Hello everyone, I suppose you wonder why I made this thread. Alrighty, if I recall from Diablo 2, we never actually know who destroyed the soulstones. Was it the Barbarian, Sorcerer, Druid, Assassin, Paladin, Amazon, or Necromancer?
I would assume the Barbarian because according some folks the one that's coming back in this game is the barbarian from the second game, even think about it. Why does the barbarian look old, and why does the female barbarian look young.
Edit: I think I might be wrong about that though. I remember it being Tyrael that does it, with the exception of Mephisto.
Well, you are kinda doing thread necromancy since everything as been said in that link you gave and you are remaking a thread about it.
Wrong, what he is doing now is bringing up an old topic (using a link to previous speculation for reference) with the intention of taking what we've learned since WWI and analyzing it with fresh eyes.
Personally, I don't think the original cinematics were intended to show a specific class because, at the time, Blizzard didn't likely have any idea that there would be another sequel, much less how the lore would pass between games. I am, however, looking forward to where this thread goes and possibly adding some of my own insight as information exchanges hands.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (from the Xorinite dimension -- dare you to catch THAT reference)
Yes, it's been confirmed by Blizzard that he's the same person from D2.
However, that doesn't nescesarily mean he was the leader, or that he destroyed the soulstones. It only means he fought along with others against the Prime Evils.
I don't think Blizzard will pinpoint one person who destroyed them because they all had a hand in it.
It'd be kind of weird finding out that the Amazon destroyed them when you never even played a Amazon but you destroyed them with every other character.
They did it with the wanderer because they needed to pick someone to be the holder and become possessed, but I don't think in this case they need to select which character since the stones are destroyed.
It would be neat however to see a cinematic of all the classes standing around the hellforge and someone destroying a soulstone. That way they all were there.
there was a discussion on this awile ago. we all said necromancer. because of armor similarities. but it is still unknown for sure. and the only people to tell you is blizzard. so this thread should be at a closing.
there was a discussion on this awile ago. we all said necromancer. because of armor similarities. but it is still unknown for sure. and the only people to tell you is blizzard. so this thread should be at a closing.
This thread doesn't appear to be breaking any rules. If you don't wish to contribute, you do not have to click into it.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (moonlighting as StatingTheObviousBoy on Thursdays)
I don't think Blizzard will pinpoint one person who destroyed them because they all had a hand in it.
It'd be kind of weird finding out that the Amazon destroyed them when you never even played a Amazon but you destroyed them with every other character.
They did it with the wanderer because they needed to pick someone to be the holder and become possessed, but I don't think in this case they need to select which character since the stones are destroyed.
It would be neat however to see a cinematic of all the classes standing around the hellforge and someone destroying a soulstone. That way they all were there.
The Warrior became the Wanderer, the Rogue became Blood Raven, and the Sorcerer became the Summoner.
Also every time they mention the prime evils being defeated they clearly state the prime evils were defeated by a "group of unknown heroes".
I don't see the Paladin, Assassin, or Necromancer coming back as enemies. But the others I definitely would.
I count those three out because each was mentally prepared for those kinds of horrors.
Well when I said "So the same thing will be done in D3 I presume." I meant it would explain that all the adventurers had a part in destroying the soulstones.
Well when I said "So the same thing will be done in D3 I presume." I meant it would explain that all the adventurers had a part in destroying the soulstones.
Think about it, if the Necromancer did in fact destroy the soulstones, wouldn't this be a major blow to the paladins? A lone wanderer who uses undead magic to combat evil defeated the Prime Evils were a dedicated follower of the Zakarum with elite combat skills and is sworn to destroy evil could not?
Think about it, if the Necromancer did in fact destroy the soulstones, wouldn't this be a major blow to the paladins? A lone wanderer who uses undead magic to combat evil defeated the Prime Evils were a dedicated follower of the Zakarum with elite combat skills and is sworn to destroy evil could not?
If you mean that this could be the cause of the paladin turning rogue on us in D3, I'm sure he saw and encountered much more horrid things than that while traveling through hell.
I still don't think they'll pick any one class to destroy the soulstones. It will be "a group of adventurers". If many people even remember that far back.
Well in D1 it was one class who defeated Diablo, I see no reason to turn back from that
And I don't deny the 'group of adventurers' plot idea either, it's just that not all of them could hold the hammer at the same time and smash it. So which person from that group did indeed smash the soulstones is what I'm asking
The arm seen in the cinematic looks like the necromancer's.
But the Barbarian returns in Diablo 3. As far as I can tell whenever a male melee classed character returns in a sequel, he is the canonical hero of the previous game.
The Warrior (a male melee classes character) returned in d2 (as the Wanderer), and thus became the canonical hero of d1. The Sorcerer and Rogue, did return in d1, but they were not a male melee classed character. One was a spell caster and the other female.
That is probably more speculation that anything, but there does seem to be a pattern emerging.
Unless we can prove beyond all shadow of a doubt who the canonical hero is in d2, this question will go largely unanswered.
As for the group scenario. That doesn't change the fact that only one hand destroyed the soulstones. They may have helped this person, but who was he, or her. It could have been one of the female characters.
But since it is assumed that characters in the game wear their select screen outfits as almost all artworks released, has the characters wearing said outfits (regardles of whether game mechanics would mean they would die in under 3 seconds in hell in nothing but the tiniest of leathers), the necromancer looks to be a dead ringer for the arm seen in the cinematic, based on the fact his select screen outfit shares the same bracer.
However this theory is proven wrong in d1, since the warrior is wearing black armor in the final cinematic, yet all artworks of him like as is the case with d2, in his select screen outfit (although you really only see part of it) or his default, or "naked" outfit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Well in D1 it was one class who defeated Diablo, I see no reason to turn back from that
And I don't deny the 'group of adventurers' plot idea either, it's just that not all of them could hold the hammer at the same time and smash it. So which person from that group did indeed smash the soulstones is what I'm asking
I don't think it was ever said that he alone defeated Diablo, just that he chose to take the heavy burden of encasing Diablo's incorporeal form within him.
Unlike most games in the genre, DIablo is generally percieved, at least in terms of story, as a single player game. One hero descending into the darkness of the laybyrinth alone. One for a much broader statement, one man (or woman) against the world.
But that is just Diablo 1.
Well Diablo 2 was like that as well, at least it started that way, and in-game. Unlike in BGII NPCs refer to one person, even if they are travelling with 1-7 others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before replying you may want to read this previous thread:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6340
Now I ask you not to post on the link or that will be declared as Thread Necromancy which you can recieve infraciton points from
Edit: I think I might be wrong about that though. I remember it being Tyrael that does it, with the exception of Mephisto.
Wrong, what he is doing now is bringing up an old topic (using a link to previous speculation for reference) with the intention of taking what we've learned since WWI and analyzing it with fresh eyes.
Personally, I don't think the original cinematics were intended to show a specific class because, at the time, Blizzard didn't likely have any idea that there would be another sequel, much less how the lore would pass between games. I am, however, looking forward to where this thread goes and possibly adding some of my own insight as information exchanges hands.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (from the Xorinite dimension -- dare you to catch THAT reference)
It'd be kind of weird finding out that the Amazon destroyed them when you never even played a Amazon but you destroyed them with every other character.
They did it with the wanderer because they needed to pick someone to be the holder and become possessed, but I don't think in this case they need to select which character since the stones are destroyed.
It would be neat however to see a cinematic of all the classes standing around the hellforge and someone destroying a soulstone. That way they all were there.
This thread doesn't appear to be breaking any rules. If you don't wish to contribute, you do not have to click into it.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (moonlighting as StatingTheObviousBoy on Thursdays)
The Warrior became the Wanderer, the Rogue became Blood Raven, and the Sorcerer became the Summoner.
Also every time they mention the prime evils being defeated they clearly state the prime evils were defeated by a "group of unknown heroes".
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
Ah you're right. I knew about Blood Raven and the Summoner, but I forgot they say a group. So the same thing will be done in D3 I presume.
I don't see the Paladin, Assassin, or Necromancer coming back as enemies. But the others I definitely would.
I count those three out because each was mentally prepared for those kinds of horrors.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
Well when I said "So the same thing will be done in D3 I presume." I meant it would explain that all the adventurers had a part in destroying the soulstones.
Not that they would all become evil. My mistake.
Ah, just a minor misinterpretation.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
If you mean that this could be the cause of the paladin turning rogue on us in D3, I'm sure he saw and encountered much more horrid things than that while traveling through hell.
I still don't think they'll pick any one class to destroy the soulstones. It will be "a group of adventurers". If many people even remember that far back.
And I don't deny the 'group of adventurers' plot idea either, it's just that not all of them could hold the hammer at the same time and smash it. So which person from that group did indeed smash the soulstones is what I'm asking
But the Barbarian returns in Diablo 3. As far as I can tell whenever a male melee classed character returns in a sequel, he is the canonical hero of the previous game.
The Warrior (a male melee classes character) returned in d2 (as the Wanderer), and thus became the canonical hero of d1. The Sorcerer and Rogue, did return in d1, but they were not a male melee classed character. One was a spell caster and the other female.
That is probably more speculation that anything, but there does seem to be a pattern emerging.
Unless we can prove beyond all shadow of a doubt who the canonical hero is in d2, this question will go largely unanswered.
As for the group scenario. That doesn't change the fact that only one hand destroyed the soulstones. They may have helped this person, but who was he, or her. It could have been one of the female characters.
But since it is assumed that characters in the game wear their select screen outfits as almost all artworks released, has the characters wearing said outfits (regardles of whether game mechanics would mean they would die in under 3 seconds in hell in nothing but the tiniest of leathers), the necromancer looks to be a dead ringer for the arm seen in the cinematic, based on the fact his select screen outfit shares the same bracer.
However this theory is proven wrong in d1, since the warrior is wearing black armor in the final cinematic, yet all artworks of him like as is the case with d2, in his select screen outfit (although you really only see part of it) or his default, or "naked" outfit.
I don't think it was ever said that he alone defeated Diablo, just that he chose to take the heavy burden of encasing Diablo's incorporeal form within him.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (still not a lore buff)
But that is just Diablo 1.
Well Diablo 2 was like that as well, at least it started that way, and in-game. Unlike in BGII NPCs refer to one person, even if they are travelling with 1-7 others.