Maybe first agree on a definition?
"4. Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer immobile.—Wrong.
An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate."
source: "Arms and Armor -- Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions"
http://www.metmuseum...ams/hd_aams.htm
Since there's no firearms in DA you can surely find some middle ground.
The idea that heavy armor (whether it was descriptor used historically or not) would render the wearer nigh-immobile (just by putting it on or after five minuts of combat in it) is unbelievably stupid. Armors were created as protection - but it's protection for specific purpose, this purpose being fighting. So "heavy armor" refers to protection that is, well, heavy - but still light enough for wearer to effectively fight in it! It does restrict wearer's mobility a bit, but he still needs to be able to move, even run if need be, in it! One possible exception would be specialized jousting armor not designed for actual combat, those could get really heavy... but their purpose was obvious and very limited.
Stereotype tends to overrate how heavy plate armors were while fantasy (especially RPG) tends to overestimate both heaviness and restrictiveness of plate armors and comfyness of leather ones. It's generally an attempt at creating a trade-off system where you can get better protection at the cost of mobility... which isn't really a good representation. The truth was that while better protection generally indeed had a cost... this cost was mostly just money. Good armor was expenisive, very much so. And as for those "rogue class" leather armors? Leather protection could've been lighter but that didn't necessarily translate to all that much more comfortable - they were either very thick or prepared in a way that, in fact, made them very similar to metal armors. "Plate" leather armors included. They were just much cheaper.
All that doesn't change the fact that even historically some armors were heavier and more protective but restricted your mobility more. And those would be historical heavy armors. If we draw a comparison to (more or less) modern soldiers, their gear obviously doesn't weight the same regardless of their mission and its location. How often do you think soldiers fight in full gear if the situation doesn't demand it? They have what they need, because every additional kg (or pound, or however you measure weight out there) actually matters. A soldier from a bomb squad approaching a bomb, on the other hand, is AMAZINGLY armored. With his mobility restrained terribly, he really wouldn't be able to fight in that gear...
*barges in weaving flag of elfynes*
So far there seems to be no major flame-war on this thread, so...fingers crossed
On a different note....I was curious what happens if you give the red-crossing letter to the chantry? Do they reach the same "fault on both sides" conclusion?
Hahahahaha no.
Chantry interprets it as an elf converting to Andrastianism which prompts his brethren to murder his lover - I'm not sure whether it is stated that they did it out of vengeance, out of rage or both. Either way, this unmistakably proves Dalish prejudice and persecution Chantry of the day suffered.
I don't remember it in all detail, but that's the gist of what Chantry scholars manage to read out of the story 
Retour en haut
)
