• 0

    posted a message on d3 story
    I'd seriously doubt Tyreal will fall to the darkness, considering he is part of the Angiris Council. He's practically equal to Diablo and his brothers. There are seven lords of Hell, while there are five leaders of Heaven (Angiris Council).

    And yeah, us going to hell in Act 4 was very confusing. We somehow managed to land at a heavenly outpost, while Diablo went straight past them. I think he was heading further into hell, but he got trapped by that angel that talks to us right before we go to fight him, remember? He didn't intend to stay there and wait for us. So yeah, Hell is definitely huge.

    And yes, their 'dying' definitely needs to be explained abit more. I'm pretty sure they can never actualy die, only be ridden from this realm. But I want to hear it from someone official.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Help! Necro City Name?!
    Noo, they wouldn't name a city Rathma. The word 'Rathma' in their language means 'student'. Mendeln, the second, changed his name to Kala or Kara or Kalla or something, and that means teacher. The city would be a word that means 'home' or 'safe' or something, so it wouldn't be Rathma.

    Maybe try,

    Ordrem?
    Talam?
    Tilaem?
    Taelam?
    Lerando?

    I'm making up names here. I personally like Taelam.
    Posted in: Diablo II
  • 0

    posted a message on Help! Necro City Name?!
    yeah, I just read that too. I was like 'oh crap, an underground city? quick, delete my post, delete my post!' but ah, too late. I was nearly gonna say 'i have a feeling there might be something underground', and I would have been right in that part, but yeah, oh well. I was going by what I remembered at the time, mostly coming from what is said about them from the novels. But yeah, so there is a city after all. I was also kind of saying that to remind the author on how they tend to behave. I deleted my post, but then regretted it straight away, wishing it gave me a second chance to cancel. But anyway.

    They still aren't much of one for material value, so having a 'vast city' would likely serve to practice their art without fear of scaring outsiders.

    They never mention the name of the city, its only mentioned in the manual, but still never a name. So name it what you want.
    Posted in: Diablo II
  • 0

    posted a message on d3 story
    Yeah, Bubo's right. They said that a mad sorcerer came in, found some ancient seal under the palace, got really anxious, then dissappeared a day or so later. They also said that he was as obsessed with it as much as our character is lol, and that he talked to Drognan heaps about it. Its assumed that he's the sorcerer from Tristram, gone mad from all those demons, seaking a way to get back to those demonic forces but this time use them to his will.

    The rogue from Tristram also went mad and tainted from the horrors of the monastary, so much that she is implied to have become Bloodraven.

    The three Prime Evils have been weakened because a part of them was destroyed/fragmented when their stones were destroyed, am I right? But, haven't they simply been sent back to hell, because they no longer have a fleshy vessel that binds them to the mortal plane? Also, hell is still appearntly in a civil war, polarised by siding between Azmodan and Belial. If the Prime Evils return, the civil war would end, and Azmodan and Belial would likely suffer. They need to find a way to get human souls to side with them. I'm actually suspicious that their plan all along was to destroy the worldstone, which would somehow make their soul-capturing easier. Its implied that Sanctuary is now at mercy to Heaven and Hell, with no barricade to stop them. That also makes me think that something has happened to Trag'oul, because he is very much connected to Sanctuary. Or atleast, he has a part to play in regards to the Worldstone, considering neither heaven nor hell know about him.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Help! Necro City Name?!
    The name of a 'city' of necromancers is never mentioned. And considering the nature of necromancers, i'd doubt they would even have one. They might have somewhere that they gather, but it would more resemble an outpost, much less a town. Definitely not a city. There seem to be two mentions of a gathering of necromancers on sanctuary that I can recall. One is the end of Kingdom of Shadow, and the other is when Zayl was tested by the elder priests (I think three of them, one of them appears to be a shade). They only ever mention the jungles as being their home, where they grew up, and everything. It seems like they are fairly in touch with nature/sanctuary, and do not build huge monuments or anything. Even Zayl's test was conducted outdoors (atleast I'm pretty sure they weren't in a building). If they had a city, then the elder priests would definitely be in a buildling.

    They also seem to wander around sanctuary in solitude most of the time, only gathering for things like passing a test, or if it is something really important. They are taught to be independant. Though, I suppose, the elders still have to be somewhere. But then, they could just be in that same place as Trag'oul, which makes sense, cause thats where Rathma tends to stay and study.
    Posted in: Diablo II
  • 0

    posted a message on Φ Diablo II Moments
    Quote from "Ajax" »
    I have another recent moment, about a month ago, i was playing on single player d2 HC. had a level 41 light sorc! So anyways, doing hella good, mfing and doing runs to level and stuff. Started to do more normal baal runs (Solo) when all of the sudden my CO walked in the barracks. So I had to stand at attention, but forgot to pause the single player game going on...Minions came out surrounding my sorc, died as my CO was staring at it >_<. "DID you just loose your game soldier?!" "I believe so sir" "Well, isnt that a damn shame"....long pause..."Alright then, just checking up on you and see what you were doing, carry on"............ :o


    LOL. Haha, aww thats funny. I like how you reacted, "I believe so sir".

    When I first got Diablo II (with LoD) I only played single player. At first I was so excited about all the different characters that I wanted to try them all out at once, but they had too many skills, so I made a different character for each skill tree. So thats like... 19 characters lol! (not including passive skill trees of the Amazon and Barbarian). I wanted to play them all simultaneously, so each character was only like level 1-10, all in act one. It took me ages to get through the first few quests, it felt like Act 1 was the entire game. So I thought it was great, thinking that there's practically 5 games in one, knowing it would take me aaggess. But then my friend suggested to me, "Why don't you just choose one character?" haha, so I did. I don't know why I didn't do that in the first place lol.

    I ended up being a fire druid and a lightning sorceress, making it all the way to Act 5 without repeating quests. I ended up killing diablo by myself with pretty crappy equipment at level 26-28ish, and killing Baal just over level 30. (both with alot of running back to town).

    And then I went online, did lots of runs and stuff and got fully into the online community. But then a while later, after thinking that I can't even attempt diablo until a much higher level or with lots of other people, I realised that back in the day I used to be able to do it by myself at a lower level lol. I had become too dependant on other people, and forgot that the game is balanced so that you don't have to do runs or rely on other people or good equipment to be strong enough to get through it. I re-learnt that it is playable lol.

    PS. Jumping up and exiting the game while in mid-air would look really cool.
    Posted in: Diablo II
  • 0

    posted a message on Diablo Movie
    Yeah, cows would lower the quality of the movie alot. But having a reference to them would be cool, like if the main guy goes up to a cow, pats it, and then it 'moos' would be cool lol. But while he's talking to someone else.

    Oh yea, and Kate Beckinsale would make a GREAT sorceress.
    Posted in: Other Games
  • 0

    posted a message on The second downfall of Inarius
    wow, that makes sense. I was thinking about marking pages for some nice quotes, but it was too much effort lol. I just wanted to read. But i'll read the books again, this time putting in the effort.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Changes to the Diablo Lore
    Look at this!

    "
    Accurate reports on the nature of the horrors that lie below the church come to light more rarely than survivors. I have attempted to provide a base knowledge of what awaits you by searching through our vast libraries for historical and scientific tomes recounting the Horadrim's epic war against the three.

    I have summarized the information that I discovered. Due to the length of time that has passed since most of the original accounts were written, and the uncertainty surrounding the present evil that plagues this land, I cannot guarantee the veracity of this information. I do, however, believe that this information is as accurate as possible under these trying circumstances."
    - Vischar Orous
    Cheif Librarian
    Zharaesh Covenant
    Brotherhood of the Vizjerei


    That is part of the intro in the manual before describing the minions of hell, including the Overlords and including the part about Inarius. So we were right, the change in lore is more like a new discovery to update old information, rather than just scrapping previous information. Blizzard already covered themselves by having these paragraphs lol. Lucky.


    BUT

    there is one thing that really annoys me. They changed something that did not need to be changed. The symbol for Baal used on the LoD cover was originally the symbol for Mephisto. I actually noticed the change years ago, and it has been annoying me the whole time. This goes back to my 'upgrading is better than changing' thing that I said before. This is an unecessary change/swap. If however, Baal's symbol was upgraded, aka, made better, then it would be okay. But using something that was previously there is not okay. And what's the point? Baal's symbol looks just as cool as Mephisto's, its not like it was complete crap.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The second downfall of Inarius
    lol, Solomir, did you look that up? How long did it take you to find it? seriously, I wanna know. Because I remember it being in one of the books somewhere, but no idea where. Though, I've only read it once. How many times have you read it? And seriously, how long did it take you to find the page that mentions Esu?

    hmm, it seems that both Solomir and Phrozen Dragon have good opinions on changing the lore. Clearly, changing things is okay, as long as its efficient at changing. As in, making the story as good as possible with changing as little as possible. But yea, in the case of Inarius, I like the change. I suppose, our records just had it wrong, and we really had no idea how important Inarius really is. Though, the creation of Sanctuary has never really been mentioned before, so atleast they aren't changing the name of who created sanctuary, but instead introducing one for the first time. Addition/upgrades are better than changes/shifts.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Diablo sound clip
    Ohh my god, of course! that makes perfect sense lol. How could I not know that. Thanks Jetrall.
    Posted in: Other Games
  • 0

    posted a message on Diablo sound clip
    I know this is gonna sound annoying but hoooww do I save these to my computer?
    Posted in: Other Games
  • 0

    posted a message on The second downfall of Inarius
    What do you mean an exact copy of previous chains of events? From where? who? what?

    Also, what about this quote from Knaak?

    "Obviously, what happens after Inarius is turned over to Mephisto is up for conjecture."

    Should we assume that all that torture stuff including the Overlords that was previously described happens, or something new? I guess it really is 'left up for conjecture' lol.


    Yeah, I know that the classes are explained in lore, but they aren't on the timeline. If there is an official timeline somewhere (and that timeline seems to be pretty good), then I just want to see them on it. Also, there was a female Nephalem warrior fighting with the edyrem against the angels and demons, who is described as being similar to Serrenthia, but much more vicious (?) (or some other describing word). She could either be one of the starters of the Amazons (because they have three gods don't they?), or another class, or simply just a warrior-girl lol.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on The second downfall of Inarius
    Quote from "solomir" »

    Not that this very old, very (I don't know how to say the word I'm looking for in English) first-drafty time line is absolutely accurate, but I find it in most parts to be quite consistent with differences of 4-10 years mostly, up to a couple of hundred years generally, still good.

    Hah, I can't think of a word either, and english is my only language. 'first-drafty' or even just 'drafty' makes perfect sense lol.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on The second downfall of Inarius
    lol, I'm still confused, because I don't really get what is so conflicting with the two sides. Wait, I think I get it.

    Old:
    Inarius is but an angel that decends to the mortal realm
    New:
    Inarius is the mighty angel that created the mortal realm

    Old:
    He attacks Mephisto's temple, then is counterattacked and captured by Mephisto
    New:
    Uldyssian and the Edyrem bring him down, the Angiris Council deal with him, and hand him over to Mephisto as part of a deal to leave mortal men alone (for now).

    In both versions he still has the same vain personality.
    In the new version, we never found out what happened to Inarius once in the hands of Mephisto, but it seems reasonable to say that he suffers the same fate as in the old version - which then would also lead on to the creation of the Overlords.

    So, really, there aren't that many problems. The Overlords can still exist, all that happened to Inarius can still exist, its just that Inarius is revealed to now be a hell of alot more important than he appeared to be before.

    Also, both versions can exist, if you look at it this way:
    (I filled in some gaps)

    - Inarius creates Sanctuary
    - All the events in the Sin War Trilogy take place
    - Inarius is handed over to Mephisto
    - Inarius somehow escapes Mephisto
    - Inarius returns to Sanctuary and creates the "first" Cathedral of Light
    - The Three know that he is weak and are only amused by his little escape
    - Inarius builds an army and becomes more powerful than the Three expected
    - Inarius gets revenge on Mephisto first for taking him in the first place (he also probably plans on getting revenge on the Angiris Council for handing him over)
    - Mephisto hates Inarius for destroying his temple, and so he destroys Inarius' Cathedral and re-captures him, and turns his followers into Overlords


    Where's the conflict now? Men regard his cathedral to be the first because the Angiris Council 'reset' the world and erased what Inarius had done, and thats why there are no records of him being the creator of Sanctuary or anything that happened. Only the Nephalem and Mendeln retained their memory.

    And, someone needs to add into that timeline somewhere that the Nephalem (original humans, aka Rathma, Bulkathos, etc - not the edyrem) slowly rise and gain followers, creating the Barbarians and the Necromancers and the Amazon and stuff. Though, I suppose its not something that happens at a certain point, but rather something that happens over centuries.
    Posted in: Lore & Storyline
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.