However when it comes to armour, I prefer it practical and realistic, over the concept of "I'm a feminist, let me wear whatever I want". Open revealing cleavage = a clear path for a sword, dagger or arrow straight through the chest. That's just silly on the battlefield. There are vital body areas that should be protected. (I'm also speaking as an SCA combat archer...)
Lae'zel's armour covers her chest and torso, but reveals her legs for freedom of movement. That's fine too - and is similar to how ancient Greek/Roman warriors might have been armoured.
Now if we had "casual" clothes to wear at camp (similar to DA:I - casual clothing when at Skyhold, armour when out adventuring), then people should be able to dress their characters however they want.
I mean that sounds like the whole formed breast plate for women argument not being practical, when actually they were very practical, and deflected sword strikes better than a flat chested male chest piece. Yeah Vallejo, Frazetta might be a touch much for a RPG game, because they want to appeal to the widest audience. But the whole "male gaze" argument that I see pop up here and there from people, is about as accurate as gamergate.
Not to mention, if any battle hardened warrior fought Lae'zel they would slit her femoral artery on those bare legs, and she would be dead a lot quicker than an arrow to the upper chest if you really want to be realistic. Also, Greek/Romans utilized defensive strategies, with better equipment, you are talking iron vs bronze. They also used phalanx formations like the Testudo formation, as well as the Spartans. How do you think the Spartans held off the Persians for so long at Thermopylae? That is why they won battles (well except for Thermopylae, but that was still a victory if you think about it). Better equipment, better strategy, which included iron shields, formations and a lifetime of training in military tactics. Where most others never had that.
