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?
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).
I Couldn't have said it better. But I liked the dark knight idea too...
My main concern that we will never see a knight is that a knight is in essence a Holy warrior. The Monk is already filling this role. I just don't know how they could differentiate between two Holy fighters enough to include one.
I thought about it too. But a monk as the leader woulb be kinda like Alex Smith for the 49ers...
The reason why I started this topic was a sudden "empty" feeling, that something's missing regarding characters.
And that would be a knight (or the paladin, in D2).
Diablo is obviously a medieval game, as depicted on the story, constructions, environment, music, NPCs and such.
See, the first Diablo presented only one class, and it was apparently a knight. With twists of magic, some scroll readings, but a knight (as easily noticed by an armor, a shield, a helmet, and the willpower to descend a dark cave knowing it's full of demons...). Important to mention that, back then, there wasn't that much discussion as "I'm a knight!", no "I'm a battlemage", blah blah.
Bottom line, when you see a medieval movie, like, Mel Gibson's BraveHeart (couldn't pick any other), the center characters are... knights. In Crusader, the characters are.... knights. Obviously, ANY medieval story has a knight, because they're obviously the historic fighters of that time, that protected the castles, kings, etc. etc., and were trained with honor, and fought with faith, blah blah.
In D2, there he was, the paladin. I don't remember the exact description that showed when you selected the paladin on the char selection screen (since win7 I removed D2) but it said something like that "holy warrior, party leader, ...".
And that's the exact thing. The pally IS the party leader in all D2. Every decent (subjectivity here) party had a paladin, because of the powerful aura he held. Metaforically speaking, the "knight in shiny armor" is a mythical vision, and the aura fits him well.
See, this old desktop paper of D2 shows it perfectly, the "soul" of a knight. here:
And that's what the knight is, a fighter of evil by excelence and nature, only relieved of his duty when the last demon fell on the ground. Or when D1 ends and he sticks the gem in his own head, sacrificing his own existence to protect the world from evil. No mage would do that, it requires the selflessness of a knight. And remember, the first assignement in D2 was to "cleanse" the den of evil. So the fitting of the knight, that needs to "cleanse" the world of evil.
Party wise, the paladin is the quarterback of the game! (D2 pally kinda looks like Donovan McNabb, actually...) So a party without a paladin is like a football team without a quarterback. They may play football, but it just wont't feel right, it's going to feel shallow and empty. And by quarterback, I don't mean stay back and shoot them with a crossbow. No, I mean the aura, the feel of a LEADER guiding them, a faithful fighter to rely on.
Anyway, I guess I exposed my argument. So, I hope the next character is a knight, or, if not, Blizz should be already on they're first expansion...
Cheers to all, and please comment (say something!).