Diablo® III

Aidan retcon makes no sense

why did they retcon dark wanderer to be leoric's son? it is unecessary and makes no sense.

Firstly, the story of diablo 3 would have been the same regardless of whether aidan was related to leoric or not.

Prior to the events in diablo 1, leoric was going mad and killing his own loyal subjects and even killed his queen. Throughout all these his son was away on some business and did not come home to see wtf was going on? did none of leoric's men send a message to aidan telling him what was going on in his own home? what business was aidan on that was so important anyways? his kingdom was at war with westmarch, but the prince goes somewhere else for no reason. Even after both his parents have been killed, Aidan STILL did not go home, it was not until demons started swarming in the cathedral and leoric turned into the skeleton king did Aidan come home. How does this make any sense for him to be Leoric's son???? It only makes sense if the hero was in no way related to Leoric.
Reply Quote
87 Troll Shaman
6265
Posts: 594
Actually, a more immediate reason for why it doesn't make sense for the Dark Wanderer (why they have to give him a name, and a rather pedantic one at that?) to be Leoric's son is that, if that were the case, villagers in Tristram in D1 would've reacted to you in that way, would've known you were [presumably] the heir, yet they talk to you as if you were a stranger.

Metzen probably introduced this retconned twist to go for a "Double Shyamalan" ;) http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/11/42-essential-3rd-act-twists/

I don't know where they'll go with this, but to me this looks like a minor story issue because, as you said, it really doesn't make any significant difference to the plot, either now or even if you look back at D1.
Reply Quote

Metzen probably introduced this retconned twist to go for a "Double Shyamalan" ;) http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/11/42-essential-3rd-act-twists/


in order for a twist to work, it has to be a surprise, but backed by hidden facts. i.e. "I totally didn't see that coming, but thinking about it, I totally see how we got there." At the very least, it cannot be contradicted by facts (ie.g. the famous twist in Empire Strikes Back).

Good examples are the twists in stories like, Twelve Monkeys, The Others, and A Tale of Two Cities. Unfortunately, Diablo 3 follows cliche so strictly (and badly), that it's impossible to hide any twists. And those they could hide, they overtly spoil before they come about by their very nature.

To get onto the topic at hand... why did they retcon Aidan? My guess is that they wanted to make it so that Leah was of a royal bloodline. But since they also wanted her to turn into Diablo, they obviously couldn't make her father just a random prince.

tl;dr: bad writing.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,327
Not only does it not make sense, there is a great deal of dialogue FROM Diablo 1 that further emphasizes that Leoric had *one* son. One.

Basically Metzen is a lore butcher; he decided he wanted to go in an arbitrary direction that simply didn't fit, and made some REALLY bad retcons to do it.

Retcons are for ailing franchises and unsuccessful works. Diablo definitely did NOT fall into either category. These changes were, as a certain Sith Lord put it, as clumsy as they were stupid.
Reply Quote
Posts: 61
It may have something to do with the fact that when Aidan and Adria conceived Leah, Aidan was already carrying Diablo inside him. Adria's journal says something like "Aidan came to me last night... the shadows are closing in over Tristram once again" (implying they have once already, the time Aidan showed up to kill his father).
Perhaps Leah was an easier vessel for Diablo to inhabit because he had also inhabited her father at the time she was conceived.
Reply Quote
87 Troll Shaman
6265
Posts: 594
I fully the retcon was both unnecessary and a result of bad writing, but it's hardly the worst problem the game's overall story has.

I don't remember how the first game was written very well (it's been a hell of a long time since I've played that one!), but I'm going to at least read the manuals for D1/D2 to see what they say about this...I remember the allusions was that Leoric only had one son, but a quick look at the D1 manual reveals that the story is part of the 'Librarius Ex Horadrim' i.e. not written or recounted by an omniscient narrator who therefore could *plausibly* have flawed/incomplete knowledge.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,979
Eh. I mean, it's a silly retcon, but it also doesn't have any major impacts. It was done to up the tragedy factor of the setting more. It has no real impact on the story, though, and complaining about how it makes dialog from diablo 1 bad is stupid. I mean, Tristram itself moves all over the place between games. There are much bigger things to take issue with than dialog from 16 years ago no longer making perfect sense.
Reply Quote
Posts: 237
05/28/2012 12:49 AMPosted by Ramenth
Eh. I mean, it's a silly retcon, but it also doesn't have any major impacts. It was done to up the tragedy factor of the setting more. It has no real impact on the story, though, and complaining about how it makes dialog from diablo 1 bad is stupid. I mean, Tristram itself moves all over the place between games. There are much bigger things to take issue with than dialog from 16 years ago no longer making perfect sense.


disagree. butchering old lore for no reason IS an issue. Just an example of how bad blizzard has become.
Reply Quote
What? I don't get it, where's the problem?
Leoric had two sons, Albrecht and Aidan, Albrecht was kidnapped and sacrificed to be a vessel for Diablo, Aidan was the warrior in Diablo 1 who, in the end, slain both Skeleton King (his father) and Diablo. He then bashed the Diablo's soulstone in his face, whatever.
Some years pass, he is being driven mad by the soulstone, Diablo is corrupting him; he probably goes to Adria, gets her sugar walls, she gets the taste of his mushroom tip, whatever, he impregnates her. Bit before that or after that he breaks, hence, Diablo 2 first cinematic of !@#$ hitting the fan. Pretty much Diablo 2 starts and he's going east, whereas in Kurast he becomes Diablo.
Diablo 2 ends, skip 20 years, Adria's daughter has grown, Diablo 3 starts.

WHERE IS THE %^-*ING PROBLEM?
Reply Quote
Arguing that this retcon makes no sense is not making sense in itself. Why? Because people forget that there are 3 characters playable at the time of Diablo 1. There is the warrior, rogue, and sorcerer. Technically speaking, I can also say that the rogue is the one that slayed Diablo in Diablo 1. Then how does Leah come to exist? How could the female rogue impregnate Adria to give birth to Leah??? The subsequent plots of Diablo 2 and 3 henceforth falls apart.

Aidan's lore is actually quite important to the entire series, although some posts disagree.

Aidan is a well done attempt (considering the flow of the entire story to be at such complexity and the length if time it took for the trilogy to come out) to put the three Diablo series together into a complete storyline, albeit the small contradicting detail of Leoric of having perhaps only one son. Aidan's character is at the very center of that storyline. It weaves the plot together so that players who have played the entire trilogy are awarded the knowledge that the game play of Diablo 1 actively impact the storyline of Diablo 3.

Simply put, in the entire series, Aidan's impact to the story is only second to Diablo. Try taking Aidan's character out of the picture and you will see that the trilogy makes no sense.
Edited by WidowMaker#1200 on 8/5/2012 5:56 PM PDT
Reply Quote
It was done to fit into the lore they re-wrote, so that Knaak can write more horrible books and can tag team with Metzen to stamp out all of Blizzard North's ideas and re-write their own names into a new Legacy for the Diablo series (lol).
Reply Quote
Posts: 25
Diablo 1 Warrior: Aidan per Diablo 3 lore.
Diablo 1 Rogue: Bloodraven
Diablo 1 Wizard: The Summoner in Act 2.

Diablo 2 starts basically a few days after Diablo 1. It would seem like as if they moved Diablo 3 out 20 years just so they could let some of the destruction of the worldstone's impact be seen, but the problem is they don't really detail how it has altered the world. Other than, "Look Nephalem power is returning!".
Reply Quote
I don't generally have an issue with retcons, nor do I with the Aidan retcon.
However, I'm just not entirely sure why it was done. It just doesn't seem necessary. Everything that happened in the stories could have still happened in either exactly the same way or a very slight altered way.
Reply Quote
I don't really have an issue with the Aidan retcon... Or Leah being Diablo's daughter... But at least do something with it. They made her Princess Leah for a reason, but it never went anywhere. Why was Leah Leoric's granddaughter? I'd like to see the first draft of the story boards, figure out how this mess got so twisted.
Reply Quote
The problem with the whole thing is that all this retconning makes the story lose its power. The first Diablo was astounding, even frightening. The storyline dripped with terrible images and you got a feeling that the townspeople were legitimately living in fear. The entire atmosphere left an uncertainty in the success of the adventurer.

Enter Diablo II, a Pyrrhic victory brings about the need for a resolution. The victor becomes the villain and so new heroes must journey to stop him before he can achieve his ultimate ends. The story was fantastic and compelling.

Diablo III... Oh hey, humans. Guess what; since the big glowey thing that held the fabric of your world together was destroyed 20 years ago, nothing untoward has happened. In fact, that sh!t was keeping you down, so now you're more powerful than ever.

-The protagonist was never in real danger (storywise), and new characters had to be dreamed up so that the franchise's namesake could come back for no %^-*ing reason.

The sheer aftermath of the destruction of the Worldstone would have made a great game in and of itself. If nothing else, Tyrael shattering it could have caused a rift in the abyss that allowed the three Prime Evils to reform (or even form -a- Prime Evil) and make them more powerful than ever. But no, the Warrior HAD to become Aidan so that Cain could have a niece who was actually the daughter of Diablo so that her corrupted mother could bring Diablo back and take over the Universe, because Haw HAW, puny mortals THIS was my diabolical plan the entire time!
Edited by Kirihn#1589 on 8/10/2012 10:07 AM PDT
Reply Quote
What? I don't get it, where's the problem?
Leoric had two sons, Albrecht and Aidan, Albrecht was kidnapped and sacrificed to be a vessel for Diablo, Aidan was the warrior in Diablo 1 who, in the end, slain both Skeleton King (his father) and Diablo. He then bashed the Diablo's soulstone in his face, whatever.


The first problem is that the manual and all the people in town refer to Leoric as only having one son; Albrecht.

The second is that the warrior never refers to Leoric as his father or Albrecht as his brother. He even has to ask Deckard Cain whether a dead body he found of a young boy was Albrecht.

The third is that the loss of his only son causes Leoric to become more insane and execute a lot of people. Lazarus also convinces the towns people to go into the monastery to search for Leoric's only son (he leads them to the Butcher).

So the warrior never indicates he's related to Leoric and no one else says Leoric has more than one son. Also the plot requires that Leoric only has one son.

Some years pass, he is being driven mad by the soulstone, Diablo is corrupting him; he probably goes to Adria, gets her sugar walls, she gets the taste of his mushroom tip, whatever, he impregnates her. Bit before that or after that he breaks, hence, Diablo 2 first cinematic of !@#$ hitting the fan. Pretty much Diablo 2 starts and he's going east, whereas in Kurast he becomes Diablo.
Diablo 2 ends, skip 20 years, Adria's daughter has grown, Diablo 3 starts.

WHERE IS THE %^-*ING PROBLEM?


The story makes it clear only a few days have passed between Aidan becoming Diablo and Tristram being destroyed. So Adria made a very quick decision to dedicate herself to Diablo, get pregnant (good thing Diablo didn't possess the rogue), and leave before Tristram was destroyed.

Also I wouldn't say Kurast is when Aidan becomes Diablo. If it's when Diablo possesses Aidan then if would be Tristram. If you consider when Aidan transformed into Diablo when he became Diablo then this was in Travincal.
Reply Quote
Storywise, it isn't a problem. In Diablo 3, it mentions that there were a *group of adventurers* defeated Diablo. Aiden was one of the warriors, and Blood Raven was one of the rogues. You could play as a warrior, rogue, or sorcerer with any name you want, and storywise it would be implied that you fought alongside Aiden (the canon Dark Wanderer) and Blood Raven. The speech of the NPCs in Tristram was default speech, since players may or may not be playing as a warrior named Aiden. At the end of the game, it shows your character putting the soulstone into his/her head, but storywise, only Aiden would have done that.
Reply Quote
08/11/2012 06:05 PMPosted by Starblazer
In Diablo 3, it mentions that there were a *group of adventurers* defeated Diablo. Aiden was one of the warriors, and Blood Raven was one of the rogues.


Right, in Diablo 3. The new development team decided they could change it however they wanted to in order to fit their new idea for how the story should go. Unfortunately, the new story is a piece of !@#$. I mean, personally I'm not against altering a well known story slightly to give it little bit of a different perspective. Storytellers have been doing that for thousands of years. But in this case, they alter the continuity so as to introduce us to a new character. Then they kill off that new character almost instantly, leaving the audience with nothing. Literally nothing. Slaying Diablo doesn't feel AT ALL satisfying (at least, not to me), because it doesn't feel like anything has been resolved. Anything. THEN, they take it a step beyond that.

A former Archangel takes the place of a different Archangel, as a human. On its own, this could be a pretty cool story. In Diablo 3, it's a plot hole bigger than the freaking Marianas Trench. Tyrael is the Archangel of Justice (this is well established). He sheds his wings in order to become human (sounds good); since there is no longer an aspect of Justice in the world of Sanctuary, those who have been unjustly murdered rise from their graves and seek revenge (well... alright); then the, now mortal, former incarnation of Justice becomes the aspect of Wisdom. If he's so damn wise, he ought to know that the WORLD REMAINS WITHOUT JUSTICE.

No, there is no justice for the world of Sanctuary, and there is no justice for the audience.
Edited by Kirihn#1589 on 8/12/2012 9:40 PM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]