Talk:Sangheili General

Not Zealots
If you pay attention, throughout the campaign you fight quite a few Generals and no one mentions them as being important, but you fight the one and only Zealot that's not part of the Relay team in WC, or the team at the end, and it's a huge deal. In fact, command wants you to find him and take him out, and Kat's very surprised there's a Zealot in the area, and you and Kat had just fought and killed a General at the first AA gun, with no mention of something odd, like there being a Zealot there. Furthermore, Generals in Reach have a role very similar to Gold Elites in Halo: CE and Chieftains and War Chieftans in Halo 3; they guard things. Or they command ships, but mostly they guard an area. In Reach Zealots are maroon and are seen in plot specific locations and times, whereas Generals are just boss-like enemies in terms of gameplay, just like the Gold Elites of CE and Chieftains of 3. Field Marshalls are Zealots, but Generals are not. That is my first point. My second point is I believe that all Gold Elites are Generals. In every game. The Gold Elites in Halo: CE were never said to be Zealots, and if I'm remembering correctly, the only proof we have that Gold Elites are Zealots is in Halo 2 when the Spec Ops Elite calls a Gold Elite a Zealot. Zealots in Reach and the one we know to be a Zealot in Halo 2 behave very differently from the (other) Gold Elites; they lead a team into battle, or on some kind of mission. All the other Gold Elites, especially the CE ones, are just like the Generals of Reach: gold armoured and guarding a location or commanding a ship. In terms of gameplay, a boss battle. Though the Zealot in Halo 2 is on your side, and therefore, wouldn't be a boss to fight, he doesn't behave like one either. He drops down in a pod and helps you on your mission to kill Tartarus, in the same sense the Zealots in Reach are very important and only go on specific missions. This is my case on why I believe, unless stated otherwise (Halo 2 Zealot, and possibly the ones with the Councilors at the end, but Generals or Zealots could make sense there) all Gold Elites are Generals, and not Zealots. There's more proof that they are Generals than proof they are Zealots, it's just ingrained in our minds that Zealots are gold. Alex T Snow 10:16, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * This was my interpretation as well. I think "General" is a kind of overarching term for leadership roles in the main Covenant army. In other works, Field Masters and Ship Masters are both Generals. Therefore, all the gold elites we fought in Halo 1 and 2 were also Generals. As for whether or not Generals are Zealots, I don't know. Bungie definitely seemed to be implying that "Zealots" (in the purple armor) work as a kind of special operations strike force, not unlike Noble Team, attacking or securing high priorty targets. Haylow1 13:28, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. When Generals are encountered, no one makes a big deal out of it, while Zealots seem to be considerably more important as "high-value targets". It does seem like most of the gold Elites in the earlier games are indeed Generals. Some of them were probably Zealots though, including the Zealot in Uprising as you mentioned. They just didn't have different colored armor back then so it's hard to make the distinction. Even The Cole Protocol supports this: Thel and his team of Zealots were sent to hunt down navigation data from a UNSC destroyer's bridge, a role that seems similar to the Zealots' role in Reach. On a related note, was it specified anywhere that Field Masters and Ship Masters have to be Zealots? Could it be that both roles can be assigned to Generals as well, considering how one was in command of the Ardent Prayer? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree also. Though what's pissing me off is that people are already putting generals under the category of a zealot but there is no citation/proof for it. Generals are not zealots and were just editing for theorycraft. Seriously stop putting general back on the sangheili rank section and on the zealot type page please. If there is proof that they are zealots then please enlighten me.--Jagstir 06:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

There is one problem with that whole "All gold Elites are Generals and not Zealots" theory: Thel 'Vadamee was shown in gold armor during his trial in Halo 2, and he was definitely a Zealot in Halo: The Cole Protocol. How do we reconcile that? Also, how does "reckless in battle" indicate that they are not Zealots? Elite promotion is through kills, meaning that someone who is good at killing may be promoted without any regard to their tactical abilities. We actually point this out on the Sangheili article when talking about Ripa 'Moramee. -- SFH 20:52, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it's just like the other Zealot in Halo 2, something along the lines of retcon, or an exception, or, in terms of reality, Bungie hadn't thought of how we have Generals and Zealots now in Reach yet, just like how the canon explanation for why we didn't see SMGs and BRs in Halo CE was because the POA didn't stock any, but the real reason is Bungie simply hadn't thought them up yet. Alex T Snow 07:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. Trying to provide a canonical explanation for this is futile at best. For the record, at least concerning Halo 2, all gold Elites are in fact considered Zealots as indicated by the strategy guide. Those who continue to classify General as a Zealot rank are trying to apply retroactive standards to Reach. Since the rank came well after the previous games, it does not make sense to try and include it into past games, especially to wrongfully justify the rank as a zealot rank. The only confirmed Zealot ranks in Reach are that of Zealot and Field Marshall. Nothing more, nothing less. Corpora 01:52, 15 November 2010 (EST)

The New Picture
I don't believe that that Render is from Campaign. Much too dark.

It looks like someone used the multiplayer gold coloring, went to Custom Games, and took a snapshot of himself. Missing Mandible 16:33, 15 April 2011 (EDT)


 * We're in the process of improving images. See Forum:Pictures Wanted!.— subtank  16:49, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
 * But you can't just use images from Multiplayer. This is not the correct coloring for the General Rank. It is better trying to get images from the Campaign or Firefight, rather than Multiplayer-espescially because you cannot imitate accurately the real deal when its coloring is not available in the multiplayer setting. Missing Mandible 16:48, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
 * As I said before, we're in the process of improving images. As such, not everything would be 100% accurate. >.>
 * If you have any screenshot of these warriors, please upload them to the wiki.— subtank  18:00, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Accurate information is the point of having these wikis. Images are information.


 * It's all fine and good for there to be multiplayer images in the galleries. But it is never okay to slap them on as the titled pictures, or use them to represent the rank in other articles. If you are trying to get pictures of better quality, spend time in Campaign, or, easier yet, go to Firefight as an Elite, so that you can get the Elite Generals at a more relaxed stance. Missing Mandible 21:28, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

While I don't really agree that it's a big deal, I do think it's a valid point that the coloring on the multiplayer version is slightly off - The Campaign version has two tones of gold, while the one in the snapshot has one solid tone. I get that the wiki is in the process of image renovation and all, but I don't think there's really any advantages to using a multiplayer model over the Campaign model for the article image. After all, there should be some decent neutrally-posed Generals in Campaign somewhere SPARTAN-347 23:43, 16 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Why not go into theater and get a pic of one before you arrive and start fighting? Alex T Snow 00:25, 17 April 2011 (EDT)