The Arbiter Armour and other Lore in Halo that needs rectifying.
- Thread starter IsoNeko
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pretty much my guess.TaborMallory said:
I dont think they meant that it's the exact same armor everytime
problably just the different companies and they just got mixed up thats alll dont think about it too much man
This entire thread is predicated on the notion that the armor is indeed the exact same suit worn by all the arbiters. While I will admit that Halo makes it seem as though it MIGHT be the same suit, it could also be the same in that it is just a duplication of the suits of other arbiters. When I was in the Army, I would often hear refrences to "wearing the same uniform" of my peers and predicessors but they obviously weren't being literal.
The truly literal interpretation seems difficult at best to accept. Since the arbiters all seem to die violently it would stand to reason that their armor is not indestructable or the life expectancy of the arbiter wouldn't be so brutally short. Yet, in order to have the same suit passed on from one arbiter to the next would require the suit be litterally indestructable or else, through the course of damage done and the ensuing repairs it would rapidly cease to be the "same" and would be regularly replaced, at least in pieces.
So, in short you have two possible options. Either they are saying it's the same suit as a metaphor, or the suit is indestructable and just doesn't do a very good job of protecting the wearer. Either way there is no continuity error.
The truly literal interpretation seems difficult at best to accept. Since the arbiters all seem to die violently it would stand to reason that their armor is not indestructable or the life expectancy of the arbiter wouldn't be so brutally short. Yet, in order to have the same suit passed on from one arbiter to the next would require the suit be litterally indestructable or else, through the course of damage done and the ensuing repairs it would rapidly cease to be the "same" and would be regularly replaced, at least in pieces.
So, in short you have two possible options. Either they are saying it's the same suit as a metaphor, or the suit is indestructable and just doesn't do a very good job of protecting the wearer. Either way there is no continuity error.
Why would it be the exact same suit in the first place? There've been quite a few Arbiters, and surely some of them died in circumstances likely to tear the shit out of the armor. The taming of the Hunters? Putting down infinite grunt/Ung'goy rebellions? You'd expect at least some burns.
You underestimate the strength of tradition I think. The armor was of inferior quality, yes but it was still powerful enough to get the job done it seems. Not only that but if it was the same armor one would would have to assume it would be retrofitted and improved over time yet that clearly didn't happen.Pyronox said:
The Arbiter, above all else, is nothing but a symbol of the covenant might. Alone he can not win wars or quell rebellions, but through his (assuming male gender here) presence he can inspire those around him to greater feats of heroism. Part of the power of the arbiter's symbolic nature comes from his very vulnerability and adherence to the tenants of the past.
And, as I said above, it seems that there are only two possible explanations for the events. Either it's only the same armor in the same sense that one soldier wears the same uniform as another in a modern army, or it's a literally indestructable piece of equipment that does a piss poor job of protecting the wearer.
