From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


WTF! I read that he was the father, not lover! -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)File:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the possibility of a filial relationship: If the Librarian is indeed filial to the Didact, they never speak as anything but equals. I think people are confused by the message displayed upon initial access to Terminal Seven: when a son writes his father and tells him of his courage. It would seem to be nothing more than a random message that found its way into the Terminal. There were already so many errors and anomalies in all the Terminals' memories that an aberrant message is not surprising. Kori126 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In terminal 6 (I think) it say that he had a son and that the son had decided to go and fight the Flood and what's with the thing about him being an AI he got to be a person as he created 'Offensive Bias' and Offensive Bias defeated Mendicant Bias --MCDBBlits 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Should here be the question from first Halo, from Two Betroyals. That when Guilty Spark asks Chief: "Last time you asked me, would I do it?" Or something like that. If Didact activated rings from Halo 4, he would have asked that question.

Wait, something or whatnot said something that like John-117 was a descendent of this Forerunner? That's pretty cool, but is there a more precise reference, or does one simply have to scan through the Terminals?

Didact lived through the activation?[edit]

I do not think that didact activated the Halo array from Installation 04. Here's why:

  • In the terminals Didact urges the librarian to come back behind the line (aka. Maginot sphere)which we can assume at the center was the Ark.(I can cite the terminals if need be)
  • In the array data recorder file from IRIS, one of the lines reads "Confrm: Array sync …1…2…3…4…5…6…7…{check}" which implies that it was fired from installation 00*If Didact had been at installation 04 it was likely he would have been captured (provided that it was outside the sphere)

Thoughts? comments? suggestions? Motarius 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

-The Didact obviously activated Installations 01-07 from somewhere, but yes it need not have been from Installation 04. But the Ark is outside the galaxy, whilst the Forerunners inhabited worlds inside the galaxy. They needed Keyships and Portals to access the Ark, did they not? The Librarian said "I've remotely destroyed our Keyships. A security measure. Without them I cannot reach the Ark. But neither then can the thing.". It seemed inside the Maginot sphere was a collection of the worlds most important to the Forerunners. There might have been (and probably was) a Portal inside the Maginot sphere for travel to the Ark, if that is what you mean by "at the centre was the Ark". But I do not think the Ark itself was at the centre of Maginot sphere.
-How does a simple confirmation of Array synchronicity imply that the Installations were activated from 00? It simply means they were synchronised...
-I thought fauna died no matter where they were in the galaxy, even if they were on a Ring.
-Hes must have activated the Halo array from one of the rings. The Ark is outside of their effective firing range, therefore it probably wouldn't have killed him if he activated it from the Ark. --Hotdamnitsaaron 02:00, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
-The Didact speaks of dying (so it seems to me) in his last letter to the Librarian. I think he expected to die. Kori126 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Forerunner page the trivia section says that Didact survived, can someone confirm this for me plz User:Captain-One

I looked and did not see that, but how could the Didact have survived the activation of Installations 01-07? Offensive Bias was the only one left to interpret the messages and records and data. Kori126 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what his final words were? Drsdino 20:05, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

I concur that Didact did not die in the firing of the Arrays, but was on the Ark at the time. --demandread


  • In their conversations about preserving samples of life, Didact pleads for her to "Come home," she responds that she "can't justify using the [transit measure] to save my own skin when there are so many innocents to protect and index... Every vessel we can fill, we send to the Ark" This strongly suggests that the transit measure referred to is the portal/keyship system to the Ark, and she would rather use it to save other lives than her own. This implies that Didact is on the ark, because he retorts: "If you will not come to me, I will come to you."
  • It is further apparent that Didact is on the Ark, and was pleading for the Librarian to join him there, evidenced when the Gravemind begins to move on the offensive. The Librarian warns Didact: "It's coming for you. I've remotely destroyed our Keyships. A security measure. Without them I cannot reach the Ark. But neither can the thing." It is clear that the ideal scenario was for her to reach the Ark, and by proxy, Didact.
  • The Librarian seems to understand that she will perish along with the Gravemind, but gives no indication that Didact will die. She says "You've outwitted it, my love. And now you can destroy it. But you cannot save me."
  • Similarly, Didact bemoans that he is forced to kill the Librarian, but makes no reference to his own death. "My inaction and foolishness kept me here ...[and] makes me your executioner".
  • Didact also indicates that he will go on the Great Journey (presumably, restoring the native species from the Ark back to their homeworlds and then leaving the galaxy) on his own, after the firing of the Array. Not only does this mean he would have to survive the activation of the Halos, but strongly suggests that he was on the Ark throughout the conversations with the Librarian. "I will burn this stinking menace in your name. And then? I will begin our Great Journey without you".


  • If the Great Journey = Death, as so bluntly put by General5_7, it makes no sense that Didact would say "I will begin our Great Journey without you", as they would both be dead.
  • On multiple occasions, Didact argues that the Librarian should return to him "where [his] fleets can keep [her] safe", and makes efforts to "rescue" her. Up until the last moment, Didact was still intent on rescuing her, when rampant Mendicant "destroyed [her] waiting rescue party." What would have been the point of rescuing her if all were about to die? When Didact first creates Mendicant, in the hopes that it will delay the flood long enough to rescue the Librarian, she rebukes his plan and calls it a "suicidal scheme". If they were all going to die, trying to be together in death would not be suicidal.
  • When it is apparent that Mendicant has turned and Gravemind is on the offensive, Didact reports that the various "fleets are all being recalled" and that "systems are evacuating". If there were going to be zero Forerunner survivors from the activation, as suggested by Kori126, there would be absolutely no point in recalling or evacuating anybody.
    Strong evidence, but please do not conduct edit wars on the article. Explain it here (as you just did) and if you all come to a consensus, find a way to work it into the article. SmokeSound off! 18:25, December 9, 2009 (UTC)We agree, The only conceivable reason the communications within the terminals end, is that the Librarian was dead, and Didact no longer had any reason to communicate with her. While the ark may have had a way of transporting life back to the worlds without the Forerunner's directing the reseeding, it is equally likely that they did it themselves. Mendicant Bias's actions in the end are enough to prove they survived. Why else would he make John and example to his creators? The Dead can't offer forgiveness for past sins.ProphetofTruth 19:01, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
    I know that Didact activated the array, but the picture that says it's him in the article should be put to the bodom of the page and said "Possibly Didact from the Halo Legends short, Origins." or something allong those lines. - Annonomus 8:05, 4 January, 2009 (UTC)

Both of those headlines say the same thing. "Evidence 'for' Didact Surviving" and "Evidence 'against' Didact Dying." ~Hotdamnitsaaron Article Properties In my opinion, I think that the symbol that represents Didact should be taken out of the Gallery, the Gallery be closed, and put the symbol either above or below the picture of Didact from Halo Legends' Origins I episode. It's a small change and maybe a few would agree--I'm sort of new to Halopedia in general. I just think it'd nice aesthetically and provide an image to capture a user's eye. I HAVE THE ULTIMATE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NOT ALIVE AFTER THE FIRING!!! HE WAS KILLED BY FABER BEFORE THE ARAY WAS EVEN FIRED!!!! SO STOP THIS DISCUSSION AS IT IS IRRELEVANT!!Vegerot (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cryptum Info[edit]

According to Halo: Cryptum, the Didact was in his Cryptum for at least 1,000 years, then was reawakened after the Flood returned and shortly before Mendicant Bias was revealed to be rampant. Doesn't that contradict the timeline in the Terminals?SPARTAN-347 19:29, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Not necessarily, at the end of Cryptum the character Bornstellar seems to accept becomeing the Didact from the mutation and memories recieved by it. It also seems to me that the Libraian on page 339 talks to Bornstellar as if he is now the Didact. I think that while The Didact was killed by the Master Builder on the San'Shyuum quarantine planet his persona lives on to the end in Bornstellar and that he might be the one communicating in the Terminals not the actual Didact.Deep Reverence 00:18, 13 January 2011 (EST)

That's true, and with Bornstellar being the Didact, the Librarian-Didact dialogues in terminals one, two, four, six and seven make contextual sense, as they would have happened after Bornstellar became the Didact and was preparing to fire the Array. It's terminal three that's the troublemaker:

- the Didact: "We have the answer. We've built Mendicant Bias. It's a contender class AI, unlike anything we've ever achieved.

And we've observed a pattern it can exploit."

This implies that the Didact was awake when the Flood returned, and that Mendicant Bias was built sometime during the war. Cryptum would seem to indicate that the Didact was in hibernation during that timespan.

-Librarian: "Are you insane? Would you risk every life in the galaxy for this transparently futile plan? Have you learned nothing in these last [300 years[?]]?"

Again, suggesting he was awake for the 300 years preceding Cryptum. EDIT: had a thought - maybe he was in hibernation for a much, much shorter timespan than 1000 years (It's never really stated how long - Bornstellar guesses 1,000 years, and the Didact never really confirms or denies that guess.) SPARTAN-347 14:20, 14 January 2011 (EST)

I am starting to get confused. So from now on can we call the Original Didact "Didact1" and the Bornstellar/Didcact "Didact2" please; because this is getting confusing. I think the Didact1 confirms his Hibernation-span at some point. But it is also possible that the IDEA for Mendicant Bias was though up by the Didact1. But at that point, a Contender Class AI was nothing more than a theory. And it took the Forerunners 1,000 years to build Mendicant and deploy him. So the Didact1 told her of their new idea. A while later he went into the Cryptum and while in the Cryptum, all that stuff happened. Then after the book the Didact2 does all the stuff with the messages in the Terminals. And about the ordering of the Terminals; I have an answer. The Terminals don't HAVE to be in order. So the timeline of the Terminals could be way off. So the 1st one could actually be 20 years after the second one. Or in this case, the 3rd one could be 1,000 years before the 1st Terminal is. Vegerot (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!

Are we sure Didact isn't a rank like Librarian? If there are more didacts, we could separate them and change the name of this article to make sure everyone knows the difference - I can only think of "The Didact", though.-- Forerunner 14:48, 20 February 2011 (EST)

@Vegerot: Yeah, I think the most likely explanation is that the terminals are out of order, but that still doesn't solve a few things; When the Didact is talking to the Librarian about Mendicant Bias, he makes it sound like she is in immediate danger, which would imply the Forerunner-Flood war is on by that point. That would be impossible if it was sent before he went into the Cryptum

@Forerunner: It looks like Librarian/Didact are more of "nicknames" than ranks, so I think the Didact is the only one SPARTAN-347 15:35, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Wasn't 'The Librarian' the third to use that name, though?-- Forerunner 15:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)

So I have the Terminals open in another tab and I think I have an idea. It could be that he programmed him or something???Vegerot (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2011 (EST)

GOT IT!!!!!!!!!! I know what Greg Bear was thinking!!!!!! Greg Bear is A LOT smarter then I thought he was!! He anticipated this discussion and came up with a solution!! Now bear (no pun intended. actually, sure, pun intended) with me here! So 1st. Stick to my 1st theory, then add this in. It was stated by [crap I forgot] that it was NOT the Gravemind that controlled Mendicant Bias!!! So I think this is what happens. Some time later [in his next books] the gang (with the Didact2) is gonna go, find this non-parasitic thing that is controlling Mendicant Bias, and they are gonna destroy, or somehow free Mendicant. After they free him, they are gonna put him through a couple loyalty test, and he's gonna pass. So, a couple weeks (days, months, or even years. the Forerunners are a very "patient" species) later, the Forerunners find the Floods weakness. So now, they repurpose Mendicant, instead of being the Halo overseer, they repurpose him to attack and destroy the Flood. THEN that's when the Gravemind makes him betray the Forerunners. lol, so if my theory is right, then Mendicant betrayed the Forerunners twice. And one question you probably have is "If Mendicant betrayed the Forerunners once, why give him a second chance, he is only an AI?". And here's my answer. Mendicant Bias is the only Contender-Class AI in existence. So, adding in my 1st theory, it took around 1,000 years to create and construct him. So he was far to valuable to just scap, so they did the repurposing. So, THAT could explain the Terminal incident!!!!!Vegerot (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, that idea is not too bad. Just a few things: There were more than one Contender-class AI, as stated by the Librarian, and it's never said that Mendicant wasn't being controlled by the Gravemind in the book - he says he has a "new master", which would be either the Precursor or the Gravemind. Also, if Mendicant were just being "re-programmed," then the terminal entry wouldn't say "we've created Mendicant Bias" SPARTAN-347 19:49, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Wow... Way to burst my bubble *under my breath* bitch. Okay, man, I'll like to see YOU come up with that idea. Hang on a couple of minuets,I gotta think of a counter to that. *under my breath again* bitch.... Vegerot (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, to your multiple Contender AIs. That doesn't say much. There may be more than one, but still not enough to just be destroyed and forgotten. As there are only five Metarch-classes at any time. [Halo: Cryptum, when Didact2 is on the ship heading to the Capital]Vegerot (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!

Also, can we start citing where we get our data from. Don't be scared we don't have to do it the fancy way just put it in brackets like this [Halo: The Flood, somewhere in the middle when Spark betrays him]. Just to make it more... "sophisticated". Also, it will make it A LOT easier to get data when I know where YOU got it from. Just do it as a favor, Please?Vegerot (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2011 (EST)!

The Didact2 says that he highly doubts that it was the Gravemind, rather some other force [327. Guess which book, dumb-ass]. And when it "created" that could have simply been a poor --or good-- choice of words. It might have been a good choice of words as now Mendicant Bias has been reprogrammed and they have definitely added weapons, data on how to destroy the Gravemind, etc. Why, the Forerunners practically CREATED something new. (although mainly the Hardware. But still software upgrades too. What now?! Want to say something to burst my bubble?! Just kidding man, we're cool.Vegerot (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!

No, what I was saying is I actually think that idea could be correct, I'm just pointing out two things that were a little off. The Librarian mentions the multiple Contender-class AIs at the end of the second-to-last chapter of Cryptum, and the terminal quote was the first line of terminal three SPARTAN-347 22:08, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Dang man, when I tried to post my response to your 1st one, it said that you edited in the middle of my editing (hate it when that happens). But yeah listen to my reason. If Metarch-classes were so valuable that there was only 5 Metarch-classes at a time. Imagine how valuable Contender-classes must be. Vegerot (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (EST)!

I'm guessing the lack of speech (or text) means that we all agree that I am right? Vegerot (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!

Hey, just got some more information. I was just replaying The Ark on Legendary and when I was reading the last terminal I found something. "They repurposed {~} into a weapon to use against {~}" That could possibly support my theory that they repurposed him to attack the Gravemind, rather than control the rings. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Yep. There were multiple Contender class AI's. 14:58, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The "The"[edit]

On the page for The Rookie, we've made it clear that the character is to be referred to as "THE Rookie", as it is his title and obviously not his name. Cryptum now seems to have done a similar thing but confirming that "Didact" is not actually the signature character's name, as he is consistently referred to as now as "THE Didact". Same goes for The Librarian. In keeping with then so-called "title policy" then, this page should have to be moved to "The Didact", as it follows the same rules as followed by "The Rookie." Tuckerscreator(stalk) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Done. Vegerot (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2011 (EST)!

Actually, now I'm not so sure. Someone who edited the page "Meta" on the rvb wikia gave a pretty good reason not to. Hang on, I'll get it in a sec.

Kgman: the character's actual name is "The Meta", not just "Meta". He is referred to as "The Meta" throughout the entire series.
Sniperteam82308: Wrong again. He may be refereed to as The Meta but if you were constantly refereed to as The Kgman your user name would still be Kgman.

So I'm not really sure if we should keep it the way it is, or move it to "Didact". Because you wouldn't walk up to him and say, "Hey, The Didact! What's up?!", you would say, "Hey, Didact! What's up?!". Aya! Vegerot (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!

People in ODST say "Hey, Rookie!" and yet his title is still "The Rookie." Tuckerscreator(stalk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
They don't - they say "Hey, rookie". The definitive article separates the character from his description. Meanwhile, the article is used here to distinguish him from his title - it's "The Didact" or "Unnamed didact" - take your pick.-- Forerunner 10:58, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
But in Halo Cryptum, Didact states (or actually, Bornstellar just as he's starting to unlock Didact) that "Didact" was his nickname, not a rank. If it was his rank, then that would be a different story. But it isn't his rank. Vegerot (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!!!
I said "title". It's a title just like "Librarian" - more than one person has been referred to by it. Therefore, you must disambiguate name from title. -- Forerunner 16:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Who else has been called that? Again, it's not a rank, it's a nickname. Vegerot (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!
I'd prefer it if you actually read my comments before replying. Note that I said 'title', as opposed to 'rank' and even confirmed from a previous reply that I indeed said 'title', as opposed to 'rank'. Supreme Commander, the position held by Thel 'Vadamee before October 2552, is a title - his rank was Fleet Master.-- Forerunner 20:11, 27 March 2011 (EDT)


Support.svg Support I think we should change it back to "Didact". For the reasons stated above. Vegerot (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!

Oppose.svg Oppose - All reforms have pro-'U turners'; we probably had the same opposition to using "unnamed" before an unnamed character's page title.-- Forerunner 10:58, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Oppose.svg Oppose - Forerunner summed it up nicely Forgive My English TALK TO ME BABY 11:11, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Oppose.svg Oppose - As per above. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Oppose.svg Oppose - Overall, I'm against using "the" in article titles because if this gets adopted into common usage, one could argue we should also call pages like "Battle of Earth" "The Battle of Earth" because the "the" is used most of the time. And I'd rather not see that becoming a trend. On the other hand, using "the" should be acceptable when the subject is never referred to without it, e.g. the Rubble. However, since the Halo Waypoint glossary identifies the character as The Didact, I'm just going to agree that should also be his title. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:36, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Oppose.svg Oppose - I agree with most of what has been said. Even the Librarian refers to him as "The Didact," and he refers to her as "The Librarian." The only time that I can think that this is not used is when Halsey refers to them as "Librarian" and "Didact," but even then it seemed choppy and odd without the "The" title before.Ocean Soul (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2013 (EDT)


Since this seems to be becoming an edit war, there needs to be a proper resolution on the matter of where we should have the biographical information about the Didact after his original body died. I definitely believe it belongs in this article; the fact that the Didact's consciousness happens to inhabit Bornstellar's body is irrelevant. It's not the same Didact, not in that he lacks the experiences of the original Didact immediately preceding his death, but more like a "backup copy" in control of another body. It should also be noted that in Primordium, the reincarnated Didact is consistently referred to as the Didact. If he was merely Bornstellar's consciousness making decisions based on the Didact's knowledge, then he'd be referred to as Bornstellar.

Bottom line; the consciousness in Bornstellar's body isn't Bornstellar anymore; whether Born's personality is completely dead or just buried under the Didact hasn't been elaborated upon, but it should be clear that the bio of the Didact should stay in this article, while Bornstellar's biography should end at the point where the Didact takes control, unless his original personality resurfaces at some point. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

A very interesting read. How far should this concept go, however? Smart AIs follow a similar argument - they are the conciousness and memories of a real person transferred into a computerised body. Cortana is a clone of Dr. Halsey, whereas Durga/Melissa is Yasmine Zaman - both are real, dead people (in Cortana's case, she is the computerised version of a dead clone of Halsey) who have been reincarnated into another body. However, should they be viewed as being that person, or just a replication? The same goes for the Didact - when in Bornstellar's body, is he the Didact, or just a replication of his conciousness. I suppose this is like the philosophical debate over the teleporters in Star Trek - the machines kill people, disassemble them, send them as a beam of energy to elsewhere and reconfigure a perfect copy. The debate, itself, relates to Theseus' paradox, where a ship's parts are replaced over time - when every part has been replaced, is it the same ship? And what happens if the original parts were used to replicate the ship - are there two ships that can be considered the real one?-- Forerunner 14:44, 29 January 2012 (EST)
As for the matter of AIs, I think the most important determining factor is the way the characters in question are regarded in-universe. Cortana and Dr. Halsey are clearly considered two separate individuals, and they indeed are - as Halsey's journal tells us, the human brain is only used to "seed" the nascent AI matrix, but the AI soon develops its own neural linkages, effectively becoming not only a different individual, but also an entity clearly distinct from a biological human being. Thus, even though the AI is based upon the pattern of its brain donor and usually shares certain traits as a result, it's not as straightforward as a direct conversion from a biological system to a digital one.
In the Didact's case, his personality was directly imprinted into another biological body. It's not the same Didact, but it's closer to the original person than an AI is to its brain donor. A different version of the Didact, if you will. I guess you could compare it to AIs being able to assign duplicates of themselves to work on certain tasks, though even this comparison is flawed due to the fundamentally different workings of AI minds. Again, the way the character is viewed in-universe should be a good reference point: since everyone considers "Didact V2" as the Didact, and he behaves exactly like the original Didact, then we should also consider him as merely another incarnation of the Didact, regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of his existence.
The issue of the continuity of consciousness is a complex one indeed; like you said, the transporters in ST are pretty problematic from an ethical standpoint. For the sake of convenience, the people who come through the transporter are still considered the same people who went in, even though they're just perfect copies of their former selves, who have been dead since the first time they used a transporter. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (EST)
But, the way that Bornstellar received the Didact's experiences is through a mutation or "imprint." So Bornstellar is still there, it's just that he has the Didact's experiences. So it's not even that they are two separate consciousnesses, it's just that the Didact's experiences are far more useful than Bornstellar's, so Bornstellar has just "assumed the identity as the Didact." We cannot say that Bornstellar's father is the Master Builder, because even though he has his experiences, they are different people. What would we do if the Didact returned? We wouldn't have a really jumbled up Didact page, would we? Bornstellar received the Didact's imprint, and took the Didact's identity so people would listen to him and earn their respect. (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (EST)!
It has already been established that "imprints" are more than just experiences and knowledge. They're fully functioning minds existing alongside the consciousness of the individual who carries them. How else would the Bornstellar or Chakas be able to directly converse with their imprints? It's also been established that the imprints can assume direct control (har har) of their "hosts", as demonstrated when Chakas' and Riser's "old spirits" speak through them, or near the end of Cryptum where the Didact temporarily deactivates Mendicant Bias and later when he maneuvers the escape pod. In any of those cases, it's made clear that the carrier of the imprint definitely wasn't the one in control.
As for other Forerunners, I'm not saying that everyone who receives an imprint from someone automatically becomes that person. I'm referring to this specific instance, where the Didact's imprint subverted the original consciousness inhabiting the body. Bornstellar didn't become the Didact the moment the mutation occurred. He was still himself until he met the Librarian on the Ark.
To back this up with some material from the books, in the final pages of Cryptum, the "new Didact" refers to the experiences of the original Didact as if they were his; "my revival on Erde-Tyrene", "I would prepare once again the defense I had championed a thousand years ago". If he was merely Bornstellar drawing from the Didact's experiences, he would not refer to the Didact in the first person. Later, in Primordium (p348), when Chakas recognizes him as Bornstellar, the Didact answers; "No more, except in my dreams." Perhaps the most obvious confirmation of this is Bornstellar's statement in Cryptum (p318): "I was then two beings confined in one body."
I admit something like this is more complex than dealing with normal people existing in one body. However, with tech which allows one to body-hop like this, we have to view it from a different perspective than we normally would. When both the Didact's consciousness and identity lived on in another body, should the body matter more than the mind? If the original Didact returned, which seems unlikely at this point, then we'll just have to judge the matter based on the new information. Too early to do anything of the sort right now. As of now, having a section called "reincarnation" on this page should be enough to make it clear that it's not the same Didact, but a copy of his mind that lives on. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:38, 30 January 2012 (EST)

So then in that case should we combine the 343 Guilty Spark and the Chakas articles? And yes, I got that Mass Effect pun :D while we're on the topic of comedy, what do you think of my new sig? (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)!

On the topic of your sig, I just don't see why you need the whole "(insert text here)".— subtank 12:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
I absolutely think we should keep the 343GS and Chakas articles separate, for reasons which I've already touched upon a couple of posts earlier. The most apparent reason being that 343 Guilty Spark and Chakas are still considered two distinct entities. Chakas became another thing entirely, while his former self ceased to exist. Even though the monitor evidently retained some semblance of Chakas' consciousness, his entire existence changed in a fundamental way, from a very limited human mind to a machine intelligence with exponentially larger processing capabilities.
This particular case is not at all dissimilar to the issue of human smart AI creation. For example, even though Cortana is directly based on the neural pattern of Dr. Halsey, the two aren't the same person, not only because Cortana has a different identity (although that is a major contibuting factor), but also because an AI mind is so different from a human one. The same isn't true with the Didact's "reincarnation"; he still retains his former identity and status; the only thing that has changed is his body. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Here's a quote from Greg Bear's discussion board under the heading "The Forerunner Saga", originally dated 05/16/12:
From: Greg Bear
Date: 05/22/2012
We're working on those connections. For now, let's just say there are two Didacts...
This was in response to a query as to whether the info in the Halo 3 terminals could be considered "canon"... DJenser 10:08, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
And now, TOR Books lends yet more credence to the possibility of there being 2 Didacts:
"Only the Ur-Didact and the Librarian —a husband and wife pushed into desperate conflict—hold the keys to salvation. Facing the consequences of a mythic tragedy, one of them must now commit the greatest atrocity of all time—to prevent an unmatched evil from dominating the entire universe."
The prefix "Ur-" is a German prefix designation which means "Previous", "Primordial" or "Original" DJenser 13:43, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
I was wondering what Ur meant. --Killamint Comm 14:34, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Might be a little simplistic, but might I suggest that the whole reason for there being two Didacts is simply to cover a gaping plot point? It is otherwise an unnecessary complication. I think the true purpose of this duplicity has yet to be revealed, and has more to do with the fact that the Halo 3 terminals and halo Anniversary terminals do not tally. <Bones>


It's not clear... When did the Didact and the Librarian meet themselves ? It's on Charum Hakkor, sure, but before the Forerunner/Human War ? It seems strange to me, the planet was already in human-controlled space. After, during the Charum Hakkor campaign ? Then, the Didact childs cannot die during the war. Any solution ? -- 07:10, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

It has to be before the war, since the Forerunners didn't even get near the planet until the end of the campaign. It's not exactly elaborated upon how the humans and Forerunners got along before the war, but Primordium states that Forerunners, even the Didact, had visited some ancient human worlds so it's not impossible that they might have also been to Charum Hakkor before the conflict broke out. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 04:52, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Didact in the Reclaimer Trilogy[edit]

Didact will appear in the Reclaimer Trilogy and, at some point, will be a playable character similarly to how the Arbiter was playable in Halo 2 and 3. In which game this happens isn't entirely known yet but it could be as early as Halo 4. —This unsigned comment was made by (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Spoiler? You know a source would be nice.-- Col. Spartacus Talk Page Contributions 16:39, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
Unless you have a source, this is speculation and/or made-up. Highly doubt he'll be a playable character, especially in Halo 4 given we're only controlling Master Chief & Spartan 4's. Also we're not 100% sure he's in Halo 4 to begin with (despite his symbol popping up). --Killamint KillaEX 11:13, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Halo 4 Demo Quote[edit]

In the recent Halo 4 Demo, someone at the end states "I have long waited for this day Reclaimer"

I have a reason to believe it is not the Didact.

1. The symbol is different. The CEA Terminals made it very clear what the symbol looked like from 343i, this one is different.

Firstly, it lacks the distinctive clear cut hexagonal pattern. The bottom lower bit is different, too.

Secondly, the symbol turns. That must mean something.

Thirdly, to my knowledge there is no evidence or source that actually proves that he stated it, please educate me.

2. The symbol flipping is the sign of something gone rampant, or the opposite/opposer to something.

For example, take the supposed anti-Christ. Similarly, the symbol could represent the anti-Didact, or even the Master Builder Faber, whom we have no knowledge of insignia.

3. The Didact is not evil. As leader of the Forerunner military, he tried to save as much life from the galaxy as he could while defeating the Flood. Sure he treated humanity badly but he was good intentioned as a whole and sought to seek answers for his earlier actions. He was also married to the Librarian, I would imagine that she is alive too refering Chakas's reveal at the end of Primordium; this would keep him calm.

SMNZ117 07:00, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

The symbol turning is for show only, it doesn't mean anything [to me at least]. Yes, we are not 100% sure the Didact will be in Halo 4, we're mostly going off a symbol in the trailer that highly resembles his. To me it looks like the Didact's symbol with no differences. Also we haven't got the last book in the Forerunner trilogy, which most likely will explain the Didact's (or other antagonist's) supposed appearance in Halo 4. So for now it mostly conjecture but based off a source- his symbol. --Killamint KillaEX 11:29, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
I disagree with the assertion that the turning symbol is meaningless or simply for show, given the fact that it appears inverted throughout the video until the very end. That being said, I must also agree that we don't know enough about the story yet to simply assume that the Didact is the "Nemesis" in this upcoming trilogy. There are still too many variables and not enough facts to answer that question. What little info we do have (Forerunner tech designated as "Promethean" being used against the Chief, a disembodied voice, an inverted symbol that looks quite similar to the Didact's, oh, and this...) only serves to lead us in the direction of a particular conclusion, but it doesn't actually answer the question. I highly doubt 343'd put all of their cards on the table like that. DJenser 12:17, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
Now there are two Didacts? You mentioned it in the Bornstellar/Didact topic but I missed it. If thats the case, he is in the game, quite possibly in some other form/variation of him. After looking closely at the symbol, you may be right, it does look different and is inverted, but lets put it this way. The good Didacts symbol is blue, while this new bad one is orange. Thats my only conclusion if Greg said their are two Didacts. Just have to wait till Halo 4 and Silentium come out for an explanation. Too much speculation with little source. --Killamint KillaEX 12:41, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
That's a pretty good point, Killamint. They made duplicates of 343GS, right? Is it possible that they cloned the Didact to increase the Forerunner military efficiency? —S331 Bubbleshieldhud.svg(COMMission LogProfile) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Two Didacts, huh? I noticed in the E3 trailer that there was a glimpse of Prometheans with the more traditional gray and blue coloration of the Forerunners. Perhaps this means that there are two factions of Forerunners on Requiem, each controlled by different Didacts. Personally, I suspect Faber of having something to do with it since it's only "assumed" he died but we'll have to wait and see.--Kamikaz 13:33, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
I have a sneaking suspicion that since most Forerunner lights are light blue, and these are all orange, along with the reversed symbol, something's not right with them. Probably under the command of this "other" Didact, who's possibly evil, or maybe is rampant. Something like that. Alex T Snow 16:27, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
All of these are valid theories... Which serves to prove my point that there are still too many variables at this extremely early point in the game. For all we know, Greg may be referring to an internal conflict in which the Didact's personality matrix is having difficulty integrating with Born's causing a "split personality" type disorder which drove him crazy. Or, it could literally mean that the original survived & there were 2 Didacts before one of them lit the array & removed themself from the equation, leaving the more bitter, aggressive, wrathful version to wreak his vengeance upon an unsuspecting galaxy in retaliation for losing everything he once held dear... A case could be made for either scenario... If you look at Terminal 7 from H3, it looks to me like that message that was sent to the writer's father could have been written by Bornstellar... I don't recognize the symbol, but it looks somewhat similar in design to the Didact's & Librarian's except that it has a smaller hexagon ON TOP OF the larger central one. The red Didact symbol has the vertical line on top of the central hexagon... Or I could just be talking smack... Again, too soon to tell...DJenser 17:04, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

my analysis of the symbol from trailer, as you can see in the link that i'm going to share will show what the symbol looks like, it will be hard to spot as it is shown briefly on [1] pause the screen on 0.52 and you'll notice the symbol is inverted from didacts and also the vertical lines either side of the octagon are connected to the outer circle where the didacts ones are not, this could possibly mean that this part of trivia could be plausable where there is an evil double.

The official press release for Halo: Silentium makes mention of the "Ur-Didact", stating that he and the Librarian are the last hope for sentient life in the galaxy. "Ur" is a German prefix meaning "original", suggesting that the original Didact was not actually executed by Faber. In a discussion on his personal website, Greg Bear stated, "[L]et's just say there are two Didacts."[11] This may imply that the Bornstellar-Didact and the Ur-Didact continued to exist as distinct entities, with one of them being the aforementioned antagonist.

but anyways it could be a whole different forerunner in general but thats my analysis of the symbol. Thank you and good night SPARTAN-225 23:01, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

That video, at :52, shows the female crewmember's viewscreen filling up with forerunner glyphs and, then, "the Didact's" symbol. The same sequence of images on her screen is also used on the view screens seen on the home page of, preceded by the addition of what I believe is an Easter Egg. On the launch page, which is set up to look like the Infinity's bridge, there are 4 or 5 screens that display GIF images that cycle randomly every few seconds. Every so often, they will cycle with the following image: File:Screen1E.GIF... Pay especially close attention to the numbers... Look familiar? No?... You'll find them [here], under terminals 1, 4 and 9. "Resonant connections" indeed... DJenser 14:28, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Dude it's still not the didacts symbol, even in the tenth terminal in halo anniversary it shows his symbol from this wiki page, not the one that's in the halo 4 trailer and on the xbox site, 343 hasn't said it is him or not either SPARTAN-225 05:53, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
Fine, for the sake of argument we can say that it's someone who is portraying themselves as the Didact, as that is quite obviously what is going on, at this point. Of course, with this New Important Info (see the new section below this one)released about Silentium, several new and even more twisted (it IS Greg Bear, after all) possibilities are raised as to the true identity of the main antagonist, none of which will completely eliminate the Didacts (or, now, even the Librarian!) as a possible suspect. Are your heads hurting yet?DJenser 13:12, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
Been hurting. Shouldn't this discussion have ended by now? Lets try and wait for 343 spoilers and both Halo 4 & Silentium before we go any further. Otherwise its going to be a bunch of back & forth's that accomplish nothing. --Killamint Comm 13:26, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
finally its been announced that it is the didact, well leaked anyway :/ SPARTAN-225 01:26, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

New Important info[edit]

We have this new info of Silentium, confirming that the Didact wasnt killed, hinting at a new forerunner rate "Juridicals" info on the Precurors' creation of humans and Forerunners, and the origins of the flood. Someone should update the respetective articles, starting with the Didact.Subjani 16:01, 31 July 2012 (EDT)subjani

Launch trailer[edit]

For those that have seen it, the guy talking to Chief is obviously the Didact, the voice actor sound really familiar, any thoughts on who it is? Col. Snipes450 00:41, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Well, it's better not to assume. We hear two non-human voices in the trailer - one announcing that they are the Forerunners, the other greeting the Chief. Either of these could conceivably be the Didact. As for the voice itself, yes, it does sound maddeningly familiar, though I can't quite place it. I'll check around, see if anywhere lists the voice with an actor. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 06:08, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
Do Stefan Marks, Nicolas Roye or Cas Anvar ring any bells? None of them are credited on IMDb as more than "voice actor". I saw Stefan Marks was a voice actor in Mass Effect 3, though I don't know what role he played. Other than that, I'm not familiar with any of their work, so I can't compare them. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 06:15, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
Okay, so I went back and, nope, they're the same voice. Just a different intonation. My bad. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 06:18, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
I recognize that voice wherever. That's Keith Szarabajka's voice!!! He's the guy who gave voice to the Dr. Kyne (Dead Space), the Crowfather (Darksiders 2), and Harbinger (Mass Effect 2)!! --Dr Mutran 08:46, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
A lot of people have suggested Keith Szarabajka on the Waypoint and forums. I've also seen several posts which claim it's Fred Tatasciore, who has experience with Halo. If either of those predictions is accurate, the antagonist will be voiced by voiced by a Mass Effect villain. I'd be happy with that. Having listened to the trailer, though, the voice sounds like Jeremy Irons'; I've seen his name thrown around a few times as well. --Courage never dies. 10:42, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
No Morhek is right, it's Keith Szarabajka his wikipedia page says he has the role for Didact, he was Daniel Holtz in the TV show Angel, that's where I recognized him from. Thanks Morhek! Col. Snipes450 11:11, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

New Picture[edit]

Since the game was just released shouldn't we change the picture to a high resolution screen shot or render of him?? SPARTAN-225 15:01, 6 November 2012 (NZ Time)

Spoilers --Halo face 21:47, 5 November 2012 (EST)
Agreed. Not until after the official release date of November 6, 2012. --Xamikaze330 (talk|contribs) 23:26, 5 November 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330
It's been out for the last 21 hours in my country but now its been officially released over the U.S. S225 9:28pm 6th of november (PST)

(reset indent) Okay, now that it's officially been released, I think it would be safe to include some high-quality screenshots of the Didact as he appeared in Halo 4, as well as some high-quality screenshots of the Librarian too, as she appeared in Halo 4. That is assuming she made any appearance at all in any point in Halo 4's campaign. --Xamikaze330 (talk|contribs) 12:43, 7 November 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330

Yes she did, sort of... Col. Snipes450 12:49, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Can we get more than just one image of the Didact in Halo 4, not just one without his helmet/mask and one with his helmet/mask on? --Xamikaze330 (talk|contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330

Which Didact[edit]

Which Didact do we encounter in Halo 4? I've heard chatter that it's Bornstellar-Didact, because the Terminals have him mentioned "this new form", but his behavior seems more like that of Ur-Didact. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 16:02, 7 November 2012 (EST)

I guess this is what Silentium is supposed to reveal. -- SFH 20:36, 7 November 2012 (EST)

I was wondering the same and because of his behavior and hatred of humans I would say it is Ur-Didact. Also because in the terminals it shows the Didact from Halo 4 talking to the Lord of Admirals, that could not have been Bornstellar-Didact because he wasn't alive yet. Even accounting for the mutation that Bornstellar received from the Ur-Didact I doubt that they would end up looking exactly the same. TLLorax 04:54, 8 November 2012 (EST)

From his attitude based on Cryptum, and Bornstellar-Didact's from Primordium, I would hazard a guess that he is more likely to be the Ur-Didact, sealed in a Cryptum while Bornstellar-Didact assumed the role he played in the Terminals. Needless to say, it explains his bitterness towards the Librarian - being abandoned for "another you but not quite you" has to be a blow to the ego. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 06:39, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Reconciling Halo 3's Terminals with Halo 4's[edit]

I'm a bit stumped on how to reconcile what Halo 3's terminals state (Didact activated the Halos after the Librarian's rescue party are unable to get her off Earth), and what is shown in Halo 4 (Librarian is forced to incapacitate Didact and lock him in a cryptum for his, and humanity's safety).

Does anyone who is a better writer than I have any ideas? I don't wanna try and edit the article and make things more awkward than they should be. Flawedspirit avatar.png Flawedspirit || Contributions 17:54, 8 November 2012 (EST)

I think it would be best to leave the details of the Halo 3 terminals and Halo 4 terminals until the novel Halo: Silentium is published; the terminals do not explain very well which Didact activated the Halo rings and which Didact was locked in the Cryptum. --Dr Mutran 16:46, 8 November 2012 (EST)
Yeah, we should wait, and also once we get that information we should split the Didact page into two, the Ur-Didact and the Bornsteller-Didact.--ArchedThunder 17:37, 12 November 2012 (EST)


So after visiting the Constraint field article, it's clear that the Didact does not possess telekinetic powers. But one kept nagging at me: even if he can't move things with his mind, can he speak with it? In other words, is he telepathic? I ask because in Shutdown the Didact communicates directly with Chief...and Cortana can't hear him. It seems like the only way Cortana couldn't hear the transmission if it was being transmitted straight into John's head. Just a puzzling detail I couldn't ignore. Captain Baird Comm-LinkService Record 21:13, 14 November 2012 (EST)

My guess is that he's using some form of advanced technology to communicate with John, either via his neural interface or by, as it would appear, actually beaming words into his brain. I don't think it's likely that he actually has some innate ability to use telepathy, though - we've seen Forerunner tech do amazing stuff, so it's probably something involved with his suit or other tech he has at his disposal SPARTAN-347 22:52, 14 November 2012 (EST)

It could be a geas, memories from someone else, could also explain why only John heard his voice, or an effect of what the Librarian did to John. Col. Snipes450 23:54, 14 November 2012 (EST)

I'm thinking it was a minor form of brevet mutation, along the lines of whatever made the Didact immune to Composition. Such a mutation would be childs-play for someone of the Librarian's skill. Much like with Bornstellar, an additional benefit of such a mutation would be the ability to access the Domain... Of course, nowadays, there really isn't much left of the Domain, but such a mutation might still allow for rundimentary communication between those who are similarly connected... DJenser (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2013 (EST)

Didact's survival[edit]

I've noticed an ongoing debate (in edit form) of whether or not Didact survived the Battle of Earth (2557), so lets discuss. I personally believed that he survived the battle. While I don't remember where, I've heard multiple mentions by 343 that the Didact would be a significant character in this new trilogy of games, how can he be significant if he died in the first game? Col. Snipes450 11:29, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Cortana did say that there was "Significant Slip-Space activity" going on underneath the Composer, and what the Didact fell into looked very much like a portal. Missing Mandible 21:24, 15 November 2012 (EST)
And in the terminal "Knights", the Didact himself says that the Composer will not work in his new form. --Dr Mutran 21:28, 15 November 2012 (EST)
So he fell into a Slipspace portal... what about the grenade that had just exploded in/on his chest? That didn't look like it did much for his health. Keep in mind that there are two Didacts, both of which are implied to be alive at the time of Halo 4. The other Didact could pop up later, for better or worse. Captain Baird Comm-LinkService Record 15:14, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Despite the grenade in his chest, he still had his armor on. If he survived, he was likely injured but not killed by the grenade.--Spartacus TalkContribs
Bornstellar-Didact was the Didact that activated the Halo rings...we can assume he's most likely dead.--Death will follow you...but you can survive 23:46, 16 December 2012 (EST)
But he activated the Halo rings on the Ark (Installation 00), and the Ark is outside the Milky Way, so he survived. --Dr Mutran 09:22, 17 December 2012 (EST)
I'm gonna kinda-sorta play to the middle here and edit his infobox to say "Died: July 2557 (presumed)", as he, as far as the Chief and the UNSC are aware, is dead, seeing as the Chief himself stuck him with a grenade and saw him fall into the swirly orange vortex of doom. Though, whether or not the swirly orange vortex of doom killed him, translocated him, or whatever, we'll find out in about 10 months. --WTRiker (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2013 (EST)
Let's not lose sight of the fact that 2 direct hits with a binary rifle only knocked him out or, at best, rendered him comatose... And that was without his full armor; he was was only wearing the under-layer at the time... This is a tough dude. DJenser (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2013 (EST)

Even if Bornstellar was on a Halo when the rings fired he would have survived. Given that the flood and humans survived the Battle of the Capital despite Installation 07 activating. ProphetofTruth (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2013 (EST)

I strongly assume that he is alive given the events of Spartan Ops, as well as Jul continuing to act as the Didact's Hand.Ocean Soul (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

"Even if Bornstellar was on a Halo when the rings fired he would have survived. Given that the flood and humans survived the Battle of the Capital despite Installation 07 activating. ProphetofTruth" -Humans where indexed and the flood are not effected by the Halos 19:37, 23 November 2013 (EST)

The Ur-Didact is in fact the Didact we encountered in Halo 4[edit]

Though it should have been fairly obvious to most of us, it was the Ur-Didact who was imprisoned on Requiem only to be awakwened in Halo 4, and not the Bornstellar-Didact. But I guess it's good to finally have some confirmation. All articles mentioning the two incarnations of the Didact should make reference of this.--Brute Honour Guard File:Bruteface.png|20px]] ("Talk") 20:58, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Since the two's lives follow such different paths, we should split the Didacts' bios between two articles. We could keep the Ur-Didact stuff here, and move the Bornstellar-Didact parts to the Bornstellar article. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (EST)
That seems like the best option, keeps it from getting the two mixed up.--Spartacus TalkContribs 12:59, 5 February 2013 (EST)
Should the articles be renamed to "Bornstellar-Didact" and "Ur-Didact", or keep their same names? Tuckerscreator(stalk) 01:56, 6 February 2013 (EST)
I think the article names should remain the same, while we simply have a link to Bornstellar's biography for anything related to his activities as the Didact.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 07:30, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Well, Jugus pointed out that he's effectively not Bornstellar anymore. He is quoted in Primordium saying that Bornstellar is just a few memories now and he is fully the Didact. That seems like enough of an identity change for a name change. 11:03, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Honestly I'm not sure but if that's the case then I guess it should be renamed but retain his original name in the description/bio.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 17:55, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Im confused on the order of events...[edit]

Both this and the other Halo WIki seem to indicate the last few Terminals in Halo 4 (with the Didact composing the humans to make his Promethean AI's; and the Librarian shooting him and locking him up in his Crytpum) to take place AFTER the events in the novel Halo: Cryptum. I was under the impression the entire Halo 4 Terminal video series took place before Bornstellar.. and the Librarian locking him in the Crytpum was the first time that this happened. so in chronological order:

  • Forerunner-human war
  • Didact defeats Forthencho
  • Foreruners are aware of the Floods threat and overwhelmed
  • Forthencho, and many humans/Forerunners are composed
  • Librarian is horrified by her husbands work
  • Didact forcibly mutates himself to prevent himself to be infected (becomes immune to the Composer)
  • Librarian shoots and knocks the Didact unconscious, locks him in Cryptum
  • Halo Cryptum- is freed by Bornstellar and apart of him merges with Bornstellar,
  • Halo Primordium- Ur believed dead
  • Halo Silentium- is actually abandoned on some flood planet
  • somepoint resealed in Cryptum
  • many many many years...
  • Halo 4

or am i very, very confused?--Reclaimer-117 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Not the case for several reasons: 1. The Cryptum where Bornstellar found the Didact was on Earth, not Requiem. 2. The Cryptum on Earth looked like a pillar, not a sphere. 3. That Didact was respectful to Chakas and Riser, not genocidal. 4. His appearance didn't match that of his mutation. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (EST)
Only the last three terminals (Knights, Justice and Cryptum) takes places after Halo Cryptum (actually, that three terminals takes place in Halo: Silentium); the rest of them takes place before the novel, except Jul 'Mdama's terminal. --Dr Mutran (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (EST)


I have just noticed that his height is listed as approx. 9.8 ft based off of his second showdown with master chief. Though something is not right here. Throughout the game, the didact's height (and even master chief's) has been fluctuating. The first time he encounters MC, and the didact brings him closer with the constraints. MC came up to around the didacts waist. Making the didact much taller than he was in the final scene.

But the odd feature is that in the terminals, the didact is shown to TOWER over the promethean knights who each stand approx. 10 feet in height. We have just as much evidence showing that the didact was over 13-14 ft in height as we do that he was around 9.8 ft in height. And it wouldnt make much sense for the didact to be continously described as being massive in the novels, but at the same time being nearly 4 ft shorter than bornstellar's father (13'2). It doesnt make much sense.

Dont you guys think it would be better to just not list his height at all since it is too difficult to gauge? And just wait for an official listing to come out like we do for everyone else. We should just describe him in the the description section as being massive and towering over everyone else for the time being. I mean, his height changes quite a bit throughout the game. And its not just him, but MC as well. I think 343i did not really pay much attention to the scale in this game. :/ —This unsigned comment was made by Emasik (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I agree. Though I don't want to doubt WTRiker's estimate (I've checked it over using this image, but using John's height as a gauge isn't that accurate), it only takes into account this height, which is inconsistent with many of his other appearances. As Emasik says, his height fluctuates between cutscenes, books and terminals. I would also suggest, if nobody has any opposition, that this height be removed, or be replaced by a more common height shown if there is one (unless this counts as part of the "later canon" rule). --TentacleTornado 15:27, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

The Didacts "meditation"[edit]

I think I remember his wife saying something in Halo 4 that the Didact was supposed to teach Humanity about us being Reclaimers after he had finished his "meditation" in Requiem. Yeah, he was locked up in his own Cryptum so that he could contact the Domain & regenerate his mind because the Flood made him crazy. Once he completed meditation, his wife was supposed to give him the Janus Key so that he could come to us & educate us on our role as Reclaimers as well as help us "reclaim" the Mantle & Ecumene. But none of that happened...why? For some weird reason unbeknownst to me, the Didact never regained his sanity from the Domain & so was never able to come & tell as that we were Reclaimers. How the hell else were we supposed to know about ANYTHING (Flood, the Array, etc) that happened in the galaxy prior to the Halo event? How could they expect us to "reclaim" the Mantle or know how to operate or even find the Halos when we never knew or learned about them in the first place? Did they not have any plan to inform us of our role after Reintroduction to Earth? I guess what Im really asking here is: WAS THE DIDACT SUPPOSED TO TEACH US? IF SO, WHY DIDNT HE EVER SHOW UP?!?!?!?! Threnody (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

I assume he was woken up early by the Chief. A spanner in the works. Always use the DMR. This is craZboy557, signing off. 08:11, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Silentium explains this in detail. The Didact's link to the Domain was severed when the Halos were fired. Therefore, he was trapped for 100,000 years with nothing to meditate on but his own craziness and hatred. Because of this, he was still fixated on composing humanity when he was revived in 2557. The problem wasn't that he was awoken early; the problem was that the Librarian's plan to rehabilitate her husband failed from the beginning. --Courage never dies. (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

The Didact and Maker-of-Moons' armor[edit]

(Concerning this edit)

While it would make sense from a storytelling perspective for the Didact to continue wearing Maker-of-Moons' Builder suit by Halo 4, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. First, there's this quote from Silentium (page 216): "The Ur-Didact stands motionless in the middle of their estate's main dwelling, clad in a new suit of combat armor, a dark presence in a grim, chaotic scene." (This is while he's waiting for the IsoDidact and the Librarian on Nomdagro). "New suit" and "combat armor" suggest he reequipped after his return to Requiem (and why would he not, apart from possible sentimental reasons?). And then you have Escalation 10, where Static Carillon references his suit's ability to attune itself to weapons as an attribute of Warrior-Servant armor.

There's also the fact Faber's suit, an example of the armor of a high-ranked Builder, looks nothing like the Didact's most recent armor (though it hardly makes sense that Faber's armor is actually less ornate than the Didact's — maybe the ostentatiousness of Didact's new suit is meant to reflect his rejection of Builder supremacy?). --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:19, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

It's been fixed. I had forgotten that line from Silentium. As for why Faber's armor is so bland, I can't think of any explanation that makes more sense than your idea. Well, either that or "Domaindidit". --Our vengeance is at hand. Gravemind.svg (Talk to me.) 06:12, 6 October 2014 (EDT)
I blame writer/artist miscommunication and/or the artists not doing their lore homework. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

How was he Composed?[edit]

In the Halo 4 terminals, he says the Composer wont work on him. 05:10, 19 November 2014 (EST)

The wording in the terminal does not conclusively state he cannot be composed at all, just that the Composer won't work as intended. Now, what this means is still up in the air, but it could mean he'll come out even more twisted than before. Or it's just that many Composers firing at the same time did the trick. But there's clearly a plan behind it all as said by Brian Reed in a now-deleted tweet. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 08:05, 19 November 2014 (EST)