Albrecht comes back.

Lore and Story
Here's an idea, blizzard, and instead of a 'Why didn't you?' I'll make it a 'How about...':

So remember how all of those who were unjustly slain during Diablo's reign of terror came back to unlife because of Tyrael's fall? Well it seems fairly evident that no life was taken more unjustly than Leoric's son (as best told, his only son) Albrecht.

Here comes the 'How 'bout...'

Since, for whatever reason, -there is still no justice- in the world, because Tyrael is now the Aspect of Wisdom ....Aidan comes back into action. The Skeleton King can do it, The Butcher can do it, Diablo can do it, even !@#$ing Izual can do it. Why shouldn't Albrecht be able to come back in the expansion, either as friend or foe. If handled properly, Albrecht could make a very engaging antagonist in the first or second expansion, and lend the story some cohesiveness it desperately needs.
Hm. It would be interesting, but that's not really what caught my eye here.

The Butcher didn't come back, and the monster lore entry explains this.

Diablo came came back through a bloodline host who was exposed to a stone containing Diablo's soul, not because of Tyrael's fall... though Tyrael did unknowingly help Diablo rise again.

Izual came back because, well... angels, corrupted angels, demons, and Prime Evils can only be destroyed under very specific conditions, and those conditions haven't been met in any Diablo game so far for Izual.

The Skeleton King is really the only one of those four that you can use to try to make your case, and he already came back from death once before, long before Tyrael fell. Also, Tyrael fell right past the Black King, so proximity may also be a factor, but the game never mentions proximity, so this is mere speculation.

Still, Leoric and Albrecht are very different cases. Leoric, though a former host of Diablo and mentally corrupted, was never completely broken, so he couldn't be used by Diablo to physically manifest. Albrecht, on the other hand, had the stone in his head and was used to allow Diablo to physically manifest through his body.

Leoric was corrupted by a Prime Evil. Albrecht became one, as did Aidan.

So, while Leoric and his sons are similar in some ways, they are very different in others.

That being said, if Leah comes back, I see no reason why Aidan and Albrecht can't.
Maybe Albrecht and Aidan did come back to life as a child skeleton in the cathedral and a mangled corpse in the middle of hell (assuming a corpse eater didn't get to him first).
01/03/2013 06:18 PMPosted by TDW1996
The Butcher didn't come back, and the monster lore entry explains this.


Fair point. My problem with the butcher isn't the lore issue. I recall an interview where Metzen said they brought the Butcher back for new fans of the series to have a sense of the original. The problem is, the original isn't hard to come by, and it's got its own great story. There are plenty of retro-gamers these days. Even my roommates started playing Warcraft 2 yesterday. I'm pretty sure that one came out the year they were born. Diablo 1 can easily be found and enjoyed for its own merits. Trying to bring back excellent plot elements for the third game just strikes me as a poor cop-out.

Diablo came came back through a bloodline host who was exposed to a stone containing Diablo's soul, not because of Tyrael's fall... though Tyrael did unknowingly help Diablo rise again.


My only problem with that is the fact that there wasn't a bloodline issue before. That Aidan became the next host is completely arbitrary. It could have been any other hero (and indeed was, for a time. That's what made the second game so outstanding. The player had an emotional investment [assuming he played the original, which I think is safe.])

In a more recent interview, Metzen even says that because the Worldstone was destroyed, the more powerful aspects can manifest themselves without a host at all. The said part about it is that Leah's very presence in the game is made superfluous for TWO reasons: She doesn't take over for Cain as a lore-keeper in-game, and she doesn't need to be related to the king. She literally has no good reason to be there.

01/03/2013 06:18 PMPosted by TDW1996
So, while Leoric and his sons are similar in some ways, they are very different in others.


Extremely valid point. Which would only add to the intrigue of his character if he were reintroduced.
01/07/2013 12:11 PMPosted by TheChemicals
Aiden...what a made up name.


Oh, totally. It can be traced back over a thousand years, and has been in common use for at least a tenth of that time. I'd wager more people have that name than play this game regularly. Still, it was clearly made up at some point, so you'd be right.

01/08/2013 03:19 PMPosted by Kirihn
Trying to bring back excellent plot elements for the third game just strikes me as a poor cop-out.

While I agree (with the exception of those that are part of an overarching theme, such as "evil corrupts" and the like), is a single boss encounter with someone like The Butcher really integral to the plot? "A sense of the original" doesn't just have to apply to plot elements, you know. It can apply to one-shot bosses who are extremely similar to those in previous games.

01/08/2013 03:19 PMPosted by Kirihn
My only problem with that is the fact that there wasn't a bloodline issue before.

Well, it would seem there might be now. Before the retcon, it could have been any other hero. After the retcon, I'm not so sure.

As for Aspects being able to manifest with the Worldstone destroyed, up to two have, those being Azmodan and Belial. Keep in mind, though, that they were FREE. Diablo was stuck in the stone. That changes things. One could speculate and say Leah wasn't superfluous, as Diablo was stuck in there with the rest of the evils and may have needed a host attuned to him to make the physical jump. In the past, trapped evils could mentally corrupt from a stone, but could not physically transform a host without the stone being involved, usually (perhaps always) being physically inserted. The important point here is that inserting the stone establishes a physical link between an evil and the host, but the link was ALREADY present in Leah with the bloodline, so it may have given Diablo an upper hand and allowed him to come out on top and harness the powers of all the evils.

I'd speculate more, as I used to enjoy doing so, but I'm honestly sick of the story at this point. It has great potential, it IS chock full of great (and, even with a retcon, consistent) lore, but the delivery isn't the best, and more importantly, the company isn't involved in this forum. We can't get definitive answers, even ones that are self-evident such as "Leah served as a personification of innocence, hopes, and dreams, and her eventual corruption and possession by Diablo is meant to evoke an emotional response in players who have become attached to her character, much like the death of Cain, which was also meant to show that even well-established characters are not safe from the threat of the Prime Evils." No Blizz employee, to the best of my knowledge, has ever even tossed out something like "Here's a possible reason for this NPC's inclusion (as in, what they represent and what purpose they serve in the story, not why they're present from the perspective of gameplay mechanics), explained in such a way that won't limit possible storylines of future expansions." It's gotten stale, and I'm sick of it.

As for Aidan or Albrecht, some of the Leah audio logs are interested, as it isn't clear if she's being driven mad, or is actually becoming Diablo, as some of her lines could be interpreted as coming from her mouth OR his. Aidan, dead some 20-odd years, would be very interesting. Would he be mad? Would he, having been so corrupted, essentially be Diablo, aligned to Diablo's goals and personality, even with the actual Evil trapped or destroyed? Would he be himself, out to stop evil and redeem himself for his past actions? So much potential, so little chance we'll actually see any of it fulfilled......
01/08/2013 07:12 PMPosted by TDW1996
So much potential, so little chance we'll actually see any of it fulfilled......


Agreed.

01/08/2013 07:12 PMPosted by TDW1996
We can't get definitive answers, even ones that are self-evident such as "Leah served as a personification of innocence, hopes, and dreams, and her eventual corruption and possession by Diablo is meant to evoke an emotional response in players who have become attached to her character, much like the death of Cain, which was also meant to show that even well-established characters are not safe from the threat of the Prime Evils."


If only players cared about her. I certainly wanted to, but players were given all of 2 Acts to try. She was hardly involved (via character interaction) in the third act, and became the prime evil in the fourth. We simply didn't have a chance. I don't have to tell you the reason for personal attachment to the villain/former hero in Diablo 2.. And there was plenty of it.

01/08/2013 07:12 PMPosted by TDW1996
It's gotten stale, and I'm sick of it.


*Sigh. Agreed.
The bit I don't understand is why Tyrael's fall awakened the Skeleton King. He said the undead were all those unjustly slain, but Leoric's slaying was just.
¡ I love the resurrections ¡ ¡ Is an exciting surprise ¡
The bit I don't understand is why Tyrael's fall awakened the Skeleton King. He said the undead were all those unjustly slain, but Leoric's slaying was just.

Skeleton King was not "quite" ressurected... I guess just his spirit was awaken due to the undead rising.
The hero was the one who fully ressurects him.
How about, just to change things up a bit, introducing a fallen demon, fighting for the light, as an ally of the antagonist? Corruption DOES go both ways, you know.
Leoric was a righteous and willful king, Albretch was just a kid. Leoric was corrupted by Diablo, Albretch had his body, mind and soul ripped to shreds by diablo. I don't think Albretch COULD come back in any way without a great deal of inconsistency in the story. cain is more likely to be brought back than him.

and pls keep leah dead!
05/17/2013 11:24 AMPosted by Oakshal
How about, just to change things up a bit, introducing a fallen demon, fighting for the light, as an ally of the antagonist? Corruption DOES go both ways, you know.


corruption = evil.

what you speak of is conversion.
I think the inclusion of Leah into the story was a good idea, to be honest. Having her be the progeny of Adria and the hero form Diablo 1 re-established the "emotional attachment" that you had in Diablo 2 when you were hunting "Aidan" down. It also nicely fit the theme of the first act closely, as here you are, in Tristram, with Cain, and now the offspring of the hero from the first game. On top of that, Leoric and The Butcher were the two bosses in the act. I found it simply perfect. an entire act of "back to the roots" sort of feelings. Hell, even the music was the same. I appreciated, loved, and want more of these nods to the genres past both in the storytelling and play style. The Idea of Aidan coming back? I would say not very likely. Aidan physically transformed into Diablo after his corruption was complete, and that physical form was destroyed in Diablo 2. As far as any reincarnation of Aidan's spirit.. well Aidan's spirit is the Hero from Diablo 1, so it wouldnt work as a villain. there was a comment here about his spirit being so totally corrupted that he may act and behave like Diablo. While an interesting thought, I feel that this would ruin the nostalgaic feel that was created in Diablo 2&3, as it would prove that the original hero from Diablo 1 did not survive on any level whatsoever. I Simply would hate killing his spirit or whatever form he manifested into, because it would be literally killing your hero from Diablo 1. It would ruin the entire feel of the games that has been created over the years.
im also confuzzled a bit because you said "Aidan comes back into action" but the post title says albrecht, and you reference albrecht in your post alongside Aidan. Albrecht is leorics son who was fully corrupted by Diablo, and Aidan is the hero from Diablo 1 who met the same fate. Im not sure who you want to come back...
Last note.. as for the bloodline comments, I think the idea is that Leah was easily dominated by Diablo because she was his (alongside Aidan's) direct offspring. In essence Diablo's master plan was to create a Host that he could quickly dominate once all the Evil souls were collected in the soulstone. It took Diablo an insanely long amount of time to corrupt Aidan completely, but Diablo corrupted Leah in only the small amount of time that she spent with the soulstone (Act 2.5 to the end of Act 3). The bloodline link between leah and Diablo is the only thing that makes sense in explaining this. In essence, Leah was already corrupted by Diablo from the moment she was conceived.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum