Diablo® III

Aidan: Ruining previous storylines

Technically, all retcons are unnecessary, regardless of their impact on the story.
Reply Quote
I thought it was a great play on the lore that aiden was the warrior and the dark wanderer.


Just wanted to point out this was not the retcon... the retcon was that he was leorics son. D2 established the warrior=darkwanderer not this game
Reply Quote
Technically, D1 did first, as its epilogue screen depicts your hero wearing a dark cloak and seeking the East. If anything, D2 retconned it by delaying his departure for a few weeks.
Reply Quote
In the BlizzCon Diablo III lore panel Metzen gave Blizzard's reasoning in giving the Dark Wanderer the recon identity of him being Aiden: should the events of Diablo 1 be hypothetically presented in another media type outside the game (e.g. novel, movie, TV series etc.) the hero would be a fleshed out character with background and emotional/family ties with the people. This would make him a far more interesting fellow rather than a faceless warrior with nothing.

Yet it can be argued the creative team could had taken effort into creating that warrior with totally different story but hey, they had to make a downright decision and they ultimately chose the former idea.

Source: Watch the first few minutes to grasp Blizzard's thoughts on the Diablo lore mess then jump onto 24:50 for Aiden.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OhWPVt4Pk
  • Reply Quote
    Melyria 2 questions

    1)how many hours/day do you troll story forums
    2) what motivates you to be such a juggernaut fanboy that youd wolf-down this terrible plot, thank blizzard for it, and spend said hours/day defending this literary garbage (instead of playing the latest wow expansion)
    Reply Quote
    06/06/2012 05:31 PMPosted by Creature
    There was nothing wrong with WarCraft I's story, yet Blizzard retconned the crap out of it.


    In that case, as in this one, it was retconned to give it a whole lot more depth.

    Like I said earlier, I think the new story is appropriately grimdark for the Diablo universe. Next time I play the first Diablo on my netbook, I might just make a warrior and call it Aidan :P

    Fake depth.

    It's not actually any more or less deep whether the Diablo 1 hero was Leoric's son or not. It just seems like it must be because all the family is together then.

    Really, it just makes it all the less likely (The more coincidences there are, the more contrived a story gets)
    Reply Quote
    Ugh, Melyria, whyyyy are you so blindly in love with the D3 plot that you will defend it from every perspective in every story thread?

    The thing is, how do you give The Warrior any degree of personality posthumously? If you made him a random soldier, what stake did he have in the events of Diablo 1? If you made him a traveller, same issue.

    Without giving us a novel that actually delves into the Warrior's perspective, the most logical answer is to tie him directly to Leoric and Albrecht. He had to kill his father and unwittingly killed his brother. In combination with this, this means that Diablo has tormented Leah's grandfather, father, uncle and herself.


    My answer: you don't have to; the most logical answer is to leave the character alone as a warrior whose past is a mystery, who descended into the labyrinth, and became the dark wanderer.

    The warrior was awesome when you played Diablo 1 (did you ever play Diablo 1? my guess is no) because he started as just some guy - some random soldier or traveler who showed up in Tristram. He was an empty shell, and that allowed you to think whatever you wanted to about his motives - he was a holy warrior who hated demons or a mercenary looking for gold or he wanted to protect endangered townsfolk. Whatever. He starts as a random guy but BECOMES someone heroic over the course of his descent through the labyrinth into hell. He kills Diablo, chooses to sacrifice himself to contain evil, and ultimately falls to darkness.

    These are really cool character elements, and they're cool precisely because you start off as just some guy but become something else. Calling him Aidan, son of Leoric, changes his motivation and colors the warrior in a way that seems unfamiliar and\ nonsensical to people who played Diablo 1.

    The difference with this retcon, and the reason people are so up in arms about it, is that it doesn't really contribute anything important to the story. There was nothing lacking in the warrior's character as the story stood. It feels like a slap in the face from the writers who are just trying desperately to connect pieces of someone else's story because they can't write a good enough story themselves to captivate anyone.
    Reply Quote
    Retcons are for ailing franchises and mistakes.


    Diablo 2 retconned much of Diablo 1's more Christian lore and streamlined it. Warcraft 2 retconned events from Warcraft 1, Warcraft 3 in turn retconned Warcraft 2's events.

    I do not blame Blizzard for retconning this story, given the original writers of it quit halfway through developing the game and took the story with them. Basically they left Blizzard with two games worth of build up, then left. Of course Blizzard had to retcon things.


    Diablo 2 retconned nothing from Diablo 1, you never played, nor read the game manuels. Shut the !@#$ up you %^-*ing retard.

    This thread is full of fail. Lots of people in here who have obviously never played D1, nor cared as much to even look up the lore behind it. We have a lot of WoW children who read the crap novels written by hack writers because they wanted to get gothic.

    Heres the truth, there is a huge plot hole. In the journal entries in Act 1, Leoric describes Albrecht and Aidans reaction to moving into their new homes. READ - Aidan was in Tristram when Leoric came from Westmarch. In D1 lore, Albrecht is taken by Lazarus into the Monastary to be given to diablo to posses. This loss of his son, and the disapperance of Lazarus who, suprisingly, is the only one helping him maintain his sanity, throws him into a fit of rage. He accuses people in the town of kidnapping his son. He begins executing people left and right. This is when Leoric becomes the Black King, Lachdanan then comes back as he is searching for his son, and puts and end to his madness.

    Where is Aidan during all of this? Never explained. How come people within Tristram do not know him? How do they know Albrecht but not the crown prince?

    The story fails, people don't pay attention, and Blizzard pointlessly retcons things for stupid reasons and you idiots eat it up.

    This is a serious retcon, only people who never played Diablo 1 and don't understand that this is a key centerpiece to the D1 story say that it is not serious. And the writing for Diablo 1, far superior to the following games.

    Shut up all of you wow !@#$%^s.
    Edited by Covered#1591 on 6/27/2012 8:15 PM PDT
    Reply Quote
    06/08/2012 05:30 AMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
    Apparently that didn't get read. Like I said I have absolutely no problem with giving him a name,title, and a backstory. However, I do have a problem with contradicting the lore thats already been established.


    Which were essentially a couple of easily-missed sentences.

    Blizzard could have chosen hundreds of other titles and backstories that didn't effect the previous lore. Imagine if a writer pulled that in a book trilogy; you just finish establishing a storyline and lore for the past two books; then go ahead and change previous character relationships from book 1 while continuing the same storyline.


    That didn't prevent Blizzard from retconning WarCraft I's Orc commander into Orgrim Doomhammer in WarCraft II. Or retconning the Warrior in D2 as the one who slayed Diablo while demoting the other two heroes as mere sidekicks. Or Artanis as Episode III's Executor in post-BW fiction.

    All these changes contradicted previously established lore, and yet I don't recall anyone complaining about them ruining anything. Why would retconning a non-character such as Aidan be any different?

    Besides, I haven't read the Book of Cain, but there are plausible explanations for Aidan not getting acknowledged as Leoric's elder son. They say he was estranged from his family, so one could assume he was illegitimate, adopted or disowned by his father, and his willingless to take Albrecht's burden off his shoulders - quite literally - was his attempt at redemption and/or recognition.


    The change of the dark wanderer into the warrior is an astetic change that doesn't effect much. There is a perplexing question, who actually sacrificed themselves to contain diablo? Do we import the character from the previous game? Do we let the player select whom it was? Or do we just establish a base line and move on from there. Blizzard has done this before, i.e. WC1 to WC2, obviously the good side fails since Stormwind falls.

    Its not a retcon since it is not lore from D1, lore is prior to the game or events in the game. This was simply the selection of a specific ending and continuing on from there.

    Changing to give Leoric another son (who is in Tristram before Leoric's fall, there are journal entries about it...) is a significant change, never mind the actual cause of Leorics fall is not detail, lightly glossed over, in D3 since D3 completely contradicts the events leading up to D1.
    Reply Quote
    They retconned this for Diablo 2.

    If you look at the cinematic the Wanderer is very clearly the male warrior.

    However in Diablo 1 they hero could be either female or a Wizard, neither of whom would look like the Wanderer from the Diablo 2 cinematic.

    And before people go off and say that even in Diablo 1 these events could have happened because of some book that was written or what not I will point out that in Diablo 1 only one hero descends into the Cathedral to fight Diablo so only one hero can emerge. There were not 3 heroes who went down into that Cathedral to fight Diablo so there cannot be 3 people who emerged.

    And the ending cinematic outright states that it was your hero who stuck the soulstone in his or her forehead and then goes wandering off to try finding salvation.

    But that's hardly the end of the world since it doesn't really add or subtract anything from the games, at least for me.
    Edited by Shahadem#1174 on 6/27/2012 11:04 PM PDT
    Reply Quote
    They retconned this for Diablo 2.

    If you look at the cinematic the Wanderer is very clearly the male warrior.

    However in Diablo 1 they hero could be either female or a Wizard, neither of whom would look like the Wanderer from the Diablo 2 cinematic.

    And before people go off and say that even in Diablo 1 these events could have happened because of some book that was written or what not I will point out that in Diablo 1 only one hero descends into the Cathedral to fight Diablo so only one hero can emerge. There were not 3 heroes who went down into that Cathedral to fight Diablo so there cannot be 3 people who emerged.

    And the ending cinematic outright states that it was your hero who stuck the soulstone in his or her forehead and then goes wandering off to try finding salvation.

    But that's hardly the end of the world since it doesn't really add or subtract anything from the games, at least for me.

    Selecting one ending is not a retcon, one of them had to be true (Or else Diablo 2 needed to be split into 3 story paths, which while doable isn't really practical).

    Aidan is a retcon because he existed in none of the endings.
    Reply Quote
    Because I don't like retcon as much as the next guy, here is a direct quote from the Diablo 1 Instruction Manual, you know, back when instruction manuals were a good read.

    "... Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric - and dragged the terrified youth down into the blackness of the labyrinth."

    I bolded the dashes too.
    Edited by VitaminBEEF#1540 on 6/28/2012 4:46 PM PDT
    Reply Quote
    Because I don't like retcon as much as the next guy, here is a direct quote from the Diablo 1 Instruction Manual, you know, back when instruction manuals were a good read.

    "... Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric - and dragged the terrified youth down into the blackness of the labyrinth."

    I bolded the dashes too.


    Blizzard de-canonized Diablo 1's instruction manual and in-game dialogue some time ago, actually.
    Reply Quote
    Because I don't like retcon as much as the next guy, here is a direct quote from the Diablo 1 Instruction Manual, you know, back when instruction manuals were a good read.

    "... Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric - and dragged the terrified youth down into the blackness of the labyrinth."

    I bolded the dashes too.


    Blizzard de-canonized Diablo 1's instruction manual and in-game dialogue some time ago, actually.

    About the time they dissolved Blizzard North maybe?
    Reply Quote
    The whole story issue rerminds of the time when I used to work for pen and paper rpg publishers. Sometimes a publishers created a really cool world and the game sold well, but later on it became obvious that some stuff wasn't thought through. Or, the content just wasn't extensive enough to publish a whole series of books.

    So you had to make up new content, flesh out the world some more. I can definitely see the same problem with Diablo, which started out as a very basic world and had to be expanded for the sequels of the original game.

    I h ave accepted the whole Aidan thing, it's okay. But it would have been better if they had either managed to go without it, or pumped the whole plothook up some more.
    Reply Quote
    Making the Aidan Leoric's other son didn't make any sense for several reasons.

    1) In Diablo 1 Albrecht was Leoric's only son, when he was kidnapped Leoric went insane, and you were trying to rescue him because he was the heir to the throne. Lazarus was even able to trick the townspeople into going into the Cathedral to search for Albrecht because he was the only heir (Lazarus lead them to the Butcher).

    If Leoric had another son then this means that he could have take control of Tristram and tried to fix the situation, rather than leave everyone with no clear leader.

    2) Once Leah learns that Aidan was her father she never mentions that makes her a princess or the heir to Tristram. Her heritage is never mentioned by anyone or used in any way. So what was the point of making Aidan's Leoric's son? He could have been the son of a farmer and it would have had the same effect on the plot.
    Reply Quote
    retcon=lazy writing
    Reply Quote
    06/06/2012 05:33 PMPosted by Melyria
    Retcons are for ailing franchises and mistakes.


    Diablo 2 retconned much of Diablo 1's more Christian lore and streamlined it. Warcraft 2 retconned events from Warcraft 1, Warcraft 3 in turn retconned Warcraft 2's events.

    I do not blame Blizzard for retconning this story, given the original writers of it quit halfway through developing the game and took the story with them. Basically they left Blizzard with two games worth of build up, then left. Of course Blizzard had to retcon things.


    Shut up you moron. D2 didn't retcon anything from D1, infact it picks up exactly where D1 left off. Other than some ambiguity on the realm of Heaven, nothing is changed and you essentially "go back" through the story presented in the D1 manual (ie, the end of the Dark Exile with the 3 brothers being bound).

    There is no removal or reduction in the "christian themes" presented in D2, the only difference is YOU ARE NOT CLEARING OUT A POSSESSED MONASTARY!!! And as for you comments on Crosses and Pentagrams, I challenge you to present these. There are plenty of youtube videos of D1 play, because I know you have never played it, and the manual can easily be found in PDF format.

    Of if you are too lazy, the manual has no pentagrams or crosses in it. The first 4 levels (the actual monastary, do not have crosses in them. The only time I think a pentagram is present is during the Lazarus quest when you go to the alter with a kid on it.

    Zakarum lore in D2 is exactly the same as it is in D1 (Lazarus follows Zakarum BTW, as does Leoric).
    Reply Quote
    As a fan of all 3 Diablo games it came as a surprise to me that the hero from D1 who became Dibalo in D2 was the son of Leoric. I only cared a little bit but cannon wise I'm used to this from the Mortal Kombat series. Each MK character has an ending but you dont find out the cannon ending until the next game came out.

    The ending of D1 to me was a WTF moment. Finding out the "warrior" was the now new Diablo in D2 was nice as hey why wouldn't The Lord of Terror choose his new form from a warrior who decended the hellish depth all the way to him? Sure it left me with well what about the Rouge and mage from D1? But if I remember correctly Blood Raven is that Rouge and the Mage is also a corrupted character somewhere in D2? Correct me if I'm wrong on the mage though. I heard it that after D1 it was established that all 3 heroes went down but only the warrior took on the soulstone thus becoming Diablo. That warrior is faceless (on purpose so he's special to your own playthrough) In D2 that same warrior is now corrupted but still faceless/nameless. Not until 20 years later (D3 event time line) is it revealed that your faceless warrior is given a face and a name. He is Aidan, the other son of Leoric.

    Would I have liked to of known this back in Diablo 1? Yes, but back then Blizzard never knew how well Diablo would take off and create new games/expansions and thus have a bigger and deeper world. I see the reasoning behind making Aidan the man from D1 but yes I would of liked to of known that back then. There are holes in certain areas like why didn't Tristram's folks know him, why did certain tales/books say Leoric had only one son. Maybe Tistram's townfolk didn't pay attention to Aidan during the events of Diablo 1. Maybe Aidan was around but reclusive or training as a warrior in private. Perhaps Leah's mother Adia (spellcheck) kinda stired Aidan in the course of him eventually going down knowing he was the best choice for Diablo to posses. Who knows? Questions have been answered in Diablo 3 but there are still more questions left unanswered but like in real life thats always the case. Why did that guy eat the other guys face in Flordia? Why do some people like the McRib? All unknown just like the whereabouts of Aidan in early Diablo lore and why the townspeople didn't recognize him. Maybe the town is so small and life so drull and depressing that they didn't care who wondered around town let alone who they where.

    All in all I'm satisfied that Diablo 3 gave some backstory. Is it a full 100% covers every tiny tidbit piece of dialog or book writing from D1 and D2? No but its good enough for a person that just wants to enjoy the game. Agree or disagree or bash my insight and opinions to your will. I'm not on enough to see the responses or care, just wanted to throw my voice out there.

    P.S. Only small problem I had with D3 is that Diablo's form was a female's. That why we had Anderial and the demon chick from the Sin War books. I wanted my D3 Diablo beefer, bigger, just more vicious looking. More like a mix of his form in D2 and maybe combined with say a dragon.
    Edited by XWFIceberg#1109 on 7/1/2012 3:59 PM PDT
    Reply Quote
    90 Human Mage
    11585
    07/01/2012 03:56 PMPosted by XWFIceberg
    But if I remember correctly Blood Raven is that Rouge and the Mage is also a corrupted character somewhere in D2?

    The Summoner in act 2 was the mage from D1.

    07/01/2012 03:56 PMPosted by XWFIceberg
    Would I have liked to of known this back in Diablo 1? Yes, but back then Blizzard never knew how well Diablo would take off and create new games/expansions and thus have a bigger and deeper world. I see the reasoning behind making Aidan the man from D1 but yes I would of liked to of known that back then.

    That's the problem with a story, you only create as much content as required to make it work. So when you want to add stuff you end up running into problems, and thus retcons happen. Well that and sometimes an idea that seemed awesome at the time turns out to be lame, or worse hard to work with and thus needs to be changed.

    That's why I view retcons like archaeology, we have one version of events until other evidence proves differently. My favourite example of this is Sargeras; we're lead to believe it was the Eredar who corrupted him, when in truth he became corrupt and they were his first recruits. Though considering everything we knew of his origins was told to us by demons, it makes sense they would lie.

    P.S. Only small problem I had with D3 is that Diablo's form was a female's. That why we had Anderial and the demon chick from the Sin War books. I wanted my D3 Diablo beefer, bigger, just more vicious looking. More like a mix of his form in D2 and maybe combined with say a dragon.

    The speculation on that is it's because he possessed a female body.
    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)
    Submit Cancel

    Reported!

    [Close]