"Oh my god Kayle is too sexy now, she has boobs on her armour!"

5G8Nri0B54··18 votes·14,576 views

http://images5.alphacoders.com/347/347692.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/ff/90/kayle1.jpg?itok=bUWQhw7E

http://media-titanium.cursecdn.com/loldiffs/AirClientDiff_10_13_2014_2_33_PM/media/Kayle_Splash_0.jpg

Asides from having a dynamic pose rather than a boring static statue pose. More adequate texturing. A shield of liquid light (R). And more importantly, a perspective of a man staring up at a descending armored angel. NOTHING CHANGED ABOUT HER ARMOUR.

Boobs are impractical and unrealistic

Yes, and so is the very idea of a woman being in the battlefield if you consider Kayle's inspirational origin. Let alone wearing armour and fighting, you'd have a hard time finding many women who were bare-foot and staying in either brothels or at home taking care of wife-stuff or preparing dinner for guests their husbands may or may not bring over.

That armour is unrealistic because it has boobs

Indeed it is. The very idea of her wearing armour is unrealistic to begin with. If you want to climb this branch, double the size of her wings, give her an extra pair for good measure, and replace that armour with silk or something.

But you people accept the idea of a winged woman with a flaming sword covered in liquefied light wearing armour don't you? But you have a problem with her armour showing extremely subtle boob-bumps that's always been part of her design, that's pretty selective discrimination of details there.

Look, her armour design did not change at all. Her boobs are TINY, smaller than Gragas! There's a million things going on in that splash art. She's a woman covered in liquid holy light or whatever. She has huge-ass wings. Her boobs are hardly the focus of the splash art.

The ONLY reason people are even noticing the boobs then is because they are **specifically seeking it out. **

Historically speaking, one of the most well-known female figure that's been anywhere near the heat of battle have been Jean, the little girl who proceeded to get thoroughly destroyed, captured, and burned at the stake, or Athena, who atleast carries weapons and didn't get humiliatingly defeated. And what is, bar none, THE most widely accepted depiction of Athena again?

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/3f/d9/e1/3fd9e1f9809f8b90da83ce6a0e221e72.jpg

It's true that she isn't wearing boob-armour. But that is only because she isn't wearing any armour, period. Is it impractical in a real battle? Probably...but the whole, being a divine being thing probably had a lot to do with it.

83 Comments

Moookies10 votes

I guess no one ever saw Henry VIII's armor.

Dreamspitter3 votes

I guess no one ever saw Henry VIII's armor.

manly

DG Ashabel4 votes

Probably worth noting that Henry VIII had never actually been in battle. His council convinced him to sit in the back through most of his military campaigns, while the one battle where he did fight had the enemy retreat before the battle really started. It's why his armor is in such good condition to this day, it's never actually been tested on the battlefield.

catraven5 votes

the new one looks beautiful. very feminine and powerful. even scary :o don't judge me kayle...

Criomhthann5 votes

Historically speaking, one of the most well-known female figure that's been anywhere near the heat of battle have been Jean, the little girl who proceeded to get thoroughly destroyed,

Wait, when was she destroyed? It couldn't have been during Loire or Saint Pierre. Was it during Compiègne?

Compiègne was a minor loss for the French, both politically and militarily. Her capture was the only thing notable about it, because she was one of best commanders France had to offer at the time. Hell, she had been making preparations for that since March but wasn't given the authority over any substantial force.

Was it during her (illegal) trial where she repeatedly humiliated the prosecution?

Why is she even being brought up to begin with? She was a fairly successful female military commander who never wore a titty plate. She's a counter to every point you have been trying to make.

5G8Nri0B542 votes

Historically speaking, one of the most well-known female figure that's been anywhere near the heat of battle have been Jean, the little girl who proceeded to get thoroughly destroyed,

Wait, when was she destroyed? It couldn't have been during Loire or Saint Pierre. Was it during Compiègne?

Compiègne was a minor loss for the French, both politically and militarily. Her capture was the only thing notable about it, because she was one of best commanders France had to offer at the time. Hell, she had been making preparations for that since March but wasn't given the authority over any substantial force.

Was it during her (illegal) trial where she repeatedly humiliated the prosecution?

Why is she even being brought up to begin with? She was a fairly successful female military commander who never wore a titty plate. She's a counter to every point you have been trying to make.

She's a crappy commander whose only note-worthy achievement is that she heard voices in her head and thought god is talking to her, and the fact that she's a girl. By all account she's crap, accept it. She was easily captured, she lost in trial, and was burned there and that. And the only reason other people would listen to her because they were dumb enough to think god was speaking through her.

She's so "brave and wonderful" in the same way that women in the video game industry are so "brave and wonderful". Because it's somehow an amazing achievement to do something with mediocre results as long as it's a girl doing it.

Don't try to frame her as something she's not. She can hold a banner and hear voices in her head. She can't lead, she can't fight, and she was captured and burned after a trial.

Criomhthann6 votes

So your proof is that she was a shitty commander was based on the fact that she was captured in a minor battle where she wasn't given the authority for the resources necessary to defend against the Siege (while she was in the Honor Position no less), handed over to the English and then lost a trial that literally every historian on the planet agrees was a Kangaroo Court?

Ginga, why is it that every single post you have ever made regarding history only functions if your ignorance of history is held in higher regard than actual history? You are only making yourself look foolish here.

5G8Nri0B542 votes

LOL

Wow I love how you're STILL trying to defend Jean after her repeated failure, and now going for personal attacks to prove your own point. I especially love the part where you yourself pointed our she was captured in a minor battle. And not given the resources necessary? She's just an illiterate little girl that hears voices in her head, the fact that she even have men in her command is already way more than she should have been given.

How exactly do you think her trial should have gone? Remember that they aren't trying her for stealing a chicken or something. She was a (mediocre) commander of an enemy army and her motivation was because the voices in her head told her to do so.

You want her to go for the insanity defence?

Look, I don't know where you learned history, but try looking up some damn facts instead please?

Criomhthann6 votes

Wow I love how you're STILL trying to defend Jean after her repeated failure,

You keep mentioning these massive repeated failures, but so far I am the only one who has bothered to bring up actual history.

The only major failure she was apart of was Paris, which the Duke of Alençon was also involved in and everyone who has ever studied the situation places the blame on Georges de la Trémoille.

Aside from there was Compiègne, and battle she could not logistically win anyway.

Do you really think war is nice and pretty? That commanders are always given what they need 100% of the time? Your ignorance is even more astounding than I thought.

and now going for personal attacks to prove your own point.

I have never used personal attacked as a justification for why you are wrong. You are not wrong because you have the IQ of a boat anchor. You're wrong because literally every part of history runs contrary to what you are claiming. You're an idiot because not only do you ignore correction, you believe your ignorance is superior to actual history.

And not given the resources necessary? She's just an illiterate little girl that hears voices in her head, the fact that she even have men in her command is already way more than she should have been given.

This is what I'm talking about. Why are you asking everyone to ignore the Loire Campaign and Saint Pierre? Why is that the she is responsible for Paris instead of Georges? Why is it that she should be expected to win a fight where she is both at a disadvantage positionally and logistically?

Your argument is NOT built on history, it's built in SPITE of history.

How exactly do you think her trial should have gone?

In a Kangaroo Court? Exactly as it did. Do you even know what a Kangaroo Court is?

Are you really not aware that she was being tried for Heresy? That the trial was controlled by English and Burgundian clerics and was overseen by the Duke of Bedford and Earl of Warwick?

Ar you really not aware of the fact that clergy men who opposed the trial were forced at blade point to take part?

Are you really not aware that she was given the option of dressing naked or like a man by the English? Do you have no idea the significance of that?

Are you really unaware that in spite of this, the illiterate peasant girl made them all look like theological fools at every point?

How do you presume to tell me what the trial was like when you are completely unaware of the most basic facts surrounding the trial?

Do you even know what the most famous part of the trial was?

Are you really not aware that EVERYONE of Theological importance and many of political importance were outraged and disgusted by the trial?

Again, you are caught using ignorance of history instead of actual history. How can you continue to pretend you don't deserve being insulted as you have been?

Pinker 105 votes

****> Look, I don't know where you learned history, but try looking up some damn facts instead please?

Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc,[4] IPA: [ʒan daʁk]; ca. 1412[5] – 30 May 1431), nicknamed "The Maid of Orléans" (French: La Pucelle d'Orléans), is considered a heroine of France and a Roman Catholic saint. She was born to a peasant family at Domrémy in north-east France. Joan said she received visions of the Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles VII and recover France from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. **The uncrowned King Charles VII sent Joan to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence after the siege was lifted in only nine days. Several additional swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims. ** Twenty-five years after her execution, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, debunked the charges against her, pronounced her innocent, and declared her a martyr.[8] Joan of Arc was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920. She is one of the nine secondary patron saints of France, along with St. Denis, St. Martin of Tours, St. Louis, St. Michael, St. Remi, St. Petronilla, St. Radegund and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

You first.

DG Ashabel5 votes

Don't bother. We already established that he's allergic to reading.

Pinker 103 votes

Don't bother. We already established that he's allergic to reading.

Actually i'm pretty sure he's just got himself and joan of arc confused

One is intelligent

The other is an illiterate useless little girl

Nicarasu1 votes

I knew there was something I liked about you.

DG Ashabel4 votes

Yes, and so is the very idea of a woman being in the battlefield if you consider Kayle's inspirational origin. Let alone wearing armour and fighting, you'd have a hard time finding many women who were bare-foot and staying in either brothels or at home taking care of wife-stuff or preparing dinner for guests their husbands may or may not bring over.

Historically speaking, one of the most well-known female figure that's been anywhere near the heat of battle have been Jean, the little girl who proceeded to get thoroughly destroyed, captured, and burned at the stake, or Athena, who atleast carries weapons and didn't get humiliatingly defeated.

Please tell that to your history teacher, preferably in front of an entire classroom. Report the results later. If you can, try to record your teacher laughing at you and inviting the entire classroom to join in.

Alternatively, you can check out Wikipedia entries and thus save yourself from further embarrassments.

P.S. Having decorative breasts literally bolted onto the front of your armor the way Kayle's new splash has it is a death sentence. The shape and hollow space created by the metal would make arrowheads ricochet into the inside and ensure that they would lodge deep into her internal organs regardless of how harmless the shot would have been otherwise.

5G8Nri0B541 votes

Thank you for only reading a small proportion of the entire thing, really good comprehension skills!

Now please go do a paper on 3 scientific articles by only reading 1 of those articles and making up what you think the other two are about.

DG Ashabel4 votes

I did read the whole thing. I simply highlit the parts where your argument's intelligence dipped from low and all the way into negatives.

5G8Nri0B542 votes

I'm too lazy to read and reply to something I am unable to argue against therefore I make up excuses for why I am selectively ignoring materials that do not fit my own point of view

I like how you're the one who talks about embarrassing oneself.

If you can't even be arsed to read an entire post, don't pretend you did by making up paper thin excuses.

DG Ashabel5 votes

The first paragraph is you being unable to distinguish between a double-layered platemail and decorative breasts.

Your second paragraph is an embarrassing attempt to back up your argument with ancient history while not knowing anything about ancient history.

Your third paragraph is "Well winged people with flaming swords are unrealistic so it's okay for armor to be badly designed too."

After the break, you claim people are specifically seeking out her boobs, even though her in-game icon based on this splash art is covered one-third by her decorative metal breast.

After that, yet again, you make claims about ancient history without knowing ancient history. You also bring up Joan of Arc for some reason, even though she was well-known to wear the same plain undecorated armor as her troops, and you are factually wrong about her being "one of the few women to be anywhere near the field of battle" too.

Like I said, I simply pointed out sections of your argument which have gone from nonsensical to downright uneducated. Trying to accuse me of not reading your post only shows how much faith you have in your own arguments, given that you still have yet to explain why you keep making examples of ancient history when you don't actually know anything about ancient history.

Criomhthann3 votes

Don't worry about it. He always accuses people of not reading his comments when he can't provide a meaningful response. He did this back on the old GD forums too.

5G8Nri0B541 votes

I'm terribly sorry if you lack the basic ability to properly responding to anything at all. I am terribly sorry that I could not meaningfully respond to "durr JOAN OF ARC was totally a strong independent woman".

I am terribly sorry if you're still delusion over what Joan of Arc really was.

And I am especially sorry if I pointed out the idiocy behind complaining about really miniscule boob-armour on a divine humanoid with gigantic wings holding a big ass sword in one hand fighting against other-worldly monsters that shoots acid.

Criomhthann5 votes

I'm terribly sorry if you lack the basic ability to properly responding to anything at all.

You mean like detailed comments I have almost always left whenever I have responded to you, which you either ignore entirely or only accuse me of not reading your posts?

I am terribly sorry that I could not meaningfully respond to "durr JOAN OF ARC was totally a strong independent woman".

The entire conversation was you posting about how she was a massive failure of a commander, while simultaneously REFUSING to support the notion beyond mere assertion.

Every single point I brought up regarding her history was responded to with what effectively amounted to "fuck you feminist scum, learn true facts." Beyond vague replies, you didn't even try mentioning any "true facts." You kept vaguely mentioning her failures, but you literally couldn't name ANY outside of the one that I did. And when it came to that one, you pounced on it to claim that she was a total failure, in spite of the fact that she had little way of winning the siege and that it was one loss.

You were actually implying that her trial was legitimate, a point that even the Church recognized wasn't the case back in HER time. The Church even held an investigation on it afterwards for the sketchy practices involved; from threatening uncooperative clergy, to being presided over by a bishop that lacked authority.

I doubt you even knew she was on trial for heresy until I pointed it out.

I am terribly sorry if you're still delusion over what Joan of Arc really was.

If I am the one who is delusional, why was I the only one that actually brought up anything regarding actual history?

The closest I ever got to even holding Joan up on a pedestal was noting that she was one of the best commanders France produced at the time, a point which is considered true by many historians.

Never mind that that doesn't imply that she was the best commander France produced during that time (she wasn't), or that she was the best commander that France ever produced (certainly not), or that she was best ever produced in history (fuck no).

Do not confuse viewing you with contempt due to your ignorance of history (among MANY other subjects) for idol worship of Joan. It makes you look even less intelligent.

A BlTCH SLAP3 votes

Yes, and so is the very idea of a woman being in the battlefield if you consider Kayle's inspirational origin. Let alone wearing armour and fighting, you'd have a hard time finding many women who were bare-foot and staying in either brothels or at home taking care of wife-stuff or preparing dinner for guests their husbands may or may not bring over.

Historically speaking, one of the most well-known female figure that's been anywhere near the heat of battle have been Jean, the little girl who proceeded to get thoroughly destroyed, captured, and burned at the stake, or Athena, who atleast carries weapons and didn't get humiliatingly defeated.

Please tell that to your history teacher, preferably in front of an entire classroom. Report the results later. If you can, try to record your teacher laughing at you and inviting the entire classroom to join in.

Alternatively, you can check out Wikipedia entries and thus save yourself from further embarrassments.

P.S. Having decorative breasts literally bolted onto the front of your armor the way Kayle's new splash has it is a death sentence. The shape and hollow space created by the metal would make arrowheads ricochet into the inside and ensure that they would lodge deep into her internal organs regardless of how harmless the shot would have been otherwise.

Yes because apparently a cartoon drawing in a made up fantasy land must convey 100% accuracy to real life. Just like how Kayle wouldnt give a shit of her boob was chopped off since she can instant heal it back or block rockets with her invulnerable abilities. She can wear anything she wants and any physical protection would mean dick all in LoL land.

Why not go cry about how impossible it is for velkoz to fire plasma out of his eyes b/c theres no IRL wikipedia page on it? Go QQ about jinx that her little bandoliers and vest are a death sentence and don't provide realistic protection. If you think LoL = IRL go get checked.

DG Ashabel3 votes

"The setting has some unrealistic features in it, therefore it's okay for armor to be completely impractical, painful to wear and hazardous to one's health."

Please never become a character designer.

5G8Nri0B541 votes

Please never bother replying until you learn to actually address points people bring up.

DG Ashabel4 votes

My apologies. I should have known that you, specifically, would struggle to understand the meaning of the sentence surrounded by quotation marks. Here, allow me to spell it out.

When you create a piece of fiction, there is a difference between creating something that doesn't exist in the normal world at all and something that can exist but doesn't because everyone realizes that it's idiotic. Vel'koz doesn't exist in this world because his existence is impossible according to modern science. A quad-layered armor with decorative breasts can exist, but doesn't because every blacksmith on the planet would refuse to make it due to it being hazardous to wear.

5G8Nri0B542 votes

When you create a piece of fiction, there is a difference between creating something that doesn't exist in the normal world at all and something that can exist but doesn't because everyone realizes that it's idiotic. Vel'koz doesn't exist in this world because his existence is impossible according to modern science. A quad-layered armor with decorative breasts can exist, but doesn't because every blacksmith on the planet would refuse to make it due to it being hazardous to wear.

Yes yes, silly me. I should have known bright golden armour light enough to fly with that also slots specifically designed to accommodate wings certainly CAN exist in real life to begin with. I totally forgot that modern science has proven the existence of bird-winged humanoids.

Silly me for forgetting that divine beings are totally common place and have established the need for armour.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Pallas_Athena_statue,_Vienna-4.jpg

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/3f/d9/e1/3fd9e1f9809f8b90da83ce6a0e221e72.jpg

But no, please. Continue sticking your head into a hole and proceed to completely ignore anything you can not answer to so you can justify your white knighting.

DG Ashabel4 votes

Yes yes, silly me. I should have known bright golden armour light enough to fly with that also slots specifically designed to accommodate wings certainly CAN exist in real life to begin with. I totally forgot that modern science has proven the existence of bird-winged humanoids.

Yes, bright-golden armor designed to accommodate wings can exist in real life. Ask any LARPer who ever had to play out an angel at a serious convention, or a more hardcore cosplayer for that matter.

The problem is that quad-layered plate armor with decorative breasts, specifically, doesn't exist in real life because such a design is completely retarded and would, in fact, make it impossible for her to fly. It would interfere with the joints that connect the wings and the back, thus causing her immense pains on top of the mentioned rib-crushing.

Mentioning Athena doesn't really work in your favor because Ancient Greeks worshiped the human body and all their statues portrayed characters in their ceremonial wear, which is to say, as light and revealing as possible. In stories where Athena is required to go to war personally, she still is described as wearing traditional armor.

I'm seriously not sure why you keep bringing up ancient history when you're so bad at it. It's like you desperately want to look educated but don't want to put any actual effort into educating yourself.

A BlTCH SLAP4 votes

New art is 1000x better than the old one. The old one has way more issues and looks like some crap sketch of armor overtop a nice painted background (wings incl in the back)

Some people's kids... complaining about the realism & practicality of "boob armor" when there's vomit spewing void monsters and some guy throwing cards to take down other champs and towers. Go rage about how unrealistic those are then come back to bitch out armor design

Migrañaboy2 votes

[deleted]

Samflash31 votes

Don't worry. They'll protest that they deserve to wear anything in battle but complain why they keep getting pierced at their vital organ.

**#**Medievalproblems

Pyrrasu2 votes

Her boobs/armor/whatever are definitely larger in the new splash. This is easier to see if you look at the size of the boob plates compared to the diamond in the middle of them. Also her pose does make her chest a bigger focus of attention. I do like the new pose though; she's descending while also looking down as if she's superior to you.

People are mad because Kayle was the Samus of LoL. You'd think she's a man until you heard her voiceover. Now... she's obviously a woman, from her splash.

Dreamspitter2 votes

Her boobs/armor/whatever are definitely larger in the new splash. This is easier to see if you look at the size of the boob plates compared to the diamond in the middle of them. Also her pose does make her chest a bigger focus of attention. I do like the new pose though; she's descending while also looking down as if she's superior to you.

People are mad because Kayle was the Samus of LoL. You'd think she's a man until you heard her voiceover. Now... she's obviously a woman, from her splash.

What man would make his chest plate like that???

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100616103151/metroid/images/7/7a/Mom_vignette.png

Pyrrasu2 votes

Hey, a lot of people have thought Samus was male before. I think I probably did when I was little. Samus's armor definitely leaves room for boobs but it's not literally two boob-shaped cups. :P

5G8Nri0B543 votes

Hey, a lot of people have thought Samus was male before. I think I probably did when I was little. Samus's armor definitely leaves room for boobs but it's not literally two boob-shaped cups. :P

Let's be fair here. Samus was kinda cheating because she was often described using male pronouns in the beginning. Not sure if it was a translation error or intended, but there were very good reasons to believe she was a dude back then outside of the action-heroes tends to be dude part.

DeathByWaffle2 votes

Hey, a lot of people have thought Samus was male before. I think I probably did when I was little. Samus's armor definitely leaves room for boobs but it's not literally two boob-shaped cups. :P

Let's be fair here. Samus was kinda cheating because she was often described using male pronouns in the beginning. Not sure if it was a translation error or intended, but there were very good reasons to believe she was a dude back then outside of the action-heroes tends to be dude part.

Probably less a translation error and more of an incompatibility between Japanese and English. Unlike Japanese, English has no gender neutral pronouns. That's why whereas with Japanese one could go through an entire game or book or whatever without ever really revealing a person's gender, English can't really do the same. I mean, you could use the word "they" in place of "he" or "she," but it looks weird and can also imply there are multiple people involved instead of just one.

5G8Nri0B541 votes

Well, there's also "it". But nope, people feel like choosing to be offended and consider "it" as demeaning when referred to another person...even if it's probably the most respectful way to refer to a person whom you do not know which pronoun to use.

Rawrful1 votes

Anyone in full plate? Large bulbous chests are really protective, because it means an attack needs to penetrate a few inches deep into the steel to actually hit you.

Dreamspitter1 votes

Anyone in full plate? Large bulbous chests are really protective, because it means an attack needs to penetrate a few inches deep into the steel to actually hit you.

Chest at least has a rib cage.......what about the abdomen though?

Rawrful1 votes

Narrow waists are super common, because they allow you to bend and move. It's called a wasp waist. A ton of plate armor is narrow at the waist and flares out at the hips and chest to give mobility as well as movement. Somewhat similar to the Samas armor

5G8Nri0B541 votes

Think real hard. Do you REALLY want a thick layer of metal thick enough to block out metal strikes.......to be wrapped around that particular part of your body?

I mean, if you're mounted on a horse, maybe. But Kayle clearly isn't mounted.

5G8Nri0B542 votes

People are mad because Kayle was the Samus of LoL. You'd think she's a man until you heard her voiceover. Now... she's obviously a woman, from her splash.

Reading the very little background we have of her...are you sure she's REALLY supposed to be the Samus of LoL? The closest it went to is that she hides her face behind that helmet of hers.

I mean, I know a lot of people joke about that, as atleast 50% of new players probably mistake her as a dude. But there is literally no mention that she was mistaken for a man. It looks to be more like a quality that people attached to her themselves like the whole Taric is a flaming gay thing.

Pyrrasu3 votes

I'm not a big Metroid person but Samus is just taking her job seriously, right? Kayle has always seemed like a very serious, dedicated person to me. Like the kind that would just want to get the job done as best as possible, rather than trying to appear stylish while doing it. And since the lore does mention her wanting to hide her face, maybe she's the kind of person who wants her identity unknown whenever possible? Looking gender neutral is an easier way to hide identity.

Basically I don't think having Kayle appear gender neutral conflicts with her lore at all. If anything, it matches her lore better.

5G8Nri0B541 votes

I...never said anything about her being gender neutral conflicting with her lore...

I'm just saying that her being the "Samus of LoL" might not even be intended, but rather a fan developed identity overtime. Is it correct or is it wrong? That's up to a Rioter officially deciding. Sometimes fan identities are correct, sometimes creators outright makes them canon ala Touhou, but sometimes fan developed identities are hilariously wrong. Hell, Samus herself is a massive case of fan identity being completely wrong. The people who played her games had their own little idea of what Samus should be because she's nothing more than a blank slate. They didn't take it well when the series' very own creator gave her a personality that did not match their own moulding of Samus.

In short...never said it'd conflict with her lore, but at the same time there isn't any official confirmation that she is supposed to be neutral anyways. Hell, her being labelled as the sister of Morgana already gives her vagina away.

Pyrrasu3 votes

I meant that if anything, her lore suggests she would want to stay neutral, though it doesn't say it outright. From what I've read about the Taric VU they're planning, Riot seems to want to preserve fan-developed identities. It's such a small detail that I doubt Riot specifically told their artist about it, so I'm betting the artist just drew her this way because they personally preferred it.

More from Story, Art, & Sound

More by 5G8Nri0B54