[Cspace]

Let's discuss the term "Faction". What should it be when we re-organize as the Arbiter's Order?

This is a sensitive topic, but we all should have input. Just keep in mind that the following probably won't be implemented...

• Anything implying a small group. This includes clubs, fellowships, councils, and similar names that often describe a small group.
• Anything with an unusual theme for many games. "Squadron" is an example of such a name.
• Anything with a very strong theme that may conflict with a guild. An example would be something that sounds excessively good or evil.

We could probably be creative, and I'll try to look ahead in DS to see if something there could potentially work as well. While most military themes would probably conflict with the Arbiters, some exceptions could be made when it comes to an ancient (Roman or Greek) theme and a medieval theme. This is because of Entarca (the Roman theme) and Aderon (the medieval theme) which generally fight the same fight as the Arbiters.

[Nuu™™]

Cohort.

[Cspace]

How known is the Roman context for that? I know that it's a division of a Roman legion, but in a modern context I've personally heard it refer to a companion a lot more (another definition for "cohort"). Some games use the word (like in Earthbound, always saying "Soandso and his cohorts" during a battle), and it's sometimes used in references to individuals (not a group) working together in a business.

I'm just afraid of confusing new members with a term that has multiple definitions that could make sense in conflicting ways, even if it physically makes sense in a specific context... Especially those where the definition we're using isn't obvious or known to everyone.

The reason is that one of our intentions for changing things around would be to simplify how we organize.

The name makes sense, but I'd be worried about the questions it would raise.

[Dragonman]

I've like "Division" the best out of the ones that have been suggested so far. Its simplicity would work well IMO.

[Bodom]

team discovery channel

[Zziggywolf5]

I've like "Division" the best out of the ones that have been suggested so far. Its simplicity would work well IMO.

I agree.
I'd prefer a more creative name, but 'division' seems to fit best with all the current factions. It doesn't imply size, time frame, or good/evil. Plus, it is self-explanatory. Factions could give themselves more specific names, if they wanted.

[Cspace]

I think above all, we should aim for simplicity. The term probably won't be used to label every individual Faction, as in we won't be attaching "Division" or some other name to every Faction's name. The Defenders of Aderon would be the Defenders of Aderon, while SeeD would be SeeD, and the ECC would be the ECC. The term would be for describing the big picture, like "all of our Divisions" and "if you want to start a Division...". Because of that, having a name that in ways describes itself would probably be a good idea.

A "division" would indeed be exactly what it says. We could jump right into describing how we organize without having to explain our terms.

A "legion" would require an explanation of its own. We could describe how our guild work, but new members will be wondering what a "legion" is in our context.


While "Division" doesn't sound as interesting as other things we could choose, it would make our guild easier to describe because the word itself already implies what it is.

[Charlie]

I can see how simple the word Division is but it just doesn't sound like a good word to me.

And to be honest right now I think we should stick to Faction. It sounds good and people won't get confused as much.

Change is good, but many people don't like Division, and looking at thesaurus's hasn't produced many good results.

[Unrealblight]

Is it just me, or do ya'll take the whole names deal a little too far?

[Cspace]

Faction also works, that's a valid option.

In the context of DS and AoA it actually makes more sense, and we've been using the term without any issues. I think it could safely be kept, and if we can't agree to a term I may just keep what we have anyway. We don't necessarily have to change everything about how we work, and I'm thinking that a change to this may be awkward, especially alongside the other more necessary changes.

[Charlie]

Yeah, we already have quite a few changes to get used to, why make a unnecessary one