Varus' new lore: The Good, the Bad, and What Could've Been

{quoted}

I see what the guy is saying though. We just don't know, but sexuality rarely comes up in a Champion's lore. Literally Xayah/Rakan and Lucian are confirmed straight, the rest we have no idea.

Not entirely true. We also have:

• Darius, who had a female love interest in his past and implied to have a child at one point.
• Zoe's clear crush on Ezreal via dialogue.
• Ashe and Tryndamere were betrothed in the last bit of lore I saw, though I'll admit I'm not sure if this is still true. Admittedly, this has more to do with "Ashe is trying to unite people" than it has to do with her sexuality.
• Garen and Katarina's interest in each other.
• Kassadin had a daughter. He could have adopted, but I assume he probably had a female lover once.
• Rumble has a crush on Tristana.
• Azir had children. Again, perhaps less in to do with his sexuality and in more of a feeling of duty, but per evidence we have thus far he's shown to have been sexually involved with women primarily.

I know some would claim that Taric is gay or some variance thereof, and I would love to agree but we haven't had any confirmation beyond "he loves all life".

That of course is based on internal identity vs externally defined identity. Lucian, Rakan, and Xayah, are observably and provably heterosexual, though not exclusively. For the sake of argument, it is clear that they have both internally and externally defined heterosexual identities, and undefined other sexualities. Your argument assumes that a hetero/homosexual is strictly of that identity, and that those aren't simply components of a whole.

I.e., Xayah being straight does not disclude her from also being bisexual, but does include her as having heterosexual components.

There's just no winning either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I feel like I might be damned for what I say next, y'know?

Personally, I don't hate Varus' new lore, however, I do think that it took away the impact of a father, a husband, a warrior, and a defender willingly giving himself up, because it meant most likely losing the last shred of humanity in him, just to avenge his loved ones. Here, I don't feel that impact. Although the concept is hella dope (two souls being combined into one with a Darkin), and the music video was amazing, I just didn't get that same level of tragedy.

Like others have said, I'd have much rather seen this specific lore attached to its own new champion, rather than a pre-existing one whose sexual preferences are implied, if not explicitly shown (wife and kid). I didn't really connect to Val and Kai as actual characters within the story, because they just... showed up. They had no lead up to the Varus retcon, and just came up out of the blue for me. Now, if Riot had made Val and Kai into a new champion with or without a Darkin, they'd be able to hype it up, build suspicion and excitement, and I'd be much more invested in the character(s). Hell, if they even teased this and lead up to it, introducing each character and their backgrounds, I'd be fine with it.

Or, if Riot didn't want to slap the lore onto a new character but wanted to maintain their goal of diversity, there's a whole list of champions whose sexual preferences have no impact on their lore. Zed (altho it'd fuck my Syndra x Zed head-canon, I wouldn't be opposed to it), Kayle, Talon, Nidalee, etc.

The issue that most people have isn't necessarily that there's a gay character, but rather, that a pre-existing character was changed either FOR being gay, or that the character being changed to being gay was a result OF the lore update. This is especially divisive when we see that Varus' old lore, the whole reason he gave himself up, was because of his wife and biological child. When Tracer's sexuality was revealed, there was a stir in the community, no getting around that, but people were more concerned about their sexual fantasies and fan-fictions than Tracer herself. Because she was never given any piece of lore that hinted at her being straight or gay.

The same thing happened in Marvel, where notable heroes were changed for the sake of diversity. One major issue everyone had was with Iron Man. Some shit went down, and Tony trained a young black woman to be Iron Man, rather, taking the mantle of the identity. Would this be a problem? Not necessarily, if she was able to launch off of that into her own character. But that's not what happened. Instead, she took over the role of Iron Man. The Tony everyone knew and loved was no longer the Iron Man everyone knew and love, and the potential for a new, interesting character who could also work as a great role model was squandered. And that's what people hated. The fact that Marvel, rather than fleshing out a new, interesting character whilst still retaining some connection to a beloved hero, simply changed a pre-existing hero (Iron Man, not Tony himself) for the sake of diversity.

Meanwhile, Miles Morales. Initially, some people complained that he was just a "black Peter", as the Spiderman who took up the mantle following Peter's death in the Ultimate Universe. The thing is though, that Miles launched off into his own character. He wasn't just a "black Peter Parker" anymore. He evolved into "MIles Morales, the Ultimate Spiderman", and that's why people loved him over the Iron Man replacement. Because he became his own character and wasn't just a fill-in for the sake of diversity.

People can take my words this way or that, and paint me a homophobe or a racist any way they so wish, but the point of it is, I have no qualms about a gay character-- just when the character is changed to be gay, but they're have their confirmed (if not implied) sexuality playing a large role in their lore. ESPECIALLY because there was no lead up into these new characters being introduced.

No investment in the characters+a general distaste for changing characters who have already been defined, if not implied to be, as one thing or another= Eh. Just... eh.

{quoted}

I'm not stating that LGBT+ people have less capacity to love. I am not claiming that it is wrong or evil. I am simply stating that a good parent will value the very flesh and blood of their partner and themselves above all else. How is that crude or controversial? What is it the generally accepted best way of tormenting a person beyond imagination? Kill their children.

As for your idea of keeping the son in addition to the current lore, that would've been fine by me. And, as for your last comment, I said that specifically because I'm not homophobic, transphobic, etc. because some people might read it in a hurry and take it the wrong way. Apparently there's no way to win, or perhaps I just don't know how.

Killing Varus' son in the old lore was but of one of many things that struck against him. It sounds ridiculous to say that it's more impactful to kill someone's child over their lover. Everyone will feel differently about that, clearly.

My best suggestion to you in the future would be to not ever say "I'm not homophobic/transphobic/etc., BUT" in any argument. In most cases, it will certainly act against you.