There's no knight in Diablo 1. There's a warrior class, who, if you read the booklet, is completely nondescript. He could be any kind of warrior. A mercenary, a bounty hunter, a soldier, etc. Nowhere does it say he's a knight. And he's also not the only class in Diablo 1, but I can give you some leeway here because originally they didn't plan to have multiple classes, and used the current warrior model for the player character. It was only later they decided to have 3 classes and added the rogue and sorcerer models to the game.
I always saw the warrior in D2 as a mix between a warrior and a bounty/treature hunter. At least, the way the game portrayed him to me, that's how I saw it.
Not sure why everybody calls him a knight though, there is no way he was a knight...
This is what I've been saying about the last class ever since the monk was announced. They're missing a knightly character, a Camelot factor. In its origin, all of Diablo's characters were like that: the knightly warrior, the skillful archer and the mage (Merlin). The three core characters of medieval fantasy. In D2 the only such character was the Paladin, but at lease he was there. Also many items still had a knightly feel to them (like the full plates etc, all sorts of heavy armor and shields which thematically didn't go very well with the other classes). That's why my ideal fifth class is a knight who can specialize in bow usage.
Camelot factor? Sorry, this is Diablo, not King Arthur.
As for the knightly feel, if that is the case, would you say that the Barbarian, wearing full plates, had a "knightly feel"?
Anyway, a knight that specializes in bow usage. We have had those in WoW. We call them noobs that don't know how to play their class. (And please, don't take that offensively towards you. It is meant offensively towards the noobs on WoW, not you. )
Camelot factor? Sorry, this is Diablo, not King Arthur.
As for the knightly feel, if that is the case, would you say that the Barbarian, wearing full plates, had a "knightly feel"?
Anyway, a knight that specializes in bow usage. We have had those in WoW. We call them noobs that don't know how to play their class. (And please, don't take that offensively towards you. It is meant offensively towards the noobs on WoW, not you. )
What I tried to explain in my post is that Diablo has had a Camelot factor all along, so it's not weird to feel like something is missing when it's gone.
As for a barbarian in full plates, no, that doesn't feel knightly, to the same extent that a chicken in full plates wouldn't feel knightly. I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.
As for the archer, I don't mean a melee knight who uses a bow. I'm more thinking about a noble kind of archer, more or less like the one in Diablo 1. This maybe combined with some auras, defensive skills or any other kind of interesting "skill tree" (as far as we still have those... maybe I better say "skill group"), would fill up several gaps in the characters so far. I son't see why people want an evil or dark character, the Witch Doctor already covers for the necromancer there.
I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.
No, they draw from the medieval area. There's only so much you can do with armor and Diablo is not going to purposefully make it look bad or something.
What I tried to explain in my post is that Diablo has had a Camelot factor all along, so it's not weird to feel like something is missing when it's gone.
And what I explained is that the only game in the Diablo series to even remotely touch a simbalence of an idea of a "Camelot" factor is Diablo 2. Hell, most knights in Diablo 2 were evil creatures.
As for a barbarian in full plates, no, that doesn't feel knightly, to the same extent that a chicken in full plates wouldn't feel knightly. I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.
The armors also draw heavily from Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest, Lord of the Rings, Legend of Drizzt, shall I go on? And you are right, a D2/D3 Barbarian or a D1 Warrior is not a D2 Paladin. (Thank gods!)
As for the archer, I don't mean a melee knight who uses a bow. I'm more thinking about a noble kind of archer, more or less like the one in Diablo 1. This maybe combined with some auras, defensive skills or any other kind of interesting "skill tree" (as far as we still have those... maybe I better say "skill group"), would fill up several gaps in the characters so far. I son't see why people want an evil or dark character, the Witch Doctor already covers for the necromancer there.
First, the Necromancer was anything BUT evil. So you can stop right there. It agitates me to no end when people like you know so little about Diablo that even a light player like myself has to correct you. The necromancer was probably the most righteous of the whole group in D2, aside from possibly the Druid or the Barbarian.
Next, let's take your route real quick. Noblility. In Midevial Europe, which you are obviously using as a refrence considering there is no proof that Camelot ever existed, bows were considered to be dishonorable for Knights. There were no "Noble Archers". There were archer elements in militaries, and there were hunters wielding bows, but there were never any "Camelot-like archer" bullcrap.
I don't understand this fascination you kids have with the Diablo 2 Paladin... My only guess is that you want your magic hammers in D3.
Ok, first of all, when I talk about Camelot, I don't mean "Camelot exclusively". I just use it because for many people it's a prime example of medieval lore. Also, of course it never existed, when did I claim that? Diablo also never existed. But I get the point, I'll just refer to it as "knightly" or "medieval".
What I mean about those specific armors is that, no matter where the direct inspiration comes from, eventually they come from the medieval period. Full plate mail feels very medieval. If the barbarian wears it, he doesn't become a knight, just like he won't become a bear by wearing a bear costume, but still the armor itself feels medieval and has its ultimate origin in the medieval period.
What you say about archers is probably true about the historical period (even though archers were an accepted unit on the battlefield), but we're talking about lore here. I never mentioned anything about historical accuracy, and in fact, by calling it the camelot factor, I wanted to incorporate lore as well as history. No noble archers in lore either? What about Robin Hood? His stories take place during the crusades. I'm not gonna do any research on this, but I'm sure there are plenty of other more or less fictional stories about noble archers. And like I said, the ranged character in D1 is also a noble archer.
Now about the necromancer, if you carefully re-read my post, I never claimed he was evil. I said "evil OR dark". If you understand anything about logics, that sentence means the necromancer can be either evil, dark or both. Since dark was the last word I wrote, common sense dictates that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the necromancer. Of course he's not evil, he's saving the world. But he is dark. A character who raises the dead is dark, even if he does so with the best intentions while wearing a pink tutu. Also from talks with NPC's, we learn that not everybody likes necromancers. Now of course the necromancer does not have the same feel as the WD, and you know why? Because Necromancers are not Witchdoctors! But they do both have a dark edge to their character: they raise the dead, control minions and are rather enigmatic.
And for the record, the paladin was by far my least favorite character to play in D2, but I did like that he added a knightly element to the game.
Ok, first of all, when I talk about Camelot, I don't mean "Camelot exclusively". I just use it because for many people it's a prime example of medieval lore. Also, of course it never existed, when did I claim that? Diablo also never existed. But I get the point, I'll just refer to it as "knightly" or "medieval".
It may be, but Diablo is not, and has never been, based on "Camelot" or any other such idea. It is Diablo. It reminds me how so many people automatically think that Heaven in the Diablo series is good, and the Burning Hells in the Diablo series is bad. Which is quite funny.
What I mean about those specific armors is that, no matter where the direct inspiration comes from, eventually they come from the medieval period. Full plate mail feels very medieval. If the barbarian wears it, he doesn't become a knight, just like he won't become a bear by wearing a bear costume, but still the armor itself feels medieval and has its ultimate origin in the medieval period.
Indeed, just like if the Diablo 1 warrior wears it, he doesn't become a knight either. Both are just dudes wearing plate armor.
but we're talking about lore here. I never mentioned anything about historical accuracy, and in fact, by calling it the camelot factor, I wanted to incorporate lore as well as history. No noble archers in lore either? What about Robin Hood? His stories take place during the crusades. I'm not gonna do any research on this, but I'm sure there are plenty of other more or less fictional stories about noble archers. And like I said, the ranged character in D1 is also a noble archer.
So we are leaving historical accuracy and going to lore? Well then we throw out the "Camelot Factor", as it's not in the lore. And no, there were no "noble archers" in the lore of the Diablo Series. There was a Rogue and an Amazon. The Rogue is one of the Sisters of the Sightless Eye, which can be considered honorable, but far from the plate wielding Paladins of Westmarch. And the Amazon, again, can be considered honorable, but also again, far from the plate wielding Paladins of Westmarch.
As for Robin Hood, don't remember seeing him in Diablo, so as you said, we are talking about lore, so it doesn't matter what he did.
Now about the necromancer, if you carefully re-read my post, I never claimed he was evil. I said "evil OR dark". If you understand anything about logics, that sentence means the necromancer can be either evil, dark or both. Since dark was the last word I wrote, common sense dictates that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the necromancer. Of course he's not evil, he's saving the world. But he is dark. A character who raises the dead is dark, even if he does so with the best intentions while wearing a pink tutu. Also from talks with NPC's, we learn that not everybody likes necromancers. Now of course the necromancer does not have the same feel as the WD, and you know why? Because Necromancers are not Witchdoctors! But they do both have a dark edge to their character: they raise the dead, control minions and are rather enigmatic.
Of course not everybody likes Necromancers. Not everybody likes Paladins either. (Talking about the NPC's here.)
As for him being dark, I assume you also consider LeVayan Satanism to be dark too, right?
I'm not trying to change the diablo series. What I've been saying all along is that I want the series to KEEP elements which I (and many others) consider knightly.
And when I mentioned "lore" I was talking about general lore, not Diablo lore. You may not have noticed, but all fantasy lore draws heavily from real life lore and other fantasy lore. Hence, when we're talking about real life medieval lore, and real life lore about the mediaval period, we do see noble archers. Hence, the idea of a noble archer doesn't come out of thin air. It doesn't even in diablo lore, because the archer in D1 is quite noble and- to me- even had a bit of a knightly feel. My point is that this knightly, medieval feel, which was present in Diablo1 in all characters (also even the magic user still being pretty close to the stereotypical medieval spellcaster)and in D2 mostly in the Paladin, is not yet present in the D3 characters. Since I'm missing both an archer and a character with a medieval feel, I'd like the last class to be a noble archer - maybe even a woodsman type like Robin Hood, but not necessarily.
edit: and yes, of course I consider every form of satanism to be dark, in a way, especially when you compare it to 'standard' christianity which preaches love. But let's keep religion out of this. Do you think necromancy is not dark?
Yes, and many considered the Necromancer to be evil. So should we go and retcon the Necromancer to be evil while we retcon the D1 Warrior to be some kind of Knight?
As for lore, stick to one lore. If you are talking about the lore of Robin Hood, stick with that. If you are talking about the Lore of King Arthur, stick with that. If you are talking about Diablo Lore, stick with Diablo Lore. They are not the same lore, and cannot be switched about all nilly willy.
And as for the archer, she was a Sister of the Sightless Eye. Now, the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye was a loosely organized guild of rogue type females that employ ancient Eastern (Hence not the Westernized "Camelot" idea you have) philosophies. They are in no way a "Noble Knight" with a bow.
Now, talking about the Diablo 1 Warrior, he was just a generic warrior that came back from a war (Some neighbor nation or something) to see his home in shambles. He was in no way a knight. I hardly expect you to consider all the footmen in Braveheart to be knights, so why do you consider this warrior to be a knight? (Honest question there.)
Now, I understand that you want to feel like this is Camelot instead of Sanctuary. And you have every right to do that. You can pretend the Necromancer is evil, the Amazon and Rogue are both serving the High Heavens, that the Barbarian is some kind of muscle bound goof, etc, etc, frankly, I don't care. But the lore specifically disagrees with everything you are saying. I am truly sorry, I really am, but you need to read up on the Diablo series.
I think the main problem here is that you live in the illusion that every 'lore' can be considered an individual entity without any outside connections. We're talking influences here, that's the point. Diablo lore is filled to the brim with references to other lores, other stories and reality. There are references to Tolkien (the Balrogs, mithril items...), there are references to Christianity (I really hope I don't have to list those... it starts in the title. Yes, Diablo is not satan, but that's one big fat reference), and there are references to the medieval period, be it to actual history or just stories. Just like every other fantasy setting, the diablo universe is a patchwork of many different influences. Now, what I'm saying is that I felt a small but very significant medieval influence in both diablo 1 and 2. This may be just a subjective feeling. But in any way, I felt that medieval influence to be an important part of the feel of the game.
The Paladin is still the prime example of this. There's no denying the typical Paladin is to a great extent based on medieval (or medieval fantasy) knights, no matter what his origin may be in the diablo lore: he typically wears a full plate mail, can use various more or less knightly weapons, has a shield spell with a giant cross on it (like a kind of crusader), and he has many skills which can be linked to crusader mentality and lore. Is it that hard to understand then, that some people want a character with a similar feel in Diablo 3? It was all right there in Diablo 2. We don't want to change the game, we want to keep an aspect of it that we liked, of which we thought it went very well in the wonderful blend of influences that Diablo is.
I think the main problem here is that you live in the illusion that every 'lore' can be considered an individual entity without any outside connections.
An influence is one thing. Making the lore of one thing the same as the lore of another is a very, very different thing.
Diablo lore is filled to the brim with references to other lores, other stories and reality. There are references to Tolkien (the Balrogs, mithril items...), there are references to Christianity (I really hope I don't have to list those... it starts in the title. Yes, Diablo is not satan, but that's one big fat reference), and there are references to the medieval period, be it to actual history or just stories.
So when, in World of Warcraft, they make a refrence to Legend of Zelda, that means that World of Warcraft always has to have the "Legend of Zelda Factor"?
Just like every other fantasy setting, the diablo universe is a patchwork of many different influences. Now, what I'm saying is that I felt a small but very significant medieval influence in both diablo 1 and 2. This may be just a subjective feeling. But in any way, I felt that medieval influence to be an important part of the feel of the game.
Of course you did. It was based in a Medieval setting. That doesn't mean that next door to Westmarch was Camelot, and beside that was Sherwood forest. It just means that it was based on a Medieval setting.
The Paladin is still the prime example of this. There's no denying the typical Paladin is to a great extent based on medieval (or medieval fantasy) knights, no matter what his origin may be in the diablo lore: he typically wears a full plate mail, can use various more or less knightly weapons, has a shield spell with a giant cross on it (like a kind of crusader), and he has many skills which can be linked to crusader mentality and lore.
Of course the Paladin is based on medieval knights. And the Warrior is based on medieval soldiers. And the Barbarian is based on the medieval Gauls. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Is it that hard to understand then, that some people want a character with a similar feel in Diablo 3? It was all right there in Diablo 2. We don't want to change the game, we want to keep an aspect of it that we liked, of which we thought it went very well in the wonderful blend of influences that Diablo is.
It isn't hard to understand, no. Like I said, I understand that a lot of people don't know the lore behind Diablo. And I accept it. But I will correct people when they are mistaken. That is not to say you cannot pretend the Barbarian and Warrior are knights, or that the Sorceress and Mage are Merlin, or that the Rogue and Amazon are holy archers, of course you can. But that is not what the lore says. That's all I am trying to say.
Next, let's take your route real quick. Noblility. In Midevial Europe, which you are obviously using as a refrence considering there is no proof that Camelot ever existed, bows were considered to be dishonorable for Knights. There were no "Noble Archers".
Historically, that's correct. A little after archers, when they invented the crossbow, knights were pratically extinct. That's because any idiot wieldinig a crossbow could punch an arrow through thick armor and kill a heavy knight that trained his entire life to fight with a sword and shield...
Nonetheless, and flamewars apart, the reason of this thread was to see if anyone has that same feeling, which I have, that the game gets kinda "empty" without that guy in armor and sword and shield, etc. etc.
And I also like the dark knight character. Even better than the shiny armor one (which is kinda gay if ya really think - cromes are so off today - just kidding).
AND, I REALLY LIKED the necro, and yes, it's absence is a sure loss to the game.
EDIT: To make a long story short, in medieval times, which is obviously the times when Diablo games are set, knights are a common presence.
So, do you feel that it's presence in the game is essential, and one of the kind should be implemented, or do the characters already presented (aka barb and monk) fill the gap?
The English (Welsh) Long Bow could penetrate most if not all armors. The only armors that had a good chance at blocking it were steel armors and usually only very rich people had them (mostly high ranking nobles). They likely did not take part in the front lines.
Another issue with the Longbow was the training needed for them and the strength needed to fire an arrow.
Nonetheless, and flamewars apart, the reason of this thread was to see if anyone has that same feeling, which I have, that the game gets kinda "empty" without that guy in armor and sword and shield, etc. etc.
I am sorry, I never meant for you to feel like I was flaming you. If I did, then I do apologize.
To make a long story short, in medieval times, which is obviously the times when Diablo games are set, knights are a common presence.
So, do you feel that it's presence in the game is essential, and one of the kind should be implemented, or do the characters already presented (aka barb and monk) fill the gap?
Actually, knights were like modern day commanders, used to rally the troops for the Lords of the land, who were like the modern day generals, under the power of the Throne. Knights were not exactly commonplace, unless your refrencing a Tourney. But a war Tourneys were not.
The English (Welsh) Long Bow could penetrate most if not all armors. The only armors that had a good chance at blocking it were steel armors and usually only very rich people had them (mostly high ranking nobles). They likely did not take part in the front lines.
Another issue with the Longbow was the training needed for them and the strength needed to fire an arrow.
I find it funny that Frostbite5's understanding of the necromancer is way off.
:thumbsup:
It's not just Frostbite5. Many, many players of Diablo 2 have a very, very slim understanding of the lore of Diablo, let alone who the characters were and their backstory.
(No offense intended to Frostbite5, or anybody else that may fall in this area.)
I always thought paladin was a bit of a dick. Kinda like whitecloacks in Wheel of Time.
You know, I felt that way about all Paladin's in Blizzard's games, from the WC2/3/WoW paladin to the Diablo 2/LoD paladin, they just seem like they got something to prove. Lol.
Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.
Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.
Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...
(and I'm still hoping for a knightly archer as the 5th class )
I always saw the warrior in D2 as a mix between a warrior and a bounty/treature hunter. At least, the way the game portrayed him to me, that's how I saw it.
Not sure why everybody calls him a knight though, there is no way he was a knight...
Camelot factor? Sorry, this is Diablo, not King Arthur.
As for the knightly feel, if that is the case, would you say that the Barbarian, wearing full plates, had a "knightly feel"?
Anyway, a knight that specializes in bow usage. We have had those in WoW. We call them noobs that don't know how to play their class. (And please, don't take that offensively towards you. It is meant offensively towards the noobs on WoW, not you.
...pretty much...
I can see it now. Diablo comes out of a gash in the ground, and Commissioner Gordon flashes the Bat Light.
Hahahaha.
As for a barbarian in full plates, no, that doesn't feel knightly, to the same extent that a chicken in full plates wouldn't feel knightly. I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.
As for the archer, I don't mean a melee knight who uses a bow. I'm more thinking about a noble kind of archer, more or less like the one in Diablo 1. This maybe combined with some auras, defensive skills or any other kind of interesting "skill tree" (as far as we still have those... maybe I better say "skill group"), would fill up several gaps in the characters so far. I son't see why people want an evil or dark character, the Witch Doctor already covers for the necromancer there.
No, they draw from the medieval area. There's only so much you can do with armor and Diablo is not going to purposefully make it look bad or something.
Witch Doctor is not at all the same in feel and nobody said the dark character needs to share necromancer skills.
And what I explained is that the only game in the Diablo series to even remotely touch a simbalence of an idea of a "Camelot" factor is Diablo 2. Hell, most knights in Diablo 2 were evil creatures.
The armors also draw heavily from Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest, Lord of the Rings, Legend of Drizzt, shall I go on? And you are right, a D2/D3 Barbarian or a D1 Warrior is not a D2 Paladin. (Thank gods!)
First, the Necromancer was anything BUT evil. So you can stop right there. It agitates me to no end when people like you know so little about Diablo that even a light player like myself has to correct you. The necromancer was probably the most righteous of the whole group in D2, aside from possibly the Druid or the Barbarian.
Next, let's take your route real quick. Noblility. In Midevial Europe, which you are obviously using as a refrence considering there is no proof that Camelot ever existed, bows were considered to be dishonorable for Knights. There were no "Noble Archers". There were archer elements in militaries, and there were hunters wielding bows, but there were never any "Camelot-like archer" bullcrap.
I don't understand this fascination you kids have with the Diablo 2 Paladin... My only guess is that you want your magic hammers in D3.
What I mean about those specific armors is that, no matter where the direct inspiration comes from, eventually they come from the medieval period. Full plate mail feels very medieval. If the barbarian wears it, he doesn't become a knight, just like he won't become a bear by wearing a bear costume, but still the armor itself feels medieval and has its ultimate origin in the medieval period.
What you say about archers is probably true about the historical period (even though archers were an accepted unit on the battlefield), but we're talking about lore here. I never mentioned anything about historical accuracy, and in fact, by calling it the camelot factor, I wanted to incorporate lore as well as history. No noble archers in lore either? What about Robin Hood? His stories take place during the crusades. I'm not gonna do any research on this, but I'm sure there are plenty of other more or less fictional stories about noble archers. And like I said, the ranged character in D1 is also a noble archer.
Now about the necromancer, if you carefully re-read my post, I never claimed he was evil. I said "evil OR dark". If you understand anything about logics, that sentence means the necromancer can be either evil, dark or both. Since dark was the last word I wrote, common sense dictates that's what I'm talking about when I mentioned the necromancer. Of course he's not evil, he's saving the world. But he is dark. A character who raises the dead is dark, even if he does so with the best intentions while wearing a pink tutu. Also from talks with NPC's, we learn that not everybody likes necromancers. Now of course the necromancer does not have the same feel as the WD, and you know why? Because Necromancers are not Witchdoctors! But they do both have a dark edge to their character: they raise the dead, control minions and are rather enigmatic.
And for the record, the paladin was by far my least favorite character to play in D2, but I did like that he added a knightly element to the game.
It may be, but Diablo is not, and has never been, based on "Camelot" or any other such idea. It is Diablo. It reminds me how so many people automatically think that Heaven in the Diablo series is good, and the Burning Hells in the Diablo series is bad. Which is quite funny.
Indeed, just like if the Diablo 1 warrior wears it, he doesn't become a knight either. Both are just dudes wearing plate armor.
Accepted, yes. Common, yes. But they were far from the nobility that you are wanting.
So we are leaving historical accuracy and going to lore? Well then we throw out the "Camelot Factor", as it's not in the lore. And no, there were no "noble archers" in the lore of the Diablo Series. There was a Rogue and an Amazon. The Rogue is one of the Sisters of the Sightless Eye, which can be considered honorable, but far from the plate wielding Paladins of Westmarch. And the Amazon, again, can be considered honorable, but also again, far from the plate wielding Paladins of Westmarch.
As for Robin Hood, don't remember seeing him in Diablo, so as you said, we are talking about lore, so it doesn't matter what he did.
Of course not everybody likes Necromancers. Not everybody likes Paladins either. (Talking about the NPC's here.)
As for him being dark, I assume you also consider LeVayan Satanism to be dark too, right?
If you want a knightly element, go play a knightly game and stop trying to change the Diablo series.
And when I mentioned "lore" I was talking about general lore, not Diablo lore. You may not have noticed, but all fantasy lore draws heavily from real life lore and other fantasy lore. Hence, when we're talking about real life medieval lore, and real life lore about the mediaval period, we do see noble archers. Hence, the idea of a noble archer doesn't come out of thin air. It doesn't even in diablo lore, because the archer in D1 is quite noble and- to me- even had a bit of a knightly feel. My point is that this knightly, medieval feel, which was present in Diablo1 in all characters (also even the magic user still being pretty close to the stereotypical medieval spellcaster)and in D2 mostly in the Paladin, is not yet present in the D3 characters. Since I'm missing both an archer and a character with a medieval feel, I'd like the last class to be a noble archer - maybe even a woodsman type like Robin Hood, but not necessarily.
edit: and yes, of course I consider every form of satanism to be dark, in a way, especially when you compare it to 'standard' christianity which preaches love. But let's keep religion out of this. Do you think necromancy is not dark?
As for lore, stick to one lore. If you are talking about the lore of Robin Hood, stick with that. If you are talking about the Lore of King Arthur, stick with that. If you are talking about Diablo Lore, stick with Diablo Lore. They are not the same lore, and cannot be switched about all nilly willy.
And as for the archer, she was a Sister of the Sightless Eye. Now, the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye was a loosely organized guild of rogue type females that employ ancient Eastern (Hence not the Westernized "Camelot" idea you have) philosophies. They are in no way a "Noble Knight" with a bow.
Now, talking about the Diablo 1 Warrior, he was just a generic warrior that came back from a war (Some neighbor nation or something) to see his home in shambles. He was in no way a knight. I hardly expect you to consider all the footmen in Braveheart to be knights, so why do you consider this warrior to be a knight? (Honest question there.)
Now, I understand that you want to feel like this is Camelot instead of Sanctuary. And you have every right to do that. You can pretend the Necromancer is evil, the Amazon and Rogue are both serving the High Heavens, that the Barbarian is some kind of muscle bound goof, etc, etc, frankly, I don't care. But the lore specifically disagrees with everything you are saying. I am truly sorry, I really am, but you need to read up on the Diablo series.
The Paladin is still the prime example of this. There's no denying the typical Paladin is to a great extent based on medieval (or medieval fantasy) knights, no matter what his origin may be in the diablo lore: he typically wears a full plate mail, can use various more or less knightly weapons, has a shield spell with a giant cross on it (like a kind of crusader), and he has many skills which can be linked to crusader mentality and lore. Is it that hard to understand then, that some people want a character with a similar feel in Diablo 3? It was all right there in Diablo 2. We don't want to change the game, we want to keep an aspect of it that we liked, of which we thought it went very well in the wonderful blend of influences that Diablo is.
You can play one in a few mods. In Eastern Sun the melee necro can be quite strong.
I think I'll just let LinkX do the talking for me and sign under it...
An influence is one thing. Making the lore of one thing the same as the lore of another is a very, very different thing.
We are talking Diablo here. If you want to talk about Robin Hood or whatever, make a thread about how much you want a Robin Hood game.
So when, in World of Warcraft, they make a refrence to Legend of Zelda, that means that World of Warcraft always has to have the "Legend of Zelda Factor"?
Of course you did. It was based in a Medieval setting. That doesn't mean that next door to Westmarch was Camelot, and beside that was Sherwood forest. It just means that it was based on a Medieval setting.
Of course the Paladin is based on medieval knights. And the Warrior is based on medieval soldiers. And the Barbarian is based on the medieval Gauls. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It isn't hard to understand, no. Like I said, I understand that a lot of people don't know the lore behind Diablo. And I accept it. But I will correct people when they are mistaken. That is not to say you cannot pretend the Barbarian and Warrior are knights, or that the Sorceress and Mage are Merlin, or that the Rogue and Amazon are holy archers, of course you can. But that is not what the lore says. That's all I am trying to say.
Historically, that's correct. A little after archers, when they invented the crossbow, knights were pratically extinct. That's because any idiot wieldinig a crossbow could punch an arrow through thick armor and kill a heavy knight that trained his entire life to fight with a sword and shield...
Nonetheless, and flamewars apart, the reason of this thread was to see if anyone has that same feeling, which I have, that the game gets kinda "empty" without that guy in armor and sword and shield, etc. etc.
And I also like the dark knight character. Even better than the shiny armor one (which is kinda gay if ya really think - cromes are so off today - just kidding).
AND, I REALLY LIKED the necro, and yes, it's absence is a sure loss to the game.
EDIT: To make a long story short, in medieval times, which is obviously the times when Diablo games are set, knights are a common presence.
So, do you feel that it's presence in the game is essential, and one of the kind should be implemented, or do the characters already presented (aka barb and monk) fill the gap?
Another issue with the Longbow was the training needed for them and the strength needed to fire an arrow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
:thumbsup:
I am sorry, I never meant for you to feel like I was flaming you. If I did, then I do apologize.
Actually, knights were like modern day commanders, used to rally the troops for the Lords of the land, who were like the modern day generals, under the power of the Throne. Knights were not exactly commonplace, unless your refrencing a Tourney. But a war Tourneys were not.
Glee!
It's not just Frostbite5. Many, many players of Diablo 2 have a very, very slim understanding of the lore of Diablo, let alone who the characters were and their backstory.
(No offense intended to Frostbite5, or anybody else that may fall in this area.)
You know, I felt that way about all Paladin's in Blizzard's games, from the WC2/3/WoW paladin to the Diablo 2/LoD paladin, they just seem like they got something to prove. Lol.
(Personal opinion, of course.
Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.
Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...
(and I'm still hoping for a knightly archer as the 5th class
Hanging around here should give you all the lore you would need.
I mean, this place IS called Diablofans...