Talk:000 Tragic Solitude

Monitor Is Mendicant Bias?

Based on the fact that this is most likely a monitor, and the fact that a monitor's terminal entry color is based on it's eye color, wouldn't this make sense for this to be a housing of Mendicant Bias? The line "All our makers once held dear" makes sense that it would be Bias, as it was the most advanced ancilla at the time before it went rampant. In addition, on Mendicant Bias's page, it says that one of its housing was "a massive, two-meter wide monitor shell with a single green eye." which fits the symbol in the terminal of this ancilla perfectly. Sp3c^Sprechen 18:14, 12 September 2013 (EDT)

Mendicant can't have been the only ancilla with a green eye. 2401 and 343 both had red eyes at some point. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 18:24, 12 September 2013 (EDT)

For what it's worth, the monitor's eye color has been retconned in Halo: Anniversary Terminals so each monitor seems to have a unique eye color. This was not always the case, nor the original intent. 2401 Penitent Tangent's eye color was actually blue as the model and texture file was that of Guilty Spark's. The difference (which may not have been apparent in the cutscene) is that 2401 PT was actually infected by the Flood. There is a translucent Flood texture overlay on the model and that's what caused the eye color to appear a reddish shade, rather than blue. In fact the overlay is called "Monitor_Infected". Note that the red is nowhere near as vibrant as when Guilty Spark gets mad and shoots with the red eye.

Icon

Mythos displays a different icon at page 155. Should the current one be considered retconned, or should we go with "Solitude changed it with time" (similar to Didact)? Lunaramethyst (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

I'm thinking the latter. I'm about to do an update for this page with Mythos and Fractures content (hopefully will be done by tonight), and I will address it in the "Description" section, mentioning how his sigil changed. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:26, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

Could be like how the Ur-Didact changed his sigil. I simply wont know till october, but quite a few Forerunner things changed their sigil post 2552. The Warden for example added a extra ring around his.-CIA391 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

Well, here's the sigil. Mythos doesn't give any other info about it. I presumed Tragic Solitude changed it after he entered rampancy at the close of 2552. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

In light of Promises to Keep’s intel, either of these sigils could also belong to Splendid Dust, or his role as a First Councilor. Lunaramethyst (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

Choosing of name

A detail overlooked in Promises to Keep: in Hunters in the Dark, 000 says it chose its name itself, but in the short story it is given by the IsoDidact. Actually, the first two paragraphs of the first section of the article currently contradict themselves. Like most of the novel, Hunters’'s explanation feels like bullshit to me, my call is to get rid of this information. Lunaramethyst (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't know, is it explicitly stated that the IsoDidact gave him his name or did Tragic Solitude select it himself and then IsoDidact officially named him as such during his "commissioning"? And the end of the short story did take place during the dark times as well. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

I noticed that too, I would say that IsoDidact did give Tragic his name, but Promises also stated that over time he would forget who he was. Its possible over the years Tragic forgot who named him and just assumed he named himself. Col. Snipes450 01:16, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Agreed.Sith Venator (Dank Memes) 01:17, 28 September 2016 (EDT)