The weirdest thing to me about League is that for some reason in a pool of amazing characters my brain latched into Lux of all people. Why? Who knows but I want her to leave Demacia and hunt down Nocturne and meet people who grew up with magic and accept her as she is and she learns through these experiences that she has to return home and really take a stand.
Why Lux. Why did it have to be Lux and not... idk Veigar or smth
Lux has a compelling story - not an especially original one, but a compelling one, built on compelling tropes.
She's this sheltered girl raised in privilege, who should have every reason in the world to simply embrace her fortune, go with the flow and live as her family wants her to. The Crownguards are more than capable of protecting her from the persecution that Demacia heaps on every other mage and magical creature, and more than happy to, so long as Lux lives up to the family name.
And yet... she can't do it. First of all, as she grows up, she becomes ever more sickly aware in her soul how inhuman the treatment of mages is under Demacian law, the brutality and oppression that is leveraged against them, all to prop up the legitimacy of the government. Second... she doesn't want to repress her magic. She has a light inside of her which is intrinsic to her being, a true and natural extension of who she is, how she exists in the world, and pushing it down and denying it is painful. She is full of curiosity about it, and eager to see what she can do with it, but she cannot be both a free mage and a Crownguard.
Lux is, in other words, a queer trans nonbinary lesbian genderqueer aroace gay gay gay homosexual gay. Or, to be less flippant, in her story magic is an extremely apt metaphor for queerness and how to navigate being queer in a bigoted environment.
It also works for other things, of course, there are other reasons to feel stifled and trapped by the rules and restrictions of society or by the demands of your family. Lux could also be a secret socialist, and the oppression of mages could reflect the way the bodies of the proletariat are abused to build capitalist state power - or you could read it as a theme of neurodivergency in a world that is still run on a lot of eugenicist logic. Although to be perfectly frank with you, if Lux is cishet, then I am a honey badger, her magic power is literally rainbow lasers.
So there are themes there, there are things to relate to, to hold on to, to be carried away by. There's a lot of great characters in League of Legends, all of which deserve better than to be owned by Riot Games, and Lux is one of them.
Also, her best friend is a building-sized himbo dragon statue which comes to life when she uses her magic around him and gives her friendly life advice while musing about how much he wants to punch kaiju in the face, which, like, I don't know how to NOT be charmed by that.
279 notes
·
View notes
Revolution in the Media
The Mageseeker game is coming out in two days – and I kinda want to talk about it. About Sylas and about Demacia. Because holy fuck, I hate the Demacia storyline in League of Legends. Like, some of the other storylines have their faults (big faults at time, let’s face it, the entire Noxus thing is not that much better), but Demacia? Demacia will tell you: “Are Nazis really so much worse than the people fighting against them?”
And this is… sadly a problem that American media has in general. Especially during the last… ten or so years. And I want to talk about it.
The Demacia Storyline
Other folks have talked about this before, but let me make this once again clear: The Demacian regime in League of Legends is fascist. Let’s face it. It is basically fascist. They have literal concentration camps, have an underclass, who are held in those concentration camps just for the way they have been born… And if we were going through Ecco’s “traits of ur-fascism” we would find a lot of the traits in Demacia one way or another.
In itself it would not be a problem. A lot of media does have fascist bad guys, but of course League of Legends does not have Demacia as the bad guys. Instead, well, we have several champions in the storyline, who can be played by the players of the main game. And who of course do not want to be reminded of “You are playing the bad guy”. So, all characters within the Demacia storyline are treated the same. Sylas is as good and as bad as Garen.
This is something we have seen especially in the entire Lux comic. Which so clearly shows Sylas as bad and manipulative and you should not side with him within the story, that so clearly says: “The only good side in this is neither.”
And just… No. For one: Sylas is the victim of the Demacian regime. A victim who managed to escape what is effectively a concentration camp. He is a rebel, who tries to bring the regime down. No, he is not as bad as the Demacians. Him killing the king and rebelling the way he is, is basically the same, as a Jew escaping a Nazi concentration camp and then going on to kill Hitler.
This is not a case of “good people on both sides”, but a case of “fascists on one side, those who fight them on the other”. There is no equivalence.
But of course this is not the first time – and probably not the last time – this happens in American media.
The Daisy Fitzroy thing
Remember Bioshock Infinite? That third Bioshock game, that was quite different than the other two that had come before?
Now, let’s put it bluntly: Bioshock has always kinda suffered moral relativism. The old games basically go like: “Laissez-faire Objectivist Capitalism is bad, but the other alternatives are not that much better (if at all!)” Which is just blatantly wrong, though obviously it is just a very American way about depicting it, given that… well, we know how Americans cling to their “freedom economics” and it being the “only right economic system”. Because Freedom!
But then… Well, then came Bioshock Infinite. Instead of in Rapture, we play in Columbia. A religious pseudo-fascist place, with a regime that is build very much on the suppression of BI_POC, especially Black and Irish people, who are used as a servant class and outright slaves. Obviously with a lot of iconography mirroring the South under slavery and later Jim Crow.
In that game, we have a group of rebels, though. The Vox Populi. Rebels fighting against the system, which to the credit of the maker is shown to be unquestioningly bad. The rebels are under the lead of a Black woman named Daisy Fitzroy, who gets involved with the protagonist, by forcing him to get her weapons to fight the regime… But then comes the big twist, when Daisy Fitzroy tries to kill a kid of the oppressing class and your NPC companion Elizabeth kills Daisy Fitzroy in turn. After which you are going to fight the Vox Populi as much as the folks of the regime, with the only difference between the enemy types being the color schemes.
In that moment, when Daisy Fitzroy tries to kill the white kid, the game is taking your hand and pointing at her: “See, people fighting against white supremacy are just as bad as the white supremacists themselves! Don’t you agree?” Which is, of course… like a really bad conclusion to draw from it.
Because, let’s be very clear: Even if she had killed that child… Someone trying to free themselves from oppression through radical means will never be as bad as the oppressor, who did the same horrible acts without any reason other than “you look different, hence you are less human than me and I can treat you that way”.
But, of course, there is another screaming example of this…
The MCU and the faulty status quo
Honestly, to me right now there is no bigger offender in this than the MCU and within the MCU there is no offender as bad as The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Now, let me preface this with: Yes, as much as I love Black Panther, that movie very much is very much at fault for this, too. At fault for the entire: “Oh, yeah, the guy who wants to do something about systemic racism is as bad if not worse than systemic racism.” But at least that movie ended on a change to the faulty status quo. (A change, mind you, that was undone by later installments of the MCU because the MCU just cannot have the status quo change too much, obviously.) It also clearly came down on the side of “the thing the good guys fought for originally was real bad”, with T’Challa outright confronting his ancestors on it.
No such thing, however, happened in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, which obviously features our main characters going up against first and foremost the Flagsmashers. And now lets be very clear: The Flagsmashers are anarchists! Which is very much on the very tailend of “wanting to change the status quo”. (Note: I am an anarchist.) Their reasoning is a good one, though. They say: “Yeah. The entire Snap made it that people could move without borders. That was good. Now we are displaced and the organization that is supposed to take care of our needs cares more about enriching themselves than making other lives livable.” Which is something that is actually shown to be right. We know they are right.
Now, for once, of course, the entire thing with them turning towards violence comes kinda out of nowhere and is not really set up. But… We also need to talk about how violence is a valid means of fighting an oppressive system. And this system is very much oppressive. Again: The series SHOWS US THAT IT IS! That people oppressed in this system die of neglect! The system, as it stands, is a form of oppressive violence. That it kills through neglect rather than through active means does not make the killings less horrible or less deadly.
Yet, the Flagsmashers all die in the end. All those, who were enriching themselves through the system get no narrative punishment, with Falcon (now Captain America) holding them a nice speech. And the literal fascist getting a last minute redemption arc.
And that is just… horrible. I cannot put it any other way. It is horrible. It is a horrible end for that story.
The myth about the peaceful revolution
What all of this calls back upon is the myth about the peaceful revolution. The myth, that a peaceful revolution will be the only successful revolution and that violent revolutions are destined to fail and are – in fact – as bad the oppression they fight against. This, obviously, does completely ignore the fact that… most revolutions that were successful were either violent or had a violent revolutionary group cooperate with a peaceful revolutionary group. Just that again and again the violent groups will get erased from history.
The example most probably know about, is the Black Panthers, who served as an aligned group to MLK’s peaceful civil rights movement. Here, too, it often gets erased that the Black Panthers were closely aligned with MLK and were not a completely different group. Just as it is often erased from history, how the Black Panthers for example also helped feed and educate other underserved communities, including the poor white people.
We see the same again and again in the way we speak about history. A good example is decolonization (a process, mind you, that long has not ended). We kinda never go into how that happened. The usual narrative is: “Oh, yeah, western forces realized it was bad, so decolonialization happened.” Maybe we are talking about Ghandi, the peaceful revolutionary in India, and maybe we actually get told: “After WWII the western forces had no money left to uphold colonialism.” But, oh, what is that? No money left? But wasn’t one of the main things about colonialism that it was meant to extract value from the colonies? So should this not be a reason to hold up colonialism?
Yeah, no. Because here is the thing. In almost all colonies there were constant violent revolutions happening. And those had to be fought down with military power. Which was a costly endeavor. So costly, in fact, that in the end the colonies cost the western forces more money, than it brought them. But again, this gets erased from history. (Let’s face it, we do not speak about the ills of colonialism enough either way.)
But they (those who hold power) want us all to believe that it happened all through peaceful means. Because this way, we do believe that we, too, should rebel peacefully against the system that oppresses us and that destroys our environment. To put it frankly: They would not allow a form of protest, that actually worked.
And media? Well, media serves to uphold this myth as well. By telling us again and again that those rebelling and revolting through violent means are as bad, as those who uphold an oppressive and often directly or indirectly violent regime.
We need to make better Media
Something I see this in as well, is the reception of media and the lack of understanding of tropes and storylines, that might put you into the shoes of violent revolutionaries, who end up harming some innocent bystanders as well – at times a lot of them. Heck, even those trying to change the system that has oppressed them in a way that they are no longer oppressed, without a care for others get often judged as harshly, if not harsher, than the actual oppressors.
My two main fandoms are kinda an example of this. Both Arcane and Castlevania has this issue.
In Arcane the main issue is, that we have an obvious example of oppression of the poor. Piltover oppresses Zaun. And while the series kinda shows this, it also asks us to be very much on the side of Zaun, given that from the main characters only Ekko is exclusively aligned with Zaun, while everyone else is either at least partly aligned with Piltover or a bad guy. And sure, we do see that under Silco the poor suffer even more because of how he pushes his drugs. But… Well, he originally was a revolutionary and while Vander has given up the revolution he is the one to fight for Zaun independence, but yet… He is very much the bad guy, other than all those other characters who uphold the oppression. Which is… Not good.
I talked about the issue in Castlevania once again. Isaac. Here the issue is not as much with how the series is written, because for once the series actually has a somewhat good and understanding take. But… fandom has the issue here. Now, Isaac has been enslaved before. He ran away, after which he again and again was attacked and assaulted for either the color of his skin (this is after all the time that the first Europeans came up with the idea that Black people are less human than white people) or his religion. Given that this was all he had ever known, he at some point decided that it was how humanity had been – and hence that humanity should be extinguished. Which, if you have just a droplet of empathy, is kind of understandable. Not right, mind you, but understandable. Yet, a lot of folks have a lot more empathy for either Dracula or Hector, who partook in the genocide as much as Isaac did, than they have for Isaac.
This really… Is just not a good look.
And of course, all of this we see again and again in real life. Not only from the fascists themselves, who will claim there were “good people on both sides”, but even from more left-leaning folks. When marginalized folks get angry with their oppressors, they quickly get labeled as “as bad” as the oppressors. See Tone Policing. As a trans person I have been told several times by people, who identify as “left leaning”, that I am as bad as JKR and her posy, because I say that folks who support Rowling and her conservative fantasy shit are not really leftist and are definitely not queer allies.
So, yeah. Really. Fuck this thinking. Threating oppressed people rising up as the same as the oppressors is just shitty. And I just wish media finally let go of this shitty trope.
44 notes
·
View notes