Dark Adept -> Dark Acolyte?

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Post Reply
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Dark Adept -> Dark Acolyte?

Post by irrevenant »

Zhukov pointed out in another thread that "Dark Adept" is a bad name for the eponymous unit. An "adept" is a highly skilled individual, while the "Dark Adept" unit is an entry-level unit.

I suggest "Dark Acolyte".
Last edited by irrevenant on March 11th, 2006, 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

toms
Posts: 1717
Joined: November 6th, 2005, 2:15 pm

Post by toms »

Maybe it isn't the correct name, but it sounds good. :?

Dark Acolyte is also nice.
First read, then think. Read again, think again. And then post!

User avatar
Zhukov
Art Contributor
Posts: 1685
Joined: November 9th, 2005, 5:48 am
Location: Australia

Post by Zhukov »

I wasn't actually expecting this to get taken up. But seeing as you have decided to I might as well add my two cents. :)

While "Dark Adept" doesn't quite make sense language-wise, it does sound good, as toms points out. So a name change is hardly necessary.

That said, "Dark Acolyte" is certainly as good as, if not better then, the current name. As far as I know acolyte can mean something along the lines of disciple, follower, minion or assistant. (Incidentally it also has a religious meaning: a kind of priest's assistant.)

I think that would go well with the nature of the unit.
So for what it's worth, my vote goes for "Dark Acolyte".

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

In any case I think Dark Sorcerer sounds more powerful than either name.

User avatar
Eleazar
Retired Terrain Art Director
Posts: 2481
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
Location: US Midwest
Contact:

Post by Eleazar »

Zhukov wrote:So for what it's worth, my vote goes for "Dark Acolyte".
I agree.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity

Mustelid
Posts: 73
Joined: December 20th, 2005, 8:27 am
Contact:

Post by Mustelid »

I thought that the Wesnoth world was set up so that magic was rare (and black magic particularly so, because it can't be openly practised); moreover, the description of the Mage gives the impression that they have to invest a great deal of time and study just to reach 1st-level abilities. Hence, anybody with any practical ability at magic whatsoever could reasonably be called adept.

Acolyte is a better word, though.

Alks
Posts: 314
Joined: December 4th, 2005, 11:53 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Alks »

Certainly "Acolyte" sounds more suitable for wanna-be necromancer. More hierarchical than adept(implies the servitude and apprenticeship).

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

:? Well, I don't really care. But if it IS changed to Acolyte, that would probably be a lot of work updating all the scenarios the Adept is a part of, so that's a step that shouldn't be taken lightly.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

User avatar
Zhukov
Art Contributor
Posts: 1685
Joined: November 9th, 2005, 5:48 am
Location: Australia

Post by Zhukov »

turin wrote:But if it IS changed to Acolyte, that would probably be a lot of work updating all the scenarios the Adept is a part of, so that's a step that shouldn't be taken lightly.
That didn't seem such an issue when the names of "Necromancer" and "Dark Sorcerer" were swapped not long ago...

toms
Posts: 1717
Joined: November 6th, 2005, 2:15 pm

Post by toms »

turin wrote::? Well, I don't really care. But if it IS changed to Acolyte, that would probably be a lot of work updating all the scenarios the Adept is a part of, so that's a step that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Why should it be hard? The id could stay the same, and the name changed.

(um..yes, it confuses with programming new scenarios)

But I like both names.
First read, then think. Read again, think again. And then post!

User avatar
Noyga
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: September 26th, 2005, 5:56 pm
Location: France

Post by Noyga »

I'm fine with "Dark Adept".
While a Dark Adept is a highly skilled individual, we still have IMHO :
Dark Adept < Necromancer < Dark Sorcerer / Lich
So changing it to "Dark Acolyte" would fix an non existant problem.
Also the level 1 unit deserves to be 'highly skilled', having high defense and a quite powerful attack.

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

Noyga wrote:I'm fine with "Dark Adept".
While a Dark Adept is a highly skilled individual, we still have IMHO :
Dark Adept < Dark Sorcerer < Necromancer / Lich
So changing it to "Dark Acolyte" would fix an non existant problem.
Also the level 1 unit deserves to be 'highly skilled', having high defense and a quite powerful attack.
Cheers. Although don't forget the name swap in bold that actually was a problem in hierarchy before.

User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Post by Sapient »

The name Dark Adept makes sense to me. This is someone who is adept enough at manipulating the dark forces to begin studies in dark magic. Someone who has only a limited grasp of the dark side, however, (a non-adept) would never reach the level of a battlefield dark mage.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."

User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

My vision of the DA is strongly influenced by the old unit description that indicated that they trained in attack almost exclusively. (I'd like to see something like that put back in, actually). OTOH, magi, based on the description "have spent several years in study, and have amassed a sum of knowledge which sets them apart."

Being a level 1 unit indicates rough equivalence on the battlefield rather than skill, ranging from the infant Troll whelps to the highly skilled Magi.

Magi and DAs are roughly equal on the battlefield, but IMO that is because the wartime arts comprise only one facet of the Mage's knowledge while inflicting pain is the DA's sole focus.

In any case the DA is something less than a "Dark Sorceror" (who I imagine approaches the magical skill of the L1 mage).

I leave you with this thought:
Luke: "Is the dark side stronger?"
Yoda: "No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

Mustelid
Posts: 73
Joined: December 20th, 2005, 8:27 am
Contact:

Post by Mustelid »

irrevenant wrote:Magi and DAs are roughly equal on the battlefield, but IMO that is because the wartime arts comprise only one facet of the Mage's knowledge while inflicting pain is the DA's sole focus.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, black magic in the Wesnoth world is a feared and shunned art. It's not widely practised - far less so than the socially acceptable forms of magic - and when it is practised it's done in secret.
This means two things:
First, absolute skill in an art can be quite low, but still be regarded as high because it's such a rare skill. If you're one of only a hundred dark necromancy students in the world, you'd probably be regarded as more of an adept than if there are millions.

Secondly, the general populace have very little idea about what skills, processes and techniques are involved in necromancy; with something like that, popular imagination can run riot. DAs are probably regarded as much more scary (and hence powerful, and hence skilled) than they actually are. So even if it's not a descriptively accurate term, it could easily be the one in common usage.

Post Reply