Diablo 3 15 may

[Noctis]

god dammit you guys are obliterating this thread. why does malthael have to be evil? he could very well be a good guy. if anything inarius might go dark side and to be hit on the head a few times.

[Hawki]

god dammit you guys are obliterating this thread. why does malthael have to be evil? he could very well be a good guy. if anything inarius might go dark side and to be hit on the head a few times.

Who said he had to be evil? I'd say it's likely he'll be an antagonist in that we've got at least two expansions, but an antagonist doesn't mean being evil by default.

And I think you mean Imperius rather than Inarius, though I wouldn't mind encountering Inarius either.

[Turalyon]

god dammit you guys are obliterating this thread.

I take it we're "obliterating" it in a good way, I hope.

In a word, it tells. It doesn't show. The first three acts showed us what each Evil did, whereas all there is in Act IV are the claims of individuals such as Tyrael and Izual. I mean, I believe them to an extent, but there isn't much direct evidence that Diablo is amassing his forces. There's demons in the Chaos Sanctuary that I assume are loyal to him (as opposed to the stragglers that encompass most of the act) but it's hardly an army in the making.

So you do want masses of demons clogging up every square inch of Act IV then. How would this even make sense? You want to see evidence of an army but how would it be possible for one man/woman to, let alone, walk into Hell, wade through an entire army, make it to the general who would be heavily defended and defeat Diablo? You have to keep in mind that we haven't really established that Diablo is ready to invade now or just that you caught up to him while he was making preparations. That is all beside the point because the urgency of having to defeat Diablo still remains because the end result of not doing so is still going to be an invasion of Sanctuary and waiting too long would make the task (believably at least in-universe) impossible. If you were saying the whole setup for Act IV is ludicrous, you may indeed have a viable point, but the complaint you have is quite minor.

I shouldn't have to fancanon. No-one should have to. And quite frankly, that strikes me as stretching things.

Tell that to SC2...

Any assault made by Hell is going to originate from their own side of the Gates of Hell, so if your logistics argument is valid, set it up there. Maybe they have to carry their weapons a bit longer, but somehow, I don't see that being an issue.

I wasn't arguing that this was the sole reason, just offering a hypothetical answer to your question. The rest is up to you to see how that fits. This is even assuming that you're right that the Hell we find ourselves in is really "the outskirts" and that there are "Gates of Hell". You seem to fancon those ideas as being ok so why not the Hellforge?

He can't just walk into Hell and expect Azmodan and/or Belial to bow down.

Why not? Andy and Duriel changed their minds just like that. It took all the combined efforts of the Four lesser Evils to cast them out in the first place (and at great cost in terms of armed might it seems), now that the Three are free, roaming around and now possibly coming back into Hell, it wouldn't be so silly to say Azmodan and Belial may bow down to Diablo. Being the Lord of Terror, I can imagine him doing an effective Batman impersonation and yelling "Swear to me!" to Azmodan and Belial and they'll both kowtow in no time!

So, a bunch of rag-tag adventurers can take control of the Hellforge long enough to shatter Mephisto's soulstone, then do the same with Diablo's...and an entire host of angels can't?

That is absolutely right! My proof? Look at Izual. He led a host into Hell to attack the Hellforge to stop a demonblade from being made and he failed in more ways than one. Further proof is in D3 - those angels are so wimpy.

Don't get me wrong though, as I mentioned before this problem is pervasive in all games featuring singular (or a small team of) heroes who are seemingly all-powerful.

You do realize that it's Metzen or his equivalent in any current EU that's developing the story, that the authors are effectively ghost writers, right? Certainly they're allowed their own imput and ideas but they need clearence first. Or, if it's a story that isn't meant to change the status quo (e.g. the Frontline and Legends series, or the Diablo novels prior to The Sin War), then while the author is given wriggle room everything has to get clearence first. And even then there's the stuff written by the creators themselves.

It must be the cynic in me but all this says to me is that Metzen really is just lazy and bereft of ideas and that the EU writers are mostly just cashing in. Given the hackneyed, half-formed story in WoL I find it extremely difficult to think that there was ever any proper collaboration and feedback on that and, in retrospect, the books. I find it galling still that Metzen would even say that some of the books are the definitive version of the game's events (which to me sounds like it really is my fault for not reading them ). It's similar to the feeling I get when I think of how George Lucas would incessantly tinker away the charm of his Star Wars movies and then say each iteration is what he had always intended.

Even if we didn't have interveening character development for Raynor for instance, it's established from the start that a) four years have passed and b) things haven't gone well for him.

Which would be fine if the "4 years later" didn't seem so much like an excuse (or worse, a reset button) to avoid tackling and expanding on the newly-found resolve and direction Raynor had at the end of BW.

[Hawki]

So you do want masses of demons clogging up every square inch of Act IV then. How would this even make sense? You want to see evidence of an army but how would it be possible for one man/woman to, let alone, walk into Hell, wade through an entire army, make it to the general who would be heavily defended and defeat Diablo? You have to keep in mind that we haven't really established that Diablo is ready to invade now or just that you caught up to him while he was making preparations. That is all beside the point because the urgency of having to defeat Diablo still remains because the end result of not doing so is still going to be an invasion of Sanctuary and waiting too long would make the task (believably at least in-universe) impossible. If you were saying the whole setup for Act IV is ludicrous, you may indeed have a viable point, but the complaint you have is quite minor.

No, I'm saying there's a disconnect between what we're told, and what we're shown. Take a look at Izual's quote:

Tyrael was a fool to have trusted me! You see, it was I who told Diablo and his brothers about the Soulstones and how to corrupt them. It was I who helped the Prime Evils mastermind their exile to your world. The plan we set in motion so long ago cannot be stopped by any mortal agency. Hell itself is poised to spill forth into your world like a tidal wave of blood and nightmares. You and all your kind...are doomed".

Taking these words at their value, Hell is poised, Diablo has taken out Azmodan and Belial and we should be...well, doomed. There should be the army in the making that would realistically make completing the act impossible. I'm not claiming I could write a better story or anything, but off the top of my head, I'd change his declaration to:

Tyrael was a fool to have trusted me! You see, it was I who told Diablo and his brothers about the Soulstones and how to corrupt them. It was I who helped the Prime Evils mastermind their exile to your world. The plan we set in motion so long ago cannot be stopped by any mortal agency. Diablo will reclaim his place in Hell. Already demons flock to his banner. Azmodan and Belial shall bend knee to the Prime Evils. And in turn shall your kind."

Doesn't have the same level of threat, but it at least gels with the act itself. Diablo has an army in the making. Bad stuff is going to happen, but the heroes still have time to cut off the head of the snake.

Tell that to SC2...

I have, namely the Haven mission. It's another stretch of disbelief and it's another stretch I feel could have been avoided with just a few lines of dialogue.

I wasn't arguing that this was the sole reason, just offering a hypothetical answer to your question. The rest is up to you to see how that fits. This is even assuming that you're right that the Hell we find ourselves in is really "the outskirts" and that there are "Gates of Hell". You seem to fancon those ideas as being ok so why not the Hellforge?

The Gates of Hell have been mentioned before. Probably elsewhere as well, but at the least, they were mentioned in a tome from the first game. Logic dictates that the Pandemonium Fortress is on the 'good' side of those gates. Logic thus also dictates that the Hell we're experiencing is also on the other side. Logic breaks down with the Hellforge.

Why not? Andy and Duriel changed their minds just like that. It took all the combined efforts of the Four lesser Evils to cast them out in the first place (and at great cost in terms of armed might it seems), now that the Three are free, roaming around and now possibly coming back into Hell, it wouldn't be so silly to say Azmodan and Belial may bow down to Diablo. Being the Lord of Terror, I can imagine him doing an effective Batman impersonation and yelling "Swear to me!" to Azmodan and Belial and they'll both kowtow in no time!

I'd say Diablo is more of a Keaton Batman than a Bale one...

Which would be fine if the "4 years later" didn't seem so much like an excuse (or worse, a reset button) to avoid tackling and expanding on the newly-found resolve and direction Raynor had at the end of BW.

You know, this is subjective, but I think you're putting more emphasis on Raynor's "resolve" than is warrented. Yes, he promises Kerrigan he'll kill her, but it's made in the heat of the moment. We don't see Raynor for the rest of Brood War bar a blurb in the epilogue that he parted ways with Zeratul. If he'd made such a declaration then there'd be more weight behind it but a heat of the moment one is another kettle of fish.

Supposing Wings of Liberty kept the idea of vengeance. It's hardly abandoned it entirely since Raynor is still emotionally wounded. But forgetting everything that happened between BW and WoL for a moment, how would this work out realistically? The entire game would boil down to "Raynor against zerg." I'll throw out a storyline off the top of my head, with issues numbered:

It's been four years since the Brood War. Over those four years, Raynor and the Raiders have sought vengenace against the zerg.(1) They have had limited success, and yet the zerg have kept quiet.(2) But then something changes. The zerg invade.(3) The Dominion feels the brunt of the invasion, and while ground is held, it cannot be held forever. Yet there is hope. Valerian Mengsk knows of a xel'naga device that could revert Kerrigan to her old condition, cutting off the head of the beast.(4) Allying with the Dominion,(5) the Raiders embark on a series of missions to fetch the components. Yet Raynor changes. Zeratul visits him, showing that Kerrigan's survival is necessary. Should he pursue vengeance, or can he overcome it for the greater good?

Regardless, the moment of truth comes. The artifact is collected, and Char is invaded. Kerrigan is defeated. Raynor has vengenace in his grasp...but for the greater good, decides against it.(6)

Perhaps with more time one could come up with a better story and indeed, the above is based on the WoL paradigm. But look at the issues below:

1) Four years, no success. Our competant hero everybody. At least with the Dominion headway was made.

2) Why, if Raynor's constantly a thorn in their side?

3) So, it's Raynor's fault that the zerg have invaded? In the WoL paradigm, no, and this could add to his character. But if the suggestion's there, then why the heck would the Dominion trust him?

4) Bereft of a plot twist, and a repeat of the psi disruptor and Khalis crystals arc. They're McGuffins, but the games handle them differently. In the above version, it's a repeat.

5) Allying with the Dominion limits game mechanics. You can send the rebellion, terrazine and Mar Sara arcs out the window then. Heck, you'd be lucky to have any terran vs. terran missions that way.

6) Which happens in WoL anyway.

So, looking at it above, we're looking at a bare-bones WoL. We're looking at an angry Raynor who recklessly pursues vengeance, the lack of any mandate for the Dominion to be weakened and basically a repeat of the past games. Vengeance can be a motive, but the zerg aren't really the best race to do it against, because they're faceless apart from Kerrigan, and there's no logical possibility of him getting to her without military might. I'm trying to ignore EU stuff here given your stance on it but even if the Alliance plotline had been pursued, even if Raynor had the military might to make a difference, it would still boil down to "x vs. y."

[Noctis]

guys guys...clearly starcraft 2 will end with the arrival of the mystical panda race. carried through the cosmos on their keg-ships shooting bottle cap missiles blasting everybody in their path. leaving drunken frenzies in their wake. all shall cower. and they shall tear open a rift to.....the pony level.

troll end.

on topic - sorry i meant imperius. and yes i guess malthael could initially be antagonistic and become a "good" guy. i personally see him becoming the anti-hero type archangel to contrast with tyrael and all his righteousness.

the thing about overall diablo's current story is that they made clear that the prime evil's as well as the archangel's can be remanifested/incarnated continuously. the lore dictates that they are embodiments of naturally occurring attributes. something i see them doing (based on how they said diablo 3 is an end of a story arc not necessarily the series). we could eliminate diablo as the "prime evil" but doesnt that mean the universe will naturally recreate new prime's?

[Hawki]

guys guys...clearly starcraft 2 will end with the arrival of the mystical panda race. carried through the cosmos on their keg-ships shooting bottle cap missiles blasting everybody in their path. leaving drunken frenzies in their wake. all shall cower. and they shall tear open a rift to.....the pony level.

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Pan-Terran_marine
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Panda_marine

Dear God, I see it coming...no ponies in sight though yet. Though that would make StarCraft II 20% cooler.

on topic - sorry i meant imperius. and yes i guess malthael could initially be antagonistic and become a "good" guy. i personally see him becoming the anti-hero type archangel to contrast with tyrael and all his righteousness.

the thing about overall diablo's current story is that they made clear that the prime evil's as well as the archangel's can be remanifested/incarnated continuously. the lore dictates that they are embodiments of naturally occurring attributes. something i see them doing (based on how they said diablo 3 is an end of a story arc not necessarily the series). we could eliminate diablo as the "prime evil" but doesnt that mean the universe will naturally recreate new prime's?

Concerning demons, it's been made clear that if struck down, they not only reform eventually, but as their distinct selves (e.g. they're always the same demon, not copies per se). That being said, I think that Hell spawns new demons at a certain rate also, as certainly that's how their origin is described, what with Hell being formed from Tathamet's corpse, and demons arising like maggots bar the Great Evils, which each came from one of his heads.

Thing is, I don't see any of the Great Evils returning, not even Diablo. This may be fanwank, but my interpretation is that as Diablo became Tathamet incarnate so to speak, he lost his 'spawn' ability, considering how he disintergrates in Diablo III, which none of the other Evils did in Diablo II concerning death animations. And while Diablo is the namesake of the series, I don't think his existance is necessary for it to continue, what with "Diablo" literally translating as "devil," which is a term that applies to the series itself. I'd be content to have the series end where it is with D3, but if we need more demon bosses, I'd be more comfortable with new ones (e.g. the remaining Sin Generals) rather than simply bringing old ones back.

Concerning angels, while new angels are created from the Crystal Arch, I'm not sure whether they have a 'respawn' ability the same way that demons do, and there seems to be evidence both for and against it. Off the top of my head, Tyrael mentions saving another angel on the field of battle when he could have struck down Azmodan, the hero claiming that "saving a life is never wrong." If angels aren't reincarnated, then the whole saving a life thing seems redundant. On the other hand, I think it's outright stated that only mortals can pass beyond to whatever lies beyond death (the Unformed Land presumably) so if angels can't, what happens to them after the loss of their first life? I'm more inclined to go with the respawn thing, but I can't recall it distinctly being confirmed as the case.

Concerning Malthael...well, "anti-hero" seems to already describe him, considering his mood change after the disapearence of the Worldstone and him leaving the Council after its destruction. But looking at the Prophecy of the End of Days (sound the geek alert):

And at the End of Days, Wisdom shall be lost
as Justice falls upon the world of Men.
Valour shall turn to Wrath,
And all Hope will be swallowed by Despair.
Death, at last, shall spread its wings over all,
As Fate lies shattered forever.

So, what has happened so far? Going line by line:

Line 1: Malthael's departure from the Council as per the destruction of the Worldstone. Has come to pass.

Line 2: A reference to Tyrael descending upon Tristram as the Fallen Star.

Line 3: This is iffy. Imperius is the resident arsehole of Act IV, but he doesn't really show his wrath per se. Or at least he doesn't get the chance to. Ultimately, I think his "wrath" is yet to fully manifest itself, though it's clearly been lurking all the time. Hopefully it'll tie-in with the anime prequel to give more gravitas to the duel(s) he had with Diablo.

Line 4: Seemingly a reference to Auriel being held captive by Rakanoth, Lord of Despair. Seems to fit, but she was freed, so...seems to have been averted.

Line 5: This is interesting. Malthael visually bears resemblance to an "angel of death" given his garb, though has never been called that in-universe. Going by this line, it could suggest that Malthael does indeed become an "angel of death." But the words "at last" raise an eyebrow. The catalyst for Malthael going full death isn't that long ago-only two decades, though admittedly the build-up goes long before that. What if Death is its own thing/entity? Sounds kind of corny, but since only humans can feel death in the strictest sense, it could be something lurking inside Pandemonium. Or Anu, considering that he was theorized by Cain to enter the Unformed Land as well. Certainly artwork of him (and Tathamet) appear in The Art of Diablo III

Line 6: Presumably a reference to Itherael. Can hardly call him "shattered" in Act IV though.

So, going by this, my guess would be that Imperius will be a distinct antagonist. Malthael could go either way. Either some force of death, or something that can stop it, as per him becoming obsessed with the nature of life and death.

(End geek alarm.)

[Turalyon]

Taking these words at their value, Hell is poised, Diablo has taken out Azmodan and Belial and we should be...well, doomed. There should be the army in the making that would realistically make completing the act impossible.

You're making a lot of specific assumptions from one measly word. 'Poised' can also be taken as "Hell is just waiting for a portal to open up so demons can rush through and have fun in Sanctuary" or just "ready to go at a moment's notice" or just generally allude to Mephisto's grand plan was just preparation that would eventuate in the invasion of Sanctuary. Besides, how can you take Izual's word as specifically meaning Azmodan and Belial are in line with Diablo when he doesn't actually say it? This is not even keeping in mind the lack of an in-universe explanation for how Izual would come to know such intimate details about Hell's politics when he was banished to wander the outer plains of Hell where you find him in a mindless rage. You're attributing too much to something that can be interpreted quite openly.

The second part of what you said strikes more to the bone in terms of what's ludicrous with Act IV. Fighting manifestations of demons in the corporeal realm is one thing but actually going into their place of origin (an extra-planar one at that) on your own where they may take any shape, form or even number and trusting that there even is such a thing as a landscape to walk across is another thing entirely. Act IV in itself should be realistically impossible to complete.

Doesn't have the same level of threat, but it at least gels with the act itself.

In a nutshell, what you want is Izual telling us what is actually being shown and the problem is that Izual's telling is not what is being shown, right? Given that the former (telling and showing) is perhaps unnecessary in your eyes (afterall, you've made the assumption that since Act IV doesn't look like Hell's preparing an army to invade, it mustn't be) and since the adage is "show, not tell", I would've though that it'd be better if that "poised" line from Izual was just omitted altogether using your reasoning.

The Gates of Hell have been mentioned before. Probably elsewhere as well, but at the least, they were mentioned in a tome from the first game. Logic dictates that the Pandemonium Fortress is on the 'good' side of those gates. Logic thus also dictates that the Hell we're experiencing is also on the other side. Logic breaks down with the Hellforge.

Whatever the case may be, the "Gates of Hell" sounds more like a flowery turn of phrase (ie: he went through the..., he glimpsed into the... etc.) more than an actual thing. Also, I don't know about how you can sub-divide Hell into some areas being more pleasant than others. Hell is Hell.

I'm still not sure why you're so pedantic about the Hellforge. You seem to be giving it way more importance than it deserves. The Hellforge's primary reason for existing at all is to make Hellish weapons NOT to be conveniently available to smash Soulstones that happen to contain Prime Evils even though we are introduced to the Hellforge in such a way that you think that this is all that it does/ the only reason why it's there.

This talk of of the Hellforge reminds me of LOTR's Orodruin. You might as well ask why Barad-dur isn't closer to it, why there aren't any guards whatsoever (is Sauron really that stupid to loose every single orc/minion in Mordor on Aragorn's small army? It seems so) around it. The same reasons you come up to explain this are also applicable to the Hellforge. The volcano is important for destroying the ring and it may seem convenient that it is there

You may well say that Orodruin is within the "Gates of Hell" whilst the Hellforge is not, but that doesn't mean much since Hell isn't even on the same plane as Sanctuary (which in itself acts as a gate/barrier) as Mordor is on Middle-Earth. You may say that the Hellforge is still within easy reach whereas Orodruin is in Mordor; to which one would say the Hellforge is in Hell already, which in itself is not a place you can walk into either (see what I did there? ) and the fact that you have to walk pretty much to the end of Act IV (while admittedly short in length this is partly attributable to the issue) before you find it, getting ever closer to the Terror HQ while doing so does not mean one can easily saunter up to it nor that it is lightly defended. If it does give that feeling of easy access or being lightly defended, it's because of a flawed design (being physically short) of the Act itself.

You know, this is subjective, but I think you're putting more emphasis on Raynor's "resolve" than is warrented. Yes, he promises Kerrigan he'll kill her, but it's made in the heat of the moment. We don't see Raynor for the rest of Brood War bar a blurb in the epilogue that he parted ways with Zeratul. If he'd made such a declaration then there'd be more weight behind it but a heat of the moment one is another kettle of fish.

It is rather subjective, yes, but given the varied opinions in how Raynor is viewed in WoL, something is clearly not coming across. You seem to be conflating my description of Raynor's change in "resolve" as being the same as "Raynor should keep his vow". Raynor is saying a lot more than just promising to kill Kerrigan. It is the dramatic highpoint of Raynor's character throughout SC so far. Given that this is also his last scene - it implies that something "heavy" has taken place and that there's a sense of finality in Raynor's new found direction in life. Of all things, a sequel should at least acknowledge that if not continue his character development straight off from there. Please keep in mind that I'm not technically arguing that Raynor should never change his mind nor that his vow being actually heat-of-the-moment is wrong.

[Hawki]

Whatever the case may be, the "Gates of Hell" sounds more like a flowery turn of phrase (ie: he went through the..., he glimpsed into the... etc.) more than an actual thing. Also, I don't know about how you can sub-divide Hell into some areas being more pleasant than others. Hell is Hell.

Even if you want to ignore Book of Cain and its establishment of the existance of the various realms of Hell, the act itself sub-divides them. So does Diablo III when you enter the Realm of Terror.

I'm still not sure why you're so pedantic about the Hellforge. You seem to be giving it way more importance than it deserves. The Hellforge's primary reason for existing at all is to make Hellish weapons NOT to be conveniently available to smash Soulstones that happen to contain Prime Evils even though we are introduced to the Hellforge in such a way that you think that this is all that it does/ the only reason why it's there.

This talk of of the Hellforge reminds me of LOTR's Orodruin. You might as well ask why Barad-dur isn't closer to it, why there aren't any guards whatsoever (is Sauron really that stupid to loose every single orc/minion in Mordor on Aragorn's small army? It seems so) around it. The same reasons you come up to explain this are also applicable to the Hellforge. The volcano is important for destroying the ring and it may seem convenient that it is there

You may well say that Orodruin is within the "Gates of Hell" whilst the Hellforge is not, but that doesn't mean much since Hell isn't even on the same plane as Sanctuary (which in itself acts as a gate/barrier) as Mordor is on Middle-Earth. You may say that the Hellforge is still within easy reach whereas Orodruin is in Mordor; to which one would say the Hellforge is in Hell already, which in itself is not a place you can walk into either (see what I did there? ) and the fact that you have to walk pretty much to the end of Act IV (while admittedly short in length this is partly attributable to the issue) before you find it, getting ever closer to the Terror HQ while doing so does not mean one can easily saunter up to it nor that it is lightly defended. If it does give that feeling of easy access or being lightly defended, it's because of a flawed design (being physically short) of the Act itself.

I'm content to drop the Hellforge thing now. Kind of off-topic, but it turns out an answer of sorts is given in Book of Cain, which establishes that the Hellforge is located in the Realm of Destruction.

I can see this working in the context of the act and greater lore. Considering that Azmodan and Belial are waging their civil war, one can expect said war to be focussed in the Realms of Sin and Lies. And with the realms of the Three presumably being abandoned, I can understand why the act is comparatively loosely populated. Not the best explanation in the world of course, but I'm willing to accept it.

Anyway, considering your other points:

*I've wondered the same thing why there aren't any guards at Mount Doom either (kudos to you, I actually had to check up that "Orodruin" was another name for it). If I had to guess it would be the issue of a) logistics/supply, b) that Sauron assumed he and/or the Nazgul could sense it before it got too close and c) "one does not simply walk into Mordor." But unless the books explain it (been ages since I've read them) I'll have to go with d), which is "because the plot says so."

*I think it's mentioned somewhere that the reason Sauron used his full army was that his intention was not only to defeat Aragorn and co., but to utterly humiliate them, to show in their last moments that they never had a chance. If I did read that though, it was from a licensed source, so take its validity as you see fit.

It is rather subjective, yes, but given the varied opinions in how Raynor is viewed in WoL, something is clearly not coming across. You seem to be conflating my description of Raynor's change in "resolve" as being the same as "Raynor should keep his vow". Raynor is saying a lot more than just promising to kill Kerrigan. It is the dramatic highpoint of Raynor's character throughout SC so far. Given that this is also his last scene - it implies that something "heavy" has taken place and that there's a sense of finality in Raynor's new found direction in life. Of all things, a sequel should at least acknowledge that if not continue his character development straight off from there. Please keep in mind that I'm not technically arguing that Raynor should never change his mind nor that his vow being actually heat-of-the-moment is wrong.

I see what you're getting at, but even then, it struck me as more of a low point for him. His "high point" in the series was in Episode III IMO, in that he's showing that not only can terrans and protoss work together, but he's found a cause that goes beyond rebel ideology (destruction of the Overmind and all that). This continues in Episode IV, dialogue showing how he's got the respect of the protoss (or at least Zeratul and Fenix). Episode VI seems to be the low point for him in that he loses a friend (Fenix), loses any lingering faith he has in Kerrigan and it fits in with the 'essence' of the episode that it's a low point for everyone bar Kerrigan, and even she has a sedate victory.

I should probably specify that with the losing faith thing that if WoL had Raynor saying from the start that he still had hope for Kerrigan or something, it would be a character reversal IMO. But the prospect doesn't enter his mind until the artifact's function is revealed and even on Char, he doesn't give Tychus a distinct answer as to whether he'll spare her or not.

[Noctis]

Concerning demons, it's been made clear that if struck down, they not only reform eventually, but as their distinct selves (e.g. they're always the same demon, not copies per se). That being said, I think that Hell spawns new demons at a certain rate also, as certainly that's how their origin is described, what with Hell being formed from Tathamet's corpse, and demons arising like maggots bar the Great Evils, which each came from one of his heads.

Thing is, I don't see any of the Great Evils returning, not even Diablo. This may be fanwank, but my interpretation is that as Diablo became Tathamet incarnate so to speak, he lost his 'spawn' ability, considering how he disintergrates in Diablo III, which none of the other Evils did in Diablo II concerning death animations. And while Diablo is the namesake of the series, I don't think his existance is necessary for it to continue, what with "Diablo" literally translating as "devil," which is a term that applies to the series itself. I'd be content to have the series end where it is with D3, but if we need more demon bosses, I'd be more comfortable with new ones (e.g. the remaining Sin Generals) rather than simply bringing old ones back.

Concerning angels, while new angels are created from the Crystal Arch, I'm not sure whether they have a 'respawn' ability the same way that demons do, and there seems to be evidence both for and against it. Off the top of my head, Tyrael mentions saving another angel on the field of battle when he could have struck down Azmodan, the hero claiming that "saving a life is never wrong." If angels aren't reincarnated, then the whole saving a life thing seems redundant. On the other hand, I think it's outright stated that only mortals can pass beyond to whatever lies beyond death (the Unformed Land presumably) so if angels can't, what happens to them after the loss of their first life? I'm more inclined to go with the respawn thing, but I can't recall it distinctly being confirmed as the case.

I wasn't talking about "spawn" per se. it's been established that with the souls trapped in the soulstone they cant respawn, soulstone w/ soul shattered = soul destroyed. This basically means there is a power vacuum in hell with the lack of the prime evil's - this also translated into there is no* embodiment of terror, pain, etc. so the natural order of the universe would dictate that a new embodiment for each would be brought forth no? otherwise Heaven retains all the manifestations of "good" embalancing the world. Death is most commonly "anti-hero" in terms of action. Generally* death is another word for balance, in this case death could be a shepherd of humans living their full mortal lives and making sure they go to the unformed land. as for where angels and demons go when they die...didnt it say somewhere they simply go to the "void" or something. although that would make no sense as to why mortals, a creation of angel and demon, would go to a paradise while angels and demons themselves end up in nothingness.

[Hawki]

I wasn't talking about "spawn" per se. it's been established that with the souls trapped in the soulstone they cant respawn, soulstone w/ soul shattered = soul destroyed. This basically means there is a power vacuum in hell with the lack of the prime evil's - this also translated into there is embodiment of terror, pain, etc. so the natural order of the universe would dictate that a new embodiment for each would be brought forth no? otherwise Heaven retains all the manifestations of "good" embalancing the world. Death is most commonly "anti-hero" in terms of action. Generall death is another word for balance, in this case death could be a shepherd of humans living their full mortal lives and making sure they go to the unformed land. as for where angels and demons go when they die...didnt it say somewhere they simply go to the "void" or something. although that would make no sense as to why mortals, a creation of angel and demon, would go to a paradise while angels and demons themselves end up in nothingness.

The Void is a place where individuals can be banished to (e.g. Lilith) but it isn't the de facto point of entry for the deceased. In the case of demons, they go back to the Black Abyss, the key difference being that with the destruction of the soulstones, the idea was that Mephisto and Diablo's spirits would be sent so far down into the Abyss that they couldn't return. Which didn't come to pass because of the Black Soulstone.

Concerning the "natural order" of the universe, I don't know if that means that means demons will replace the aspects of the Evils. They represent Tathamet's aspects, true, but were still spawned from each of the heads while demons normally spawn from the Black Abyss. Obviously there are demons that could fill the power vacuum, but I don't think they necessarily have to embody Tathamet's traits. Even the Angiris Council members, who emphasise the virtues of Anu, seem to have some wriggle room given that Tyrael can go from justice to wisdom for instance, not to mention the whole valour to wrath and fate to death thing with Imperius and Malthael.

As for why mortals get an afterlife? Maybe it's because they have no anchor to their realm the same way the Crystal Arch and Black Abyss are, or maybe it's because of the balance within them.