I bought the book two days ago and finished the entire thing, good read you should buy it if you haven't already. I am writing this article because I've ready every book for diablo besides the comics which I'll get around to reading soon enough.
I have noticed some differing perspectives throughout the book and realized that Deckard is constantly implying that what he is writing may actually not be the truth. But that this is what he believes the truth to be.
I'll start with the first thing I noticed, LILITH. In the Book of Cain, she is described almost as undead and bones with a human form in between.The pictures, hereand here0
This is odd though because In the Sin war trilogy which is stated as Cannon by Blizzard she is stated as being "..Rather, it was taller and hideously scaled, with a mass of fiery quills for hair, quills that ran down the spin to...to a reptilian tail ending in savage barbs. Where the delicate hands had been were now clawed fingers--four, not five. Worse, the feet were like hooves, yet splayed, too."
As we can clearly understand by this first hand description from Uldyssian Ul-Diomedes She was more reptillian and beast like rather than the undead images and descriptions given in the book of cain.
The second is Rathma. This fellow is said to like like a pale human draped in an elegant dark black robe that seems to have a life of its own. now in The Book of Cain he is described as a lizard, or a giant serpent as seen here.
This is quite confusing considering that The book of cain was supposed to tell us everything about Diablo universe, but instead seems to be going against earlier cannon. This is only stregnethed by the fact that Cain himself says he does not know what to believe and includes varying Authors and works from which he takes his knowledge. So should we believe that the Book of Cain is the definitive lore collection? I don't think so, So i think it is safe to assume that Some of what is written in this book can't be taken literally. What is your opinion on the matter?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I bought the book two days ago and finished the entire thing, good read you should buy it if you haven't already. I am writing this article because I've ready every book for diablo besides the comics which I'll get around to reading soon enough.
I have noticed some differing perspectives throughout the book and realized that Deckard is constantly implying that what he is writing may actually not be the truth. But that this is what he believes the truth to be.
I'll start with the first thing I noticed, LILITH. In the Book of Cain, she is described almost as undead and bones with a human form in between.The pictures, hereand here0
This is odd though because In the Sin war trilogy which is stated as Cannon by Blizzard she is stated as being "..Rather, it was taller and hideously scaled, with a mass of fiery quills for hair, quills that ran down the spin to...to a reptilian tail ending in savage barbs. Where the delicate hands had been were now clawed fingers--four, not five. Worse, the feet were like hooves, yet splayed, too."
As we can clearly understand by this first hand description from Uldyssian Ul-Diomedes She was more reptillian and beast like rather than the undead images and descriptions given in the book of cain.
The second is Rathma. This fellow is said to like like a pale human draped in an elegant dark black robe that seems to have a life of its own. now in The Book of Cain he is described as a lizard, or a giant serpent as seen here.
This is quite confusing considering that The book of cain was supposed to tell us everything about Diablo universe, but instead seems to be going against earlier cannon. This is only stregnethed by the fact that Cain himself says he does not know what to believe and includes varying Authors and works from which he takes his knowledge. So should we believe that the Book of Cain is the definitive lore collection? I don't think so, So i think it is safe to assume that Some of what is written in this book can't be taken literally. What is your opinion on the matter?
I think as you say it shouldn't be taken as the final truth. He does ask a lot of questions and many of his findings are speculative. It even says on the page with the serpent that it is the necromancers who has depicted Rathma as a serpent but Cain is asking if it's truth or just a legend.
The art is probably just his sketches or copies of other people's works so it's not certain they are accurate. After all he is just a human, he can't know everything, he has just studied a lot about it.
So yea I agree with you. The book should not be taken as the absolute lore colletion, but rather as is, a collection of knowledge gathered by a character in the actual world.
Don't too hung up on the art. Those guys have a fair amount of artistic license for this stuff. Especially drawings like this. What the images look like versus their description doesn't matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The giant serpent is actually Trag'Oul, who is the mysterious "world dragon" who watches over Sanctuary. He does not directly interfere with the doings of the world, but Rathma (the fellow in the robe you referenced) was his first apprentice and founder of the Necromancer brotherhood. He's all about the Balance.
Trag is a dragon made of stars, which I think is pretty cool.
The giant serpent is actually Trag'Oul, who is the mysterious "world dragon" who watches over Sanctuary. He does not directly interfere with the doings of the world, but Rathma (the fellow in the robe you referenced) was his first apprentice and founder of the Necromancer brotherhood. He's all about the Balance.
Trag is a dragon made of stars, which I think is pretty cool.
You're correct but not at the same time, the serpent i posted is what Cain believes to be the necromancer Rathma, there is another serpent in the book here.this is Trag, and i have no idea why they thought Rathma was a serpent, I mean he helped Kalan/Mendeln teach the necromancers so people must've seen him and even in the Books of Kalan he should be described as a person. So clearly this isn't met to be the definitive diablo lore, but rather a collection of perspectives on the history of the world of sanctuary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
You're correct but not at the same time, the serpent i posted is what Cain believes to be the necromancer Rathma, there is another serpent in the book here.
I stand corrected, I'd read that bit but had forgotten. Yeah, that little notation by Cain seems to indicate he himself is bewildered by the ancient legends.
The drawings are supposed to be by Deckard's own hand; but they were created by a variety of artists, including Brom. So yes, some have taken artistic lisence with their work, and not all of the pictures match up when depicting the same things. It's all to be taken with a grain of salt; the only thing that's totally canon is the content of the games, bypassing the books and comics.
As for Lilith's depiction in the books, Deckard states that she has the ability to take on more than one form, so this isn't necessarily contradictory.
The drawing of Trag'oul may simply be an interpretation or an avatar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be it through hallowed grounds or lands of sorrow
All in the Forger's wake is left bereft and fallow
Is the residuum worth the cost of destruction and maiming;
Or is the shaping a culling and exercise in taming?
The road's goal is the dark Origin of Being
But be wary through what thickets it winds.
-Excerpt from the Litany of Residuum;
As Translated by He Who Brings Order
No, not all of the drawings are from Cain. While he does say some of them are his own, he also says some of them were collected illustrations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
On the Rathma issue, pretty sure by later accounts maybe he turned into a serpent/dragon. Maybe taking Trag'Ouls place or becoming something akin to him?
He can't take trag's place because Trag basically is an embodiment of sanctuary. And Yes lilith can take on different forms but her True form is the one supposed to be depicted above in the pictures, and in the sin war trilogy. That is where it is contradictory
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I agree some of the art felt a bit inconsistent. The book story wasn't that solid anyway to be honest and felt just like an attempt to link everything together. I feel book of cain is probably some sort of skeleton for future lore but a skeleton added after some meat has been thrown around for 15 years.
It makes me feel these details and inconsistancies are the product of multiple people developing the lore over time, its quite common in this case (some TV series have also this problem due to multiple writers). I wont be surprised when many little things in D3 are inconsistent with current known lore, it has happened in WoW over and over; Blizzard games lore is not stored in the mind of a single person like a writer would and mistakes will continue to arise better get used to it.
This time around the inconsistancy is somewhat made on purpose to make the Book of Cain seem more like a 'real' in-game item. Deckard Cain is not all-knowing and the book is not an episode on History Channel about the story of Sanctuary.
Yes, but most will be taking it as gospel because "hey, it's canon!" Whatever the case may end up being, you can sure bet it'll be a headache for DiabloWiki in some cases.
The giant serpent is actually Trag'Oul, who is the mysterious "world dragon" who watches over Sanctuary. He does not directly interfere with the doings of the world, but Rathma (the fellow in the robe you referenced) was his first apprentice and founder of the Necromancer brotherhood. He's all about the Balance.
Trag is a dragon made of stars, which I think is pretty cool.
You're correct but not at the same time, the serpent i posted is what Cain believes to be the necromancer Rathma, there is another serpent in the book here...
...this is Trag, and i have no idea why they thought Rathma was a serpent, I mean he helped Kalan/Mendeln teach the necromancers so people must've seen him and even in the Books of Kalan he should be described as a person. So clearly this isn't met to be the definitive diablo lore, but rather a collection of perspectives on the history of the world of sanctuary.
Does it actually say that the picuture shown is Rathma?
It's entirely possible and that just because he's talking about one character on the page doesn't mean whatever picture is on that same page is supposed to be that character.
He can't take trag's place because Trag basically is an embodiment of sanctuary. And Yes lilith can take on different forms but her True form is the one supposed to be depicted above in the pictures, and in the sin war trilogy. That is where it is contradictory
It doesn't matter what the picture in the book is, it's not a contradiction as long as she has that ability. Does the Book of Cain say that it is particularly describing her "true" form and then saying it is picturing it also?
Technically Diablo's true form is tathamet. I mean that is what he originally was part of tathamet.
No. Tathamet and Diablo are two separate beings.
Quote from the book "The Dragons Seven severed heads arose as the seven Evils---the three strongest of which would be known as the Prime Evils. They along with their Lesser bretheren, would rule over the ravening, demonic hordes that spawned from the dessicated cavities of the Burning Hells"
So technically Diablo was one of Tathamets heads. so you could say Diablo is in part Tathamet.
It doesn't matter what the picture in the book is, it's not a contradiction as long as she has that ability. Does the Book of Cain say that it is particularly describing her "true" form and then saying it is picturing it also?
I stand corrected. In the book i looked over a line that explains this odd drawing, the gquote reads "She morphed into a far more horrific form than any had ever seen--of tooth and claw, spike and blade---and hunted down her fellow renegades." So yeah this isn't supposed to be her true form but rather a more evil form that she wore when killing all the renegade aliens and demons because they wanted to slay their children.
Does it actually say that the picuture shown is Rathma?
It's entirely possible and that just because he's talking about one character on the page doesn't mean whatever picture is on that same page is supposed to be that character.
Well that seems to be the theme of the book when he talks about diablo there is a picture of diablo, when he talks about Well that seems to be the feature of the book, when he tyrael theres a picture of tyrael. So when he talks about Rathma it is safe to assume there's a picture of rathma around just like he did for Bul-Kathos and Visilay. Plus his little note says "Rathma: The necromancers who venerate this nephalem have depicted him in the form oof a great writhing serpent. Is this mere legend, or did he somehow take on this strange inhuman visage?" So from this we can gather he was clearly showing Rathma and even questioning it's authenticity which then led me to believe this whole books authenticity needs to be questioned because hey what if he wrote about all this stuff and absolutely nothing was true besides his first hand details and the already well-known things. That would kinda be weird and I am kinda looking forward to seeing some of these things in game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
It was my understanding that the Book of Cain is supposed to be a text that retcons the previous lore and superscedes any previous lore including the games, in order to create a more comprehensive story that makes sense in D3. I'll dig around for the posts I saw regarding this but they are probably pretty buried.
But this means that anything from previous books and games is replaced by the things in the Book of Cain, and comparissons of such things are no longer warrented because of this. While some details may line up with previously known lore, the Book of Cane is the most solid source of cannon at the moment.
Again could be wrong, but I remember this being thoroughly discussed on the b.net lore forums.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tired of the same regurgitated blue posts? Want more in depth coverage of
the aspects of the game you want to know about? Check us out!
It was my understanding that the Book of Cain is supposed to be a text that retcons the previous lore and superscedes any previous lore including the games, in order to create a more comprehensive story that makes sense in D3.
You are correct, and such things as Anu and Tathamet are clearly meant to establish a new foundation.
The whole point about the Book not being taken literally is because the book is written from Cain's perspective. This means they can cover their asses if minor issues or inconsistencies should arise. But the big parts like Anu, the Mage Clan Wars, the remade events of D2 etc. are clearly canonical.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have noticed some differing perspectives throughout the book and realized that Deckard is constantly implying that what he is writing may actually not be the truth. But that this is what he believes the truth to be.
I'll start with the first thing I noticed, LILITH. In the Book of Cain, she is described almost as undead and bones with a human form in between.The pictures, here
This is odd though because In the Sin war trilogy which is stated as Cannon by Blizzard she is stated as being "..Rather, it was taller and hideously scaled, with a mass of fiery quills for hair, quills that ran down the spin to...to a reptilian tail ending in savage barbs. Where the delicate hands had been were now clawed fingers--four, not five. Worse, the feet were like hooves, yet splayed, too."
As we can clearly understand by this first hand description from Uldyssian Ul-Diomedes She was more reptillian and beast like rather than the undead images and descriptions given in the book of cain.
The second is Rathma. This fellow is said to like like a pale human draped in an elegant dark black robe that seems to have a life of its own. now in The Book of Cain he is described as a lizard, or a giant serpent as seen here.
This is quite confusing considering that The book of cain was supposed to tell us everything about Diablo universe, but instead seems to be going against earlier cannon. This is only stregnethed by the fact that Cain himself says he does not know what to believe and includes varying Authors and works from which he takes his knowledge. So should we believe that the Book of Cain is the definitive lore collection? I don't think so, So i think it is safe to assume that Some of what is written in this book can't be taken literally. What is your opinion on the matter?
--Jack Handy
I think as you say it shouldn't be taken as the final truth. He does ask a lot of questions and many of his findings are speculative. It even says on the page with the serpent that it is the necromancers who has depicted Rathma as a serpent but Cain is asking if it's truth or just a legend.
The art is probably just his sketches or copies of other people's works so it's not certain they are accurate. After all he is just a human, he can't know everything, he has just studied a lot about it.
So yea I agree with you. The book should not be taken as the absolute lore colletion, but rather as is, a collection of knowledge gathered by a character in the actual world.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Nah, couldn't be.
Could it?
Trag is a dragon made of stars, which I think is pretty cool.
You're correct but not at the same time, the serpent i posted is what Cain believes to be the necromancer Rathma, there is another serpent in the book here.
I stand corrected, I'd read that bit but had forgotten. Yeah, that little notation by Cain seems to indicate he himself is bewildered by the ancient legends.
As for Lilith's depiction in the books, Deckard states that she has the ability to take on more than one form, so this isn't necessarily contradictory.
The drawing of Trag'oul may simply be an interpretation or an avatar.
All in the Forger's wake is left bereft and fallow-Excerpt from the Litany of Residuum;
As Translated by He Who Brings Order
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderTechnically Diablo's true form is tathamet. I mean that is what he originally was part of tathamet.
It makes me feel these details and inconsistancies are the product of multiple people developing the lore over time, its quite common in this case (some TV series have also this problem due to multiple writers). I wont be surprised when many little things in D3 are inconsistent with current known lore, it has happened in WoW over and over; Blizzard games lore is not stored in the mind of a single person like a writer would and mistakes will continue to arise better get used to it.
Does it actually say that the picuture shown is Rathma?
It's entirely possible and that just because he's talking about one character on the page doesn't mean whatever picture is on that same page is supposed to be that character.
It doesn't matter what the picture in the book is, it's not a contradiction as long as she has that ability. Does the Book of Cain say that it is particularly describing her "true" form and then saying it is picturing it also?
Quote from the book "The Dragons Seven severed heads arose as the seven Evils---the three strongest of which would be known as the Prime Evils. They along with their Lesser bretheren, would rule over the ravening, demonic hordes that spawned from the dessicated cavities of the Burning Hells"
So technically Diablo was one of Tathamets heads. so you could say Diablo is in part Tathamet.
I stand corrected. In the book i looked over a line that explains this odd drawing, the gquote reads "She morphed into a far more horrific form than any had ever seen--of tooth and claw, spike and blade---and hunted down her fellow renegades." So yeah this isn't supposed to be her true form but rather a more evil form that she wore when killing all the renegade aliens and demons because they wanted to slay their children.
Well that seems to be the theme of the book when he talks about diablo there is a picture of diablo, when he talks about Well that seems to be the feature of the book, when he tyrael theres a picture of tyrael. So when he talks about Rathma it is safe to assume there's a picture of rathma around just like he did for Bul-Kathos and Visilay. Plus his little note says "Rathma: The necromancers who venerate this nephalem have depicted him in the form oof a great writhing serpent. Is this mere legend, or did he somehow take on this strange inhuman visage?" So from this we can gather he was clearly showing Rathma and even questioning it's authenticity which then led me to believe this whole books authenticity needs to be questioned because hey what if he wrote about all this stuff and absolutely nothing was true besides his first hand details and the already well-known things. That would kinda be weird and I am kinda looking forward to seeing some of these things in game.
But this means that anything from previous books and games is replaced by the things in the Book of Cain, and comparissons of such things are no longer warrented because of this. While some details may line up with previously known lore, the Book of Cane is the most solid source of cannon at the moment.
Again could be wrong, but I remember this being thoroughly discussed on the b.net lore forums.
Tired of the same regurgitated blue posts? Want more in depth coverage of
the aspects of the game you want to know about? Check us out!
The whole point about the Book not being taken literally is because the book is written from Cain's perspective. This means they can cover their asses if minor issues or inconsistencies should arise. But the big parts like Anu, the Mage Clan Wars, the remade events of D2 etc. are clearly canonical.