I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.
Would any troll type "lots of words" in an orderly and constructive fashion? This discussion would have been solved long ago if you didn't keep changing what it was supposed to be about and what mindset we're supposed to be using. If anyone trolled in this thread, it's you. No disrespect intended.
You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)
Okay. Still I think more people (even here) care much more about gameplay than about character backgrounds. Face it, the story is just not an essential part of the game. It can be fun to dig deeper into it if you're interested, but still it's only of secondary importance. Besides that, very little effort is made in the game itself to give players a deeper understanding of the world (besides the immediate events taking place). If your friends are already back out there slaying monsters, you're not gonna stay in town to ask NPC's for gossip (unless you're really into that sort of thing).
Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.
Why? Most of diablo's players think through a westernized mindset (or any other mindset which would consider necromancy an evil act). I'm talking about my own impressions so why should I do so though a different mindset? And which mindset would that be to begin with? Of the necromancers themselves? If you think through a terrorist's mindset, 9/11 was an act of good. That doesn't mean that if you think it was an act of evil (which most people here, including myself, do), that you're narrow-minded because you think through a western mindset. This argument can undermine anything. Hence my terrorist example: in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their allies, they are doing the highest good. So are we not allowed to call terrorists evil anymore because others see them as good?
Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is.
Really, that's why? Apparently you know some blizzard employees very well.
I just mentioned the terrorists to show that what is evil to some can be good to others.
And again, we are talking about what is good and what is not good, not what is perceived as such.
I'm talking about what's perceived as such. Besides, the fact that you think good and evil exist outside of human perception shows that you're talking through a westernized mindset. Didn't you just ask me to stop doing that for some reason?
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 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'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?
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.
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.
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.