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

[Uller]

Rewriting history...

They were an extreme historical abberation and not the norm.

But post victorian western cultures are still obsessed with this idea of women as fraile, guileless, and needing protection.

We still haven't gotten it that this concept was never the norm on most of the planet. In most societies women had to tough it out along with their men. Oppressed or not.

First...Are you seriously inferring that Victorian England was the first society to treat woman as "fraile, guileless and needing protection" and that this treatment of women was rare? Seriously? Have you not been watching the news for the last 4 months? Have you not seen the way they treated woman in Afghanastan? They aren't allowed in public without a man to escort them. They couldn't go to work outside the home. Etc. They are treated as weak and in need of men to guide and protect them. This is how MANY societies treated woman throughout history. This is how Islam has been treating women since the beginning of Islam(not attacking Islam here...many religions ancd cultures have done this).

So please, let's not re-write history to try to imply that it is the Western Europian male that was the first to put woman on a pedastal and then force them to stay put...

Second...what the heck does Victorian England have to do with the topic?

Third...King Stannis doesn't have to respond to S&S changing the cover. The fact remains that many people jumped all over the sexy art on various products from various publishers and never mentioned "context". Then when it looked like Monte would do it, no one was going to criticize him.

Of course...the fact that Avalanche puts sexy women on the covers of many of their products has gotten their name mentioned over and over again in the longest current thread on the "most important" d20 community on the internet(it is even in the title of the thread). How many people here would not know about Avalanche if it wasn't for this debate? Hmmm...maybe there IS a point to those covers?

 

[Wolfspider]

Third...King Stannis doesn't have to respond to S&S changing the cover. The fact remains that many people jumped all over the sexy art on various products from various publishers and never mentioned "context". Then when it looked like Monte would do it, no one was going to criticize him.

Oh, everyone that I saw who criticized Avalanche's cover art always mentioned the issue of context. What does this woman in leather strips doing in a game dealing with Norse gods? That is an inappropriate context. What is this scandily clad woman doing on the deck of a pirate ship? That is an inappropriate context. What is a scantily clad woman of non (or barely) asian descent carrying a Japanese sword doing on the cover of a book dealing with China? That is an inappropriate context.

Of course King Stannis doesn't have to respond to the fact that he made silly and baseless accusations. But that would just reinforce the image that he is lame, lame, "Nightcourt in its fifth season lame."

 

[King_Stannis]

...Of course King Stannis doesn't have to respond to the fact that he made silly and baseless accusations. But that would just reinforce the image that he is lame, lame, "Nightcourt in its fifth season lame."

sorry, wolfspider. real life (i.e. wife, children, etc) calls. i got your e-mail about this thread....so here i am.

how could my accusations be silly? it's s&s that has egg on their face for not having the cover on their website in this late date. the argument was an interesting one and one that could certainly apply in the future. the fact that certain people acted the way they did based on this (now hypothetical) situation was very enlightening to me. because a person admits they would compromise their standards and is then bailed out because they don't have to still is very instructive.

so if you're looking for a "gosh, jee, i'm sorry and all", you won't get it, my friend. try s&s's website. i acted on good faith information from the publishers of the book. and what about the fact that monte changed it? does that not prove that (at least he thought) it was cheese all along and needed to be changed? perhaps you could argue with him about "context"? silly and baseless indeed.

and as for the image that i'm "lame"...i count teflon_billy, joshua dyal, gary gygax, Furn_Darkside, uller and a few other good people who thought i might have had a very valid point. i hold their opinion in much higher regard that yours, sir - especially after this thread.

seeing as how this discussion is (for now) over, i think this thread is over, too. but you seem to be a "i have to get the last insult in" sort of guy, wolfspider, so go ahead and fire away. and then, mods, feel free to shut this baby down.

don't ever let it be said i wasn't a nice guy.

 

[King_Stannis]

Re: Pile on?

...I don't go for calling people hypocrites just because they don't see things as black and white (even if i usually do) as i do. But maybe Stannis felt he was under a bit of fire and responded too harshly. Then again, maybe he was just giving an opinion! ...

i say plenty of harsh things, warchild, and things that sometimes get misunderstood. but if you look at all of my posts on this thread, i don't think i ever called anyone a hypocrite. perhaps i am mistaken. my goal was to see if people would treat similar situations differently based on the person doing it. i think i used ""inconsistent" a few times, but i'm pretty sure i never labeled anyone a hypocrite.

 

[Warchild]

ahh, such is life.

Well, to be honest i don't feel like going back through all those posts!!
However, if you didn't say it, you certaintly implied for all your worth which is the same to me. There is no context.

I didn't write that to take a stab at you, seeing as how i agreed with you about the original topic of this post - that the cover was just as cheesy as the Avalanche covers. That Monte had it changed would indicate that he agrees with us as well.

I was just trying to break some middle ground and even things out and lighten things up. But then Wolf Spider came out with the "lame" remark and blew THAT ship out of the water. So, oh well.

Me thinks you two have had run-ins in other posts!

 

[King_Stannis]

Re: ahh, such is life.

...I was just trying to break some middle ground and even things out and lighten things up. But then Wolf Spider came out with the "lame" remark and blew THAT ship out of the water. So, oh well.

Me thinks you two have had run-ins in other posts!

no problem, warchild. i knew you weren't taking a swipe at me and i probably should have said so - but i think what you said was the general impression and i just wanted to clarify.

as far as me and wolffy, actually i don't think we've ever butted heads before. but hey, i have a short memory for such things.

upon reflection, sometimes i admire someone who's willing to engage in heated debate. people are sometimes a little too touchy, these days. i try to leave any differences buried with the thread. as i said, i have a short memory.

 

[Turlogh]

I must say that while the Avalanche covers are chessecake and not entirely appropriate to the content, the quality of the art work itself blows Monte's cover to hell. What did they model from? Claymation? What an appaling style! Appropriate or not it's ugly.

What alot of hoopla over nothing really, I have 2 Avalanche books (Atlantis and China), and I like what there is inside the covers. They are full of good usable material. I do wish the covers were a little more topical (although with Atlantis, who really knows).

My thoughts are to buy what you like, but try not to judge a book by its cover, at least that shouldn't be your only criteria for a purchase.

 

[Warchild]

Doh!!

Stan the Man
---as far as me and wolffy, actually i don't think we've ever butted heads before. but hey, i have a short memory for such things.---


Okay, i thought regarded each other with some...familiarity!
My bad.


Turlogh
---My thoughts are to buy what you like, but try not to judge a book by its cover, at least that shouldn't be your only criteria for a purchase.---

Wholeheartily Agreed!

 

[Wolfspider]

The Last Word

Well, since you already characterized me as the kind of guy who has to get the last word in, I might as well go ahead and do just that.

You started this thread with an accusation:

For everyone who piles on Avalanche for their covers, please look
Here's a look at the print version cover of the Demon God's Fane, the excellent adventure by Monte Cook. It also has a little bonus, two females - one showing a very nice derrier and another with a very ample bustline.


http://secure.white-wolf.com/catalo....tpl?section=79


will those same people here who snigger and sneer at avalanche's products SOLEY because of their covers hold S&S and Monte to the same standards?

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.

Like I've said before, you seemed to have started this thread just so you could thumb your nose at S&S supporters, who you seem to claim are revealed to be, despite their high-faluting attitude of superiority, on the same carnal, cheesecake-loving level as the rest of the red-blooded gamers who appreciate Avalanche's asthetic. You challenge people who love Monte Cook's work and sneer at Avalanche's cheesecake art to admit that they were wrong, all the while predicting that no one actually would. (Not a hard prediction to make, since humans are notoriously hard-headed, this one included.)

Predictably enough, people came to the defence of Monty Cook and S&S, citing the context of the art as a defense. Whether or not you think that context is a valid argument really isn't that pertinent (although it was rather fun to argue about for a while).

Ultimately, it was revealed that Monte Cook himself had thought that the cover art was a bit much and had the piece revised to show fewer curves.

You, King Stannis, say that it doesn't matter that Cook had the cover changed. However, it is the entire basis of your argument. You argued essentially that Cook and S&S had the same strategy as Avalanche--to use sex to sell their product. You argued that there was no difference between the two covers at all. But it does matter. Cook decided that the cover crossed the line, that he didn't want to be lumped into a category that might alienate potential customers and markets. That puts him in a different category than Avalanche by definition. I won't judge that it's a better category, but I will assert that it renders your original complaint meaningless.

(I was going to say "lame," since it's my word of the week, but that seems to have offended some lame people.)

There. The last word. Finally I can rest in peace.

*crumbles into dust*

 

[Carnifex]

*Dusts Wolfspiders crumbled remains underneath the carpet*

Move along, nothing to see here...