
Perpdepog |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the actual diagetic name were "Riders of the Apocalypse" someone would probably still prefer "Apocalypse Rider" for the singular.
Like "Szuriel is an Apocalypse Rider" scans better than "Szuriel is one of the Riders of the Apocalypse."
I figure you'd only use Riders of the Apocalypse to refer to the collective. There are so few of them, and their positions so well-defined, that it makes more sense to refer to that position. It wouldn't be, "Szuriel is one of the Riders of the Apocalypse," and would probably be, "Szuriel is the Rider of War," instead.

Merric Varethian |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Even if the actual diagetic name were "Riders of the Apocalypse" someone would probably still prefer "Apocalypse Rider" for the singular.
Like "Szuriel is an Apocalypse Rider" scans better than "Szuriel is one of the Riders of the Apocalypse."
I wholeheartedly disagree, the latter is structured better and more spaced out, it conveys a grand title ('Rider of the Apocalypse') rather than a mere creature type ('apocalypse rider').
At the end of the day, the 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' are a well-recognised staple in the soup that is Western mythology. Most people are even aware of the line "Behold, a pale horse, and its rider was Death".
I doubt people in-universe would use 'apocalypse rider' for the same reason that no one in our real world uses 'apocalypse horseman' for 'horseman of the apocalypse' (outside of modern fantasy worldbuilding, like in Marvel). The cadence and inertia of the phrase is what gives it weight.