavior/events.


FD

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Re: Re: For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look

Now that's not politically correct. Tough It still is fun, and it sells.

What are the top 10 selling RPG products and what are their covers like? Betcha the slinky covers aren't big on that list.

Also, I'd note that "sex sells" was a predominate attitude in beer marketing in the 70's and 80's. It still is today, but there is less sex or it is muted by comedy. Oddly enough with the dissapearance of the Sweedish Bikini Team and the like beer sales increase among women.

Sex may sell. But I'd rather double my customer base. And I don't think that has a thing to do with being "politically correct".