The Role of Fantasy Races in FRPGs

[contracycle]

[/quote]In the portions I quoted? Well, sure, there's plenty of racist bile in those bits, but it's all directed towards caucasians.[/quote]

Really?  Where?  Or do you mean, any failure to recognise the inherent majesty of caucasians is to be racist toward them?  I see, in the bolded quotes, some really very mild commentary indeed.  The first contains implicit disapproval of the heroic stature given to our heroes, indeed, is that racism?  I can't see how, because Lewis central allegation is that race is part of the symbology of the film.

In none of the quoted, bolded sections does Lewis actually provide an opinion, you'll note.  In the quoted section where she details the ethnicity of the villains in the Matrix, the term 'gloating' is introduced by VDARE as a description of her position.  Is that valid?  Seems to me VDARE are finding what they want to find.  What Lewis does is merely recount... and presumably, they quote this bit because the spiciest and most 'hate-filled' they could find (lol).

VDARES thesis that Lewis disapproves of white people, or the representation of white people in a positive light, is wholly baseless.  And what they spectacularly omit is any remark by Lewis that would undermine the facetious claim they advance: they do not acknowledge that Lewis says: The "Rings" films are like promotional ads for those tired old race and gender paradigms that were all the rage back in author J.R.R. Tolkien's day.", and then go on to castigate her for failing to recognise the historical context in which LOTR was written.  After all, she's just a silly woman, can't be expected to understand what she's blathering on about.

VDARE go on to suggest that the reader "catch her drift" when she recounts the multiethnic composition of the Matrix cast, and claim that: "What they oppose is any positive portrayal of white people. What they like is any production that writes whites out of the picture." While what Lewis SAID was: "Say what you will about the convoluted storyline of the "Matrix" trilogy — at least those films give women and people of color some characters they can relate to."

Thus, keep in mind that I'm quoting bits of the article, not the philosophy of the site it was hosted on, or the political agenda it was written to support. Facts are simply facts.

Did you read Lewis article?  Because I say VDARE have deliberately distorted its content, attributed motive that they sucked out of their thumb, and generally assaulted Lewis while advancing an overtly racist agenda.




They criticise Lewis on the basis that "those "stereotypes" are integral to the complex tale of civilizational struggle that Tolkien was telling, a tale that thoroughly modern multiculturalists would prefer had never seen cold print because it also happens to be the tale of our real civilization."  Well, the British National Party couldn't have put it better: but what they did say at the release of LOTR is that they praised Tolkien for depicting the inevitable race-war brought on by the evils of multiculturalism.  These people clearly are NOT seeing Tolkiens orcs as representative of the proletariat, for one thing.

The article then says: "It's the tale of our real civilization because the kings, warriors and heroes who led us have always been manly men who really were whiter than white, and that just might have had something to do with why they won the struggle against their civilization's enemies, medieval and modern, at all."

So, 'we' we never lead by non-whites... 'we' never had African kingdoms... 'we' never had mesopotamian lords and Chinese Shih... so 'we' must be white Europeans, and Lewis is being castigated for suggesting that perhaps 'we', in the modern world, are not all white.  What a terrible, terrible crime, for which she should clearly be tarred and feathered and run out of town.  Furthermore, VDARE are horribly offended that Lewis might actually approve that: "For once, the major female characters in an action film aren't whimpering and waiting to be rescued by some steroid-laden Schwarzenegger-type.   For once, all of the major characters of color aren't lying in a heap of corpses as the credits start to roll. "  My god, its Political Correctness gone MAAAAAAAD.

I'm guessing you would label her a racist as well, because she agrees with the overall content of the article?

Of course.

I do note that you are completely unshocked and unfazed by the statements made in the article about caucasians depicted as heroes, or rather how these "anti-racists" believe white men deserve to be depicted as villians.

Quite right – because now you are distorting what Lewis is saying.  Lewis does not claim that whites 'deserve' to be treated as villains.  She is carrying out a systematic comparison and contrast of the approaches to ethnicity in each film and concludes by saying "To my African American female eyes, the biggest difference between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" isn't swords vs. automatic weapons, or low-tech vs. high-tech. It's the patriarchy of the past versus the Rainbow Coalition of the future."  She does not claim that whites SHOULD be villains anywhere – that is a projection, a motive attributed to her.  On the strength of this article, It is a baseless lie.

Are you saying that you agree with Miss Lewis, then? That caucasians are a villianous, imperious people fit only for the role of villians in film and literature, and should never be portrayed as the hero because (for some unexplainable reason) that's just wrong and terrible? That white people suck? That their culture has nothing of value?

As I have just demonstrated, Lewis does not make this claim at all, anywhere.  By all means see for yourself – Lewis article was linked from VDARE.  And this is exactly where VDARES racist agenda becomes overt: it's a naked attempt at character assassination of someone who approves of multiculturalism.  False motives have been maliciously attributed; she has been selectively quoted (and not very well at that); highly emotive terms are used to draw conclusions about Lewis' personal psychology.  I can certainly say that I agree with Lewis in all particulars and that this in no sense constitutes an opinion that whites are evil, or European culture valueless.

I'm sorry, but that's racist, too, Gareth.

It might be if that were what Lewis or I were saying, but it is not.

Where's all the ranting and incensed howling, the endless words devoted to racism that doesn't involve white men? I don't see one of these "watchdog" places complaining about how there's not enough white men in a Spike Lee movie, or in popular asian films like "Crouching Tiger."

Quite obviously not - for there is not much history of anti-white prejudice in American media or European media more generally.  There is no African equivalent of Friday, the African man conveniently washed up on a desert island to be Robinson Crusoe's personal servant, for example.

Because the undercurrent to all the "pointing out of bigotry" is that white men can never be the hero or the focus, because that's "racist" or not "multicultural" in every single instance it occurs.

[
Nonsense I'm afraid; what Lewis quite clearly expressed approval of is that the Matrix did not conform to stereotype as closely as LOTR did.  The allegation that this constitutes the claim that whites can never be the good guys is absurd and malicious.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that multiculturalism meant "Everyone else's culture but mine."  Folks will boo and decry that all they want, but it's nothing more and nothing less than the truth.

Except, it is NOT the truth in any way shape or form.  Its poisonous racist ranting.

Gareth, how is gleeful enjoyment of the tearing apart and degredation of anyone white not racist?

It would be if that were happening, but seeing as it is not happening, the question is moot.

How is dissecting a classic piece of heroic literature, "..." not racist? How is that, in any way, "building up"?

I cannot see how dissecting any literature, heroic, classic, or otherwise, constitutes racism.  And the criticism levelled at LOTR is so levelled only to contrast it against the strong (and IMO positive) multiculturalism of the Matrix.  I mean for gods sake, all she said was that she found the latter more satisfying!!

Perhaps, Gareth, you'd like me to make Odin or Thor dark-skinned? Just change the whole mythology because it isn't "multicultural" enough? How about we make Jesus not a Jew any longer, since him being a white guy is not PC enough? Or him being a Jew is too controversial?

That's ridiculous I'm afraid.  As I have already pointed out, Lewis allows that Tolkien was a creature of his period and does not level any criticism at him, or the makers of the film.  There is no suggestion that Tolkien should be changed or that LOTR is a poor film.  As for Jesus, there's a long tradition of people making him look like themselves, so in Africa you certainly find depictions of a black Jesus with African features, and in Scandinavia you find depictions of a very Nordic Jesus.

As I said, if color doesn't matter, if what we look like doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. You can proclaim the evils of depictions based on skin color, and simply reinforce the prevalent attitudes that race actually does matter, or you can ignore race as irrelevant and treat it as such, thus making it so. You've obviously decided that it does matter, and are reacting to situations as though it does. That, to me, is the height of racism.

A ridiculous assertion.  Then equally, we should not have doctors, because if we just treat cancer as irrelevant, it will go away.  And if we just ignore crime, it will go away, so clearly the police are redundant.  This is a completely fatuous argument.  Yes of course race *matters*, and racism is certainly a real thing that I believe should be confronted and destroyed.  Your argument depends on exactly the jumping of strange intellectual hoops and searching for it that you decry; if I confront really existing racism, that does not in any way validates the racists claim that people have inherent qualities related directly to their skin colour.

After all, if you act as though racism doesn't exist, how can it?

Uh, very easily.  That's how racism exists – its implicit, approved, and nobody challenges it, so it goes on and on.

Yeah, naive of me. But frankly, never having been immersed in a home culture where a person's skin color was important, I never paid it any mind. Call me racist if you want, Gareth, but I'm the one who doesn't see skin color. I don't see racism in the Phantom Menace, in drow and orcs, in gnomes, and so forth.

Well, I can understand that to an extent.  But I have to say, that saying that you do not apply stereotypes to people based on their colour does not imply that NOBODY ELSE does so.  So while YOU may not have been aware of the offensive caricature in Jar Jar Binks, many other people were.  Its not really legitimate for you to say that just because you are unaware of the history of that trope of parody that therefore you absolutely know that it was unintentional; that is not a given.  That's just an argumentum ad ignorantum; 'because I do not know it, it must be false'.

Like I said, the Tao supports this idea fully -- that problems are often created and sustained by their regulation. Consider the situation of sex crimes...if sex isn't considered a dirty thing, the number of sex crimes which actually occur (according to our definition of such) in that culture goes down considerably. Not "they aren't reported" or "they aren't considered such" but "they don't happen," literally. Ignoring the issue (not the problem) causes it to vanish.

But you are slipping from 'pretending race does not exist' (which is a contentious issue anyway on good scientific grounds) to 'pretending racism doesn't exist'.  One does not follow from the other.  I agree to a large extent with your claim here as it regards sex crimes, but I think the Taos analysis simplistic and trivial and I allocate the symptom it correctly describes to other causes.

Exactly. If orcs are X, but not to a racist reader, it must all be perception, meaning that orcs don't mean anything, and the true responsibility for "racism" lies solely in the lap of the individual, not in the film, literature, or other media in which it is supposedly portrayed or reinforced.

Well, granted.  But LOTR was not accused of hate speech, but of being Eurocentric.  And that's a legitimate point in my book, because it provides validation for the racists view.  I think that the BNP are being very opportunistic in claiming that Tolkiens vision is that of a race war in the real world: but seeing as we know this perception does exist, and this kind of interpretation, howewer twisted, will be made, it therefore seems a good idea to consciously attempt to undermine it by presenting media in which the counter-point is made.  And therefore, it seems entirely legitimate to me to praise the multiculturalism in the Matrix.  What I cannot see is why doing so in any way constitutes reverse discrimination.

To avoid this unintentionally, the author or game group must know what they are doing, avoiding this conflict and settling on whether perception is meant as-is, or perception is just a cloak over the real thing.

I agree completely

The author or game group can do nothing about this, n o t h i n g, though countless words and criticisms will be expended in chastizing them for "doing it." So what's the author, whether of fiction or game setting, to do when there's nothing he can do?

No, I completely disagree.  If we know that this can and will happen, then it's rather irresponsible to cater or pander to it, in my view.  What we CAN DO is stop having a race-based dynamic in RPG for no reason but tradition and which provides serious grist for the racist mill in our little subculture.  We can, in other words, take responsibility for our output.

No, there's a huge difference between ignoring race, and racism. Because your internal attitude is the only thing you have control over, and over whether or not you're being racist -- so you have to do what you're going to do, and if other people accuse you of racism despite this, all you can do is shrug and say, "I'm sorry you see it that way."

Hmm, actually I have a whole battery of arguments to attack the idea that you can necessarily exert control over your internal attitude, but be that as it may, I agree that there is a huge difference between ignoring race, and racism, but also a huge difference between both of these and ignoring racism.  And I would further contend, that if we are going to normalise the idea – as is the default – that RPG commonly includes race as a central concept, and commonly assigns characteristics and attributes to race, then I cannot see how we can legitimately defend against accusations that this continues to propagate a very high degree of interest in race.  Many RPG's are the very opposite of what you describe as ignoring race, because they make race such a strong feature of play.  Why?  Fair  enough, it may not be maliciously deliberate, it may just be a lazy reproduction of sub-Tolkienesque tropes, but that is not really an adequate response AFAIAC.

[greyorm]

Gareth, while I'd love to continue this debate with you, Xero has asked that these matters be moved elsewhere, and I believe we should respect that -- You failed your courtesy roll, man.

Xero, in answer to why -- I'm guessing I was going about more "how" in my responses -- but I think my "why" is lurking in there too, amidst the material about allegory and myth.

So, why do I like other races, why do I want to play them?
For reasons of the Inner Allegory, or the Myth. If I just want to play someone with another personality, I can choose a human any day. But races get used to make thematic statements about the inner world...they're a mythological anchor representing a part in a myth as something other than self.

It's a chance to examine human society, in all its complexity, from the outside. That may explain why I like my non-human races...non-human. When human social issues or traits get ported onto them, or when they aren't anything but humans of a different sort, I become uninterested.

For example, "Native American" elves, or racism between elven groups...big whoop. What can I do there that I can't with...a tribal human? Nothing. Elves have to be more than long-lived and pointy-eared, or long-lived, pointy-eared and evil to gain my interest.

They're immortal, they're spirits of "faerie" and nature, whatever that might mean. Dwarves aren't just grumpy craftsmen or warriors, they're representational of tools, or the art of craft itself. That's way more interesting, and it makes statements that you can't get with just men.

What I'm thinking now is that this doesn't work for some people because of the confusion of allegory for simulation, or even the desire for simulation instead of allegory. Folks who want detailed non-human cultures and psychological profiles on their elves and dwarves, more importantly, who want to be able to experience "what it's like to be an elf." They want to be immersed in the "inhuman's culture."

That doesn't mesh with what I'm talking about, though, because "what it's like to be an elf" doesn't matter at all.

I don't know if that is making sense to anyone but me?

[M. J. Young]

Well, Rev, it's making sense to me.

In reading these posts over the last few days, I had a somewhat shocking realization about all this.

I have never thought of orcs as being dark skinned. Ever.

I've read Tolkien's books several times, and although I've imagined them as brutish, dark was not part of the vision. I thought the pictures in the OAD&D Monster Manual were goofy, but they don't seem dark-skinned there, either. I realize in retrospect that they were dark-skinned (or at least many of them were) in the movie, but it didn't catch my attention at the time.

What makes this the more odd is that I developed a "post fantasy" setting, and ran it several times, in which the orcs were clearly being used as a means of addressing racism, and one that cut close to home. They lived in jungles. They were tribal-based hunter-gatherers. Their technology was primitive. Their religions and morals were very foreign to modern conceptions. They warred among themselves. Humans, elves, and dwarfs were enslaving them. I knew when I put this together that I was using the orcs to address slavery and racism quite directly, and that my players were going to be faced with it rather head on.

Yet never once in all that did I envision orcs as dark skinned or having negroid characteristics. In my mind, they are related to elves, and thus are generally pale. Humans can be dark skinned; none of the other races in that game world have that possibility.

I never described them as such; it didn't occur to me that anyone would picture orcs as dark-skinned. Probably I should address that before it goes to print.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

I'm more interested in why[/b] so many of us enjoy having culturally-monolithic fantastical races in our gaming experiences -- what functions the inclusion of races fulfill in terms of narrative, player identification, thematic/metaphoric concern, suspension of disbelief, fidelity to the fantastical genres in literature and/or film, the inclinations of human nature in general, etc.  

Well, to the extent that I have fantastical races in my games, it tends to be allegory for real-world cultural and racial issues.  For example, I had a long Star Trek campaign which dealt with Klingon interactions -- and it was clear that the clashes were allegorical for various issues of war and imperialism in the real world.  The same thing was true for my Tolkien-in-the-Old-West games, which were thematically about racism.  As I see it, by exaggerating and changing details, one can examine the issues separate from specific real-world cases.

[Scourge108]

Well, Rev, it's making sense to me.

In reading these posts over the last few days, I had a somewhat shocking realization about all this.

I have never thought of orcs as being dark skinned. Ever.

I've read Tolkien's books several times, and although I've imagined them as brutish, dark was not part of the vision. I thought the pictures in the OAD&D Monster Manual were goofy, but they don't seem dark-skinned there, either. I realize in retrospect that they were dark-skinned (or at least many of them were) in the movie, but it didn't catch my attention at the time.

Actually, I think orcs are usually depicted as being green, at least in D&D.  So this is very bigoted against green people, IMO.

[Doctor Xero]

I realize now I overlooked another possibility, and one which I think influences a lot of players who enjoy playing members of other "races": playing pretend.

There is a joy in being a different creature than human.  In real life, I can be a human all I want, and a strong human is not that different from me, really.  But there's an automatic playing pretend feel to playing a sentient fox, a pookah, an elf, a walking tree, or any other such creature.

I think it's too easy for us to underestimate the sheer power of the joy of playing pretend in one of the few hobbies in which someone over the age of ten years old can play pretend without feeling ridiculous!  (This may be true not only for RPGs but for medieval faire/renaissance faire, amateur theatre, Mardi Gras/New Year's Eve/Hallowe'en costume extravaganzas, and even amateur drag shows!  And you will notice the more flamboyant performances in all of these generally come from the same age groups.)

Doctor Xero

[arwink]

Actually, I think orcs are usually depicted as being green, at least in D&D.  So this is very bigoted against green people, IMO.

Going through the editions on my bookshelf 1st - Brown or brownish green with a blue tinge, 2nd - grayish green, 3rd - outright gray.

I tend to blame games workshop for the proliferation of vividly green orcs :)

[Scourge108]

Well, they were all green in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.  When I first saw their picture in the old b&w Monster Manual, I pictured them as being pink like a pig (since they had a pig head).

[Argetlamh]

Well, they were all green in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.  When I first saw their picture in the old b&w Monster Manual, I pictured them as being pink like a pig (since they had a pig head).

FWIW, I always pictured them as being pale though, not in a Caucasian way. Rather, Orcs were pale in a splotchy "Gawd, what happened to your face?" way.
Of course, I don't use them much these days anyway.

[komradebob]

Just a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

[Argetlamh]

Just a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

People are weird?
Seriously though, I'd imagine (no statistics to back this up mind you) that those who game in those historical settings have, for the most part, resolved how they're going to address the race issues of the time in question well before play starts. Historical racism is plainly visible to the early 21st century audience (know-nothings and italian immigrants, for example). In a fantasy setting, it's a little more likely to sneak up on people.

[John Kim]

This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

Seriously though, I'd imagine (no statistics to back this up mind you) that those who game in those historical settings have, for the most part, resolved how they're going to address the race issues of the time in question well before play starts. Historical racism is plainly visible to the early 21st century audience (know-nothings and italian immigrants, for example). In a fantasy setting, it's a little more likely to sneak up on people.

First of all, welcome to the Forge, Argetlamh!!   The local http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1604">etiquette is to sign with your first name, by the way, though that is a request rather than a requirement.  

As far as other genres, I tend to agree with you.  For example, in my experience, Western RPGs have been totally up-front with the issue of racism.  The Western genre games that I have played in featured this prominently, by features like having black and immigrant as PCs.  These days, there is no controversy in suggesting that the traditional Western genre is racist, and games have to deal with that up-front.  However, as this thread has shown, the question of whether the traditional fantasy genre involves racism is still hotly debated.

[Doctor Xero]

Just a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

I've found that the extra removal from reality offered by fantasy makes racism within it more obvious for two other reasons not already addressed, both of which come in part from the surefire destructiveness of being labeled a "racist" regardless of whether the charge is legitimate or merely absurd mudslinging libel/slander.

First, the distancing allows people to notice the racism without those social filters which come from guilt over possible participation within a racist social system or come from frustration about current failures to eliminate racism and protect victims of racism.  Social filters also come from a fear of the potency of the label "racist", involving a desire to avoid simplistic blame games and the resulting protocols against discussing such things to avoid implications of blame games.  Listen to people during discussions which touch on real world racism, and one will notice how much people avoid the topic out of an innocent desire to avoid the considerable discomfort concomitant with it.

Second, racism in the real world is historical (and current) fact whereas racism in a fantasy world is, within the limits of verisimilitude and identification issues, allegedly the choice of the designer.  If one runs an accurate game taking place in historical pre-Civil War Alabama, racism in the game earns one praise for historical verisimilitude rather than earning one blame for the existence of racism during that time period.  Historical fact defends one from damning labels.  However, if one runs a fantasy campaign brewed in one's own imagination, racism (or sexism or whatever) is considered one's fault unless one can justify its use in terms of theme, genre, tradition, or somesuch.  Otherwise, one risks the label of "racist" with all the discredit and dismissal it entails, discredit and dismissal which usually negate any hope of ever rebutting the label however spurious (or accurate) it may be.

Doctor Xero

[madelf]

For myself, I've got multiple reasons for including non-human races in my game.

One is purely for the fun of it. I like little short people, and big tall strong people, and stocky wide people with bad tempers (especially the latter as they most resemble me).
Fantasy races give a certain message, I think. I could do a fantasy game with only humans (or one with no humans for that matter) but it would not be the same game. So inclusion of Halflings and Elves and Dwarves, and Giants...says "Hey, here's a game about Halflings and Elves and Dwarves and Giants. Naturally if you don't like those races, you won't want to play it. But if you do like them, then here's something you might like to check out.

A second reason is actually to be a little experimental. I have the delusion that I can take old, tired, cliched fantasy races and do something just a little bit different than usual. So my inclusion of fantasy races is something of an experiment in humanizing them. To make them more "realistic" reflections of different human cultures.

I'm also frankly using them as protective camoflage. With a fantasy race, I can paint in broad strokes, using sterotype as inspiration to define racial, cultural, and societal factors. I can use them to parody reality without (hopefully) being as offensive as I would trying to recreate actual cultures. It is rather difficult to define a culture or society without either using stereotype, or writing a much longer book than I intend to. If I were to try and represent human cultures using sterotype, then I know very well I would be accused of racism.  There isn't a doubt in my mind. I could write up my own culture and I'd be called a racist. I strongly expect, in the tense politically correct climate existing these days, that I may be accused anyway, but at least I'll have a defense. Sadly intent is not an adequate defense for such accusations, as it seems that a person can be labeled a racist in the eyes of the beholder regardless of any personal racist tendencies.

But the biggest reason? I just like them.

[Walt Freitag]

One more point regarding komradebob's question:

Portraying blacks (or substitute any real-world racial or ethnic minority) as persecuted or discriminated against in a fantasy world: racist! It's like saying the persecution or discrimination is inevitable -- or worse, that it's in some sense correct. (Such a portrayal might be justifiable, though, if the purpose is explicitly to explore issues of racial equality.)

Portraying blacks as treated with full equality in a fantasy world: racist! It's a way of pretending racism doesn't exist, which is what allows real-world racism to continue.

Not portraying blacks at all in a fantasy world: racist! It's tantamount to claiming that the ethnic groups that are portrayed in the fantasy world are representative of all humans. Or worse, revealing a secret wish that the unrepresented group(s) didn't exist.

The same bind isn't so tight for historical settings, in which the first complaint is nullified as Argetlamh described. Nor for futuristic settings, in which the second complaint is nullified because one can claim to be projecting an optimistic (in that one regard, at least) future.

Note that if one buys into these arguments, the only possible non-racist fantasy RPG play is play that explicitly focuses on issues of race.

As I don't particularly enjoy RPG play that explicitly focuses on issues of race, my choices are to not play or design fantasy games, or play or design them in a manner that some people are going to perceive as racist. So, tough shit.

- Walt