Originally Posted by Arixa
I'm going to point out as a female player of this game, that I want to play attractive female characters. Say you make that barbarian for example, if she isn't pretty as well as muscular I won't be interested.
I find this effort by people to try to force more ugly champions on us to be kind of offensive. I'm not offended by attractive female characters. I would be more offended and less likely to play if the champions I like were stuck looking like hideous masses of flesh like urgot.
I'm going to point out as a male player of this game, that I want to play attractive female characters... in armor... If we make a barbarian for example, whatever way we choose to make her look will be due to choices inherent to her design as a character, not to drive engagement with any specific group. The needs of the character are what counts. If the character appeals to you, congratulations. If it doesn't, congradulate aforementioned group who it happens to appeal to and indulge in the 100 other champions that may suit your fancy, or take a look at something upcoming which floats your boat.
There is no such effort to force ugly champions as we have decided and mentioned that we don't feel our traditionally "ugly" characters work on certain levels, but the past is the past. Our goal is to make the appropriate choices for a character driven by the goals that we establish early on, namely, again, what is best for the character in its context of theme, kit, etc. There is never an effort, nor an edict, nor an initiative to "de-uglify" or "up-uglify" our characters. They will be as "attractive", "sexy", "ugly", "monstrous", or whatever other subjective descriptors that exist as they need to be for their own unique cases.