im not sure but i think the book "moon of the spider" talks about her. (im not sure coz i havent read that one yet)
I'm not saying it's Duriel. But Duriel was the Prince of Pain and looked kind of like that. She is the Mistress of Pain. I was just wondering if they were related in some way.
I found an artwork picture, in it, a spider like woman is labeled, Mistress of Pain. This reminded me of Duriel, so I looked at him, and he looks slightly spider like as well. Coincidence?
I can't insert the picture, I don't know how, but here's the link. It's the first one.
Chill man, it's just the 5. No more, no less. Maybe in an expansion. But several classes can mean anything from 3 to 7. 5 is right there in the middle. It's just 5. Sorry. :thumbsup:
This is complete speculation on my part, but I've thought about this for a while and I don't know if there are any other threads (I'm a very new member).
So, the Triune apparently plays a role in Diablo 3. I'm sure most of you have seen the picture of the demon with 3 faces. It is my understanding that there is a high priest for each of the followings in the Triune, one for Dialon, Bala, and Mefis. Respectively, Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto. Now, what if each of the high priests, had a part of their respective Evil's soul embedded within them. And now that the soulstones are destroyed, it is the last resort, and they combine their souls, to create the Triune, a combination of Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto. Any thoughts?
This is purely speculation as to what I think will happen. I'm sure the Angels will play a big role as well, but I'm not sure what that is.
The Spoiler alert was about the Triune and how I revealed a little bit of information about them. Sorry...
Edit: Yes, it is something from the books. It's also in the Wiki. At least I BELIEVE it's in the books. I got to reading the Wiki and well... Did you one better, got the page!
What constitutes a true fighter? Someone who's actually fought? I know brute force helps, but brute force is in no way a match for a great intellect. But you're really starting to sound like the Hate Mailers on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website. Not the really really really cursy ones, the ones who seem to have a wall of stupidity surrounding their head, preventing any logical thought that skews from their opinions to get through.
And there you go. The Spartans are gone because they are so unbending. Their army got smaller and smaller and they eventually lost. The Monks are still here. They are more flexible and adapted to the times. Yes I disagree with their way of life. Yes I called them not the most intelligent. You know why? They are GONE. The strong and smart survive. If they were smart they'd still be alive.
I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact. I'm presenting my opinion in a way suggesting it to be more plausible than yours and trying to convince you that I am right. And I know a lot of the story of both.
I also think the word "certain" has escaped your vocabulary. A monk would win in a CERTAIN fight, just like a Spartan would win in a CERTAIN fight. And there is such a thing as a certain victory. It's called, "machine gun vs rock." Unless the guy with the machine gun is an idiot. Like REALLY stupid. I'm talking Teen Miss South Carolina stupid. (buh-zing) I do not overrate them. I just find them to be more superior in more aspects when you compare them to other warriors from history. Overall, I think they're the best. If you wanted to get down into the nitty gritty, there are probably plenty better in certain aspects.
There were some good comments over on Diii.Net (hope it's okay to mention another site?) about this where it basically looks like Germany is getting ready to possibly put very strict laws into place opposing violent video games, and D3 would almost assuredly be banned -- most seem to think this is what Bashiok is referring to.
I haven't heard about this. Poor, poor Germans... I feel for them. But I don't think the name will be changed, it might possibly be edited for the German copies, but not for all of ours.
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes.
I've been a fan for a long time, and before coming to this site, I thought I knew a lot about the Diablo world. Now I find out there are books. I was wondering if I could get a list of all the Diablo books out there, as I would like to purchase them. I know of the Sin War Trilogy, but that's it.
I forgot about an eye test and had to get them checked out. I wasn't done, I just couldn't type anymore. It hurt Anywhosenheimer, you are all focusing on the Bo staff like it's going to be the last weapon in the monk's arsenal. It really should be the first. If you're going to pit a Barbarian against a Monk with a Bo staff, the Barbarian should have a buckler, a hand axe, MAYBE some quilted/leather armor, and a helmet if he's lucky.
The Monks fought without armor because they didn't NEED any.
I know the Spartans are awesome, I'm with you there, but not the best warriors in history. That's why the Monk's lifestyle is still around today, and the Spartan's isn't. *raises eyebrow* If they were so awesome, why aren't we still like them? There are plenty of Monks still out there today.
I have never said Spartans aren't awesome, and hand to hand I'm sure almost no one could beat them.
Something from a previous post of yours, there are very few child Shaolin deaths whereas the Spartans had many. What the hell does that prove? That they were far harsher than they needed to be and killed off a lot of their young? The Shaolin had more Shaolin Monks because none of them DIE. Killing off children is by no means a measure of strength. Next you'll be saying it's manly to rape a woman.
The Spartans (and I mean no offense) were NOT the smartest bunch out there. I'm not trying to be insulting but the Athenians were smarter, and you know it. That being said, a great strategic mind is what can change the tide of a battle. The Shaolin Monks train both their minds and their bodies. Meaning that they will undoubtedly be far more intelligent than your average warrior.
Brute force doesn't win battles, it sure as hell can help if directed in the correct way, but in a fight between a Barbarian and a Monk with a Bo staff, the Monk would beat the crap out of the Barbarian, because the Barb has very little armor on.
And yes I put up why I'm cutting off my arguement halfway through, so you don't think I missed a few points, so you can't claim that I didn't know how to argue my way out of them, I just ran out of time, or had something to do, so I had to post it.
They're so adorable! I just wanna take them home and somther them, and give them so much love they FUCKING DROWN IN IT! THEY WILL FUCKING DROWN IT! AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
That was also a definition of the Barbarian, but it isn't the only one. And the Monks had plenty of chances to defend themselves, as they would travel around temple to temple with supplies, or even just heading to town, and bandits would try and take all their stuff. They had their butts handed to them. On a silver platter. With potatoes and carrots. It was slow roasted.
I am mostly norwegian (like 4/5 or 2/3 or something like that) and I know my Viking ancestry, and I consider them fierce warriors. One of the defintions for warrior is as you said, a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier. That being said, another defintion is a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics, by this definition, Monks were most certainly great warriors. And maybe in Diablo lore the Barbarians were weapon masters, but seeing as you like to take everything literally from real life, barbarians were in fact, uncivilized, more often than not.
The problems that have with you saying that the Barbarian is a better fighter, is the fact that you claim they are Weapon Masters. A weapon master to me means someone, who from BIRTH, has practiced with a single weapon. I consider no one to be a true weapon master, as the Barbarian focuses in a far more broad range of weaponry, he isn't a Master with a singular weapon. By this the Monk is also not a Weapon Master.
And no, Martial Arts were NOT, in fact, created in Greece or Ancient Rome, as for some reason you deem to be correct. It was created in Mesopotamia, and then traveled to China, where it blossomed. The actual definition for a Martial Arts is any form of organized fighting. Yes, it was practiced in Greece and Rome and just about EVERY other civilization out there.
Why you think that because I bring up him being large means I think he has no skill? I think he has no skill, and he happens to BE large. The best Martial Artist I've personally ever met was a large man. I don't know what he'd weight in kg, but he weighed at least 300 pounds.
I undestand Monks trained in MANY other types of weaponry (I said this) other than the staff. I just think the most badass weapons of the Shaolin Monks was the staff/polearm weaponry, and the 9-section chain whip. I used the staves because they seem to be the most unique, while being the most easily expanded throughout the game. I mean, what can you do with the chain whip? More chain whips? They get boring.
Now, back to the vikings. I know all about them. I think that the only reason they were really able to ransack europe the way they did was BECAUSE of their seamansihp (which was probably some of the greatest at the time), otherwise they just would've died because of exhaustion from marching or disease or various other things. That's all I have to say on the viking thing, but it leads me to my next point...
The Barbarians are pretty much Vikings, without the boats. Vikings were violent, crazed berserkers. The Barbarians are violent, crazed berserkers. And remember, we're not using any kind of fantasy game lore, we're using real life history. It all has to be 100% true. Don't forget that.
Now saying that the Monk isn't a true warrior, or far from it, is just flat out wrong. A true warrior does NOT have to prove himself in battle. I feel like I've typed something like this before, but I've had customers up here so I can't remember. If so it's up there.
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
I may be a little prick, but your mother likes me. If you know what I mean.
And she also prefers other items, rather than the staff.
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.
0
I'm not saying it's Duriel. But Duriel was the Prince of Pain and looked kind of like that. She is the Mistress of Pain. I was just wondering if they were related in some way.
0
I can't insert the picture, I don't know how, but here's the link. It's the first one.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/artwork.xml#12
0
0
So, the Triune apparently plays a role in Diablo 3. I'm sure most of you have seen the picture of the demon with 3 faces. It is my understanding that there is a high priest for each of the followings in the Triune, one for Dialon, Bala, and Mefis. Respectively, Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto. Now, what if each of the high priests, had a part of their respective Evil's soul embedded within them. And now that the soulstones are destroyed, it is the last resort, and they combine their souls, to create the Triune, a combination of Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto. Any thoughts?
This is purely speculation as to what I think will happen. I'm sure the Angels will play a big role as well, but I'm not sure what that is.
The Spoiler alert was about the Triune and how I revealed a little bit of information about them. Sorry...
Edit: Yes, it is something from the books. It's also in the Wiki. At least I BELIEVE it's in the books. I got to reading the Wiki and well... Did you one better, got the page!
http://wiki.diablofans.com/index.php/Triune
0
And there you go. The Spartans are gone because they are so unbending. Their army got smaller and smaller and they eventually lost. The Monks are still here. They are more flexible and adapted to the times. Yes I disagree with their way of life. Yes I called them not the most intelligent. You know why? They are GONE. The strong and smart survive. If they were smart they'd still be alive.
I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact. I'm presenting my opinion in a way suggesting it to be more plausible than yours and trying to convince you that I am right. And I know a lot of the story of both.
I also think the word "certain" has escaped your vocabulary. A monk would win in a CERTAIN fight, just like a Spartan would win in a CERTAIN fight. And there is such a thing as a certain victory. It's called, "machine gun vs rock." Unless the guy with the machine gun is an idiot. Like REALLY stupid. I'm talking Teen Miss South Carolina stupid. (buh-zing) I do not overrate them. I just find them to be more superior in more aspects when you compare them to other warriors from history. Overall, I think they're the best. If you wanted to get down into the nitty gritty, there are probably plenty better in certain aspects.
0
I haven't heard about this. Poor, poor Germans... I feel for them. But I don't think the name will be changed, it might possibly be edited for the German copies, but not for all of ours.
0
0
0
I've been a fan for a long time, and before coming to this site, I thought I knew a lot about the Diablo world. Now I find out there are books. I was wondering if I could get a list of all the Diablo books out there, as I would like to purchase them. I know of the Sin War Trilogy, but that's it.
Thanks!
0
The Monks fought without armor because they didn't NEED any.
I know the Spartans are awesome, I'm with you there, but not the best warriors in history. That's why the Monk's lifestyle is still around today, and the Spartan's isn't. *raises eyebrow* If they were so awesome, why aren't we still like them? There are plenty of Monks still out there today.
I have never said Spartans aren't awesome, and hand to hand I'm sure almost no one could beat them.
Something from a previous post of yours, there are very few child Shaolin deaths whereas the Spartans had many. What the hell does that prove? That they were far harsher than they needed to be and killed off a lot of their young? The Shaolin had more Shaolin Monks because none of them DIE. Killing off children is by no means a measure of strength. Next you'll be saying it's manly to rape a woman.
The Spartans (and I mean no offense) were NOT the smartest bunch out there. I'm not trying to be insulting but the Athenians were smarter, and you know it. That being said, a great strategic mind is what can change the tide of a battle. The Shaolin Monks train both their minds and their bodies. Meaning that they will undoubtedly be far more intelligent than your average warrior.
Brute force doesn't win battles, it sure as hell can help if directed in the correct way, but in a fight between a Barbarian and a Monk with a Bo staff, the Monk would beat the crap out of the Barbarian, because the Barb has very little armor on.
And yes I put up why I'm cutting off my arguement halfway through, so you don't think I missed a few points, so you can't claim that I didn't know how to argue my way out of them, I just ran out of time, or had something to do, so I had to post it.
0
0
It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
0
That was also a definition of the Barbarian, but it isn't the only one. And the Monks had plenty of chances to defend themselves, as they would travel around temple to temple with supplies, or even just heading to town, and bandits would try and take all their stuff. They had their butts handed to them. On a silver platter. With potatoes and carrots. It was slow roasted.
I am mostly norwegian (like 4/5 or 2/3 or something like that) and I know my Viking ancestry, and I consider them fierce warriors. One of the defintions for warrior is as you said, a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier. That being said, another defintion is a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics, by this definition, Monks were most certainly great warriors. And maybe in Diablo lore the Barbarians were weapon masters, but seeing as you like to take everything literally from real life, barbarians were in fact, uncivilized, more often than not.
The problems that have with you saying that the Barbarian is a better fighter, is the fact that you claim they are Weapon Masters. A weapon master to me means someone, who from BIRTH, has practiced with a single weapon. I consider no one to be a true weapon master, as the Barbarian focuses in a far more broad range of weaponry, he isn't a Master with a singular weapon. By this the Monk is also not a Weapon Master.
And no, Martial Arts were NOT, in fact, created in Greece or Ancient Rome, as for some reason you deem to be correct. It was created in Mesopotamia, and then traveled to China, where it blossomed. The actual definition for a Martial Arts is any form of organized fighting. Yes, it was practiced in Greece and Rome and just about EVERY other civilization out there.
Why you think that because I bring up him being large means I think he has no skill? I think he has no skill, and he happens to BE large. The best Martial Artist I've personally ever met was a large man. I don't know what he'd weight in kg, but he weighed at least 300 pounds.
I undestand Monks trained in MANY other types of weaponry (I said this) other than the staff. I just think the most badass weapons of the Shaolin Monks was the staff/polearm weaponry, and the 9-section chain whip. I used the staves because they seem to be the most unique, while being the most easily expanded throughout the game. I mean, what can you do with the chain whip? More chain whips? They get boring.
Now, back to the vikings. I know all about them. I think that the only reason they were really able to ransack europe the way they did was BECAUSE of their seamansihp (which was probably some of the greatest at the time), otherwise they just would've died because of exhaustion from marching or disease or various other things. That's all I have to say on the viking thing, but it leads me to my next point...
The Barbarians are pretty much Vikings, without the boats. Vikings were violent, crazed berserkers. The Barbarians are violent, crazed berserkers. And remember, we're not using any kind of fantasy game lore, we're using real life history. It all has to be 100% true. Don't forget that.
Now saying that the Monk isn't a true warrior, or far from it, is just flat out wrong. A true warrior does NOT have to prove himself in battle. I feel like I've typed something like this before, but I've had customers up here so I can't remember. If so it's up there.
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
But I can't type more right now, I'll be back.
0
0
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.