We lost cabin pressure a long time ago, and past the stage where the plane has crashed into the mountain. We are now at the stage of deciding which passengers will be the most tasty.
1 Like
The last survivor has been eaten a couple of years ago. We are surviving off foraging and agriculture, now.
Are you really this bored? I mean I’m all for interesting ideas regarding Diablo II’s development, gameplay, and lore…But this is a bit over the top. Someone figured out Tool used the Fibonacci sequence to write some of their music and decided it’s somehow relevant to everything. 
I for one find these threads to be hilarious and challenging at the same time. It pushes me to come up with a reply that is humorous, ironic, and witty which is like brain exorcising. Take Technomancer’s reply, here I had to add something that was funny, yet witty while adding in pop cultural reference all quickly as I might accidently catch a glimpse of the full text by the OP. Little Timmy Johnson did read the full text, and now doctors are unsure if he will ever be released from his padded cell. It has that effect (or affect….omg its happening to ME!)
I’ve had breakthrough realization that has forced me to go back and update a recent key diagram and revise the overall summary of what’s going on here…
https://ibb.co/LdfgfxL0
Any player of Diablo 2 that was a remotely decent person should have at least asked why masses of female humanoids were being “slaughtered and mowed down” in the secret cow level. And now I have made it to the final explanation. The males that made this game did not want a particular female warrior(Titan) to be a hero option that would have been “bigger and stronger” than the Barbarian. But to go beyond mere exclusion and on to targeting like this makes it seem as though they were truly afraid that this would have been a possible result from the game design philosophy. Now we have that diagram and it reveals that it was “Mother Soul” that was ultimately the target for those of us who soul searched for what the advancement of Diablo 2 would have been. Finally, notice that all 4 of the missing, targeted and “identity abused” archetypes are all female and span across the spirit of the child and soul of the mother with the broken identity of the Sorceress to divide them. This is yet another key example of how the aim implies an attack on the Spirit of Help overall…
I describe this as something deeper and beyond sexism. It’s progressive sexism and the malicious targeting of defenseless alternative females that are primal to the family of roles.
The end result is also a counter argument that if you can have 4 males and 3 females as hero options then you can have 4 males and 5 females options.
On the other hand, you could just take the symmetrical option and have the Phantom be a male, notice how this would both balance the amount of male and females in the game but also the profile sets.
Taura:
Warrior Female
Base Feminine Value
Masculine Appearance
Sorceress:
Mage Female
Base Masculine Value
Feminine Appearance
Nagi:
Warrior Female
Base Masculine Value
Masculine Appearance
Phantom
Warrior Male
Base Masculine Value
Feminine Appearance
But it seems BlueB doesn’t even want to negotiate balance considering the situation.
5 males: Necromancer, Druid, Barbarian, Paladin, Phantom
5 females: Sorceress, Amazon, Assassin, Taura, Nagi
Notice that if you go back to the root of where the masculine and feminine became off balanced by not allowing uniformity to represent the Sorceress, swappable with particularity, just as the Barbarian/Paladin has the swappable values of broad and plural with the Amazon and the Assassin.
You could say that Uniformity was a value of the Sorceress because of similar skill tree layouts across all 3 elements, but I don’t think that there’s any real kind of uniform relationship between fire, ice and lightning.
In realistic consideration, increasing mastery in each different element would theoretically potentially increase variation.
So the argument of uniform masteries perhaps demonstrated by the “passive Sorceress” build might seem like it represents uniformity but it’s really a contradiction.
Now someone could say that the value sets that fundamentally represent the Sorceress and the Nagi would be a contradiction between each other, but the difference there is, that would be a proper overall contradiction rather than a pointless micro contradiction that doesn’t fit in to a bigger picture of natural diversity.
Maxing out all 3 masteries is an unnatural diversity.
Conclusion of the fundamental problem: We forfeited Natural Diversity for Unnatural Diversity.
Finally, what Story and Word salad reveals here is actually an exclusion and attack on masculine values…
But it took the feminine story and salad to reveal this in the first place.
Therefore, I side with Jung…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Vm4UNDp2Y
“The only real danger is man himself”
you’re really close to finding the deeper meaning to diablo II, keep searching the truth is out there.
1 Like
It seems that I can re-explain this better by pointing out how a completion of contrasts in the tri-set of heroes clicked in to place once a feminine value from the “fathers” set was swapped with a feminine value from the “mothers” set.
So we have a golden geometric trio of concept sets that we start with to represent the golden spiral, golden segment and golden triangle. Uniform + Broad = Mothers of Soul(golden spiral), Varied + Plural = Fathers of Body(golden segment), and Particular + Singular = Children of Spirit(golden triangle). This is all a foundation for a theological narrative that almost aligns with Diablo 2, but what Diablo 2 does is it swaps the feminine value of broadness from the Mothers with the feminine value of Plurality from the Fathers. What this ends up doing is resulting in a contrast between pure and clear values for all 3 sets of concepts. Uniform + Plural = Pure - Clear, Broad + Varied = Pure - Clear and Singular + Particular = Pure - Clear.
Now you could take all 3 hero sets of the Barbarian/Paladin, Amazon/Assassin, and Sorceress/Druid and plug them right in to this model showing that there’s contrast in each hero set for each hero individually, but the contrast between the pair of heroes from each set is not yet explained.
For the Barbarian and the Paladin, the contrast between their “broad supporting” and “varied classification(mage/warrior)” is natural, so there’s no further explanation for any additional contrast.
But for the Amazon and the Assassin, while both share in uniformity and plurality, in order to produce necessary contrast it seems that the Assassin has also ended up with variation(more mage than warrior) and singularity(mastery). This might make Assassin the most sophisticated hero in the game in terms of contrast. On the other hand, if this is not accurate/intended, then it seems that there should have been a different hero that was part of this set, like say a Phantom.
Now for the Sorceress and the Druid. You can see that he may or may not be Particular and Singular like the Sorceress, but he’s definitely Broad(supportive) and Plural(wolf/bear summons/forms).
NOW the contrasts of all 3 of the primary hero sets are on the table and this completes an accurate representation of the game and makes sense. But now the question is, why wouldn’t a pair of masculine values, one from each set identity, be swapped to reflect the same masculine/feminine pattern from the golden trio of concept sets? If the starting golden trichotomy of concept sets reflects a nature then maybe nature is also a profound way of perceiving the hero sets.
So we swap particularity from the “children of the spirit” with uniformity from “mothers of the soul” and guess what happens? It makes perfect sense for the mothers(Amazon/Assassin) because they both have plenty of elemental exclusive skills to exemplify the particularity.
But as for the Sorceress, the value of Uniformity doesn’t make any sense at all, and this returns back to my final point from previous post. But the thing is, is that you can also see that uniformity applies to the Druid between bear/wolf summons and forms.
Therefore, this is plain as day proof that the Sorceress has been excluded from her proper value of uniformity. Where is it? Contrast Uniformity and Singularity with Varied and Plural. If the Sorceress could transform in to a pair of Nagi aspects then that knocks out the uniformity problem in a unique way. There’s also a problem with variation here that the Druid does not seem to have as he seems more 50/50 mage/warrior. Look back to the Barbarian and Paladin to understand how this was. I think that variation would already be fulfilled by the Sorceress transforming back and forth between pure mage and warrior but if not then the Nagi Aspects might have a variation going on in their mage/warrior classification. Maybe their style is just rooted in pure warrior.
A reoccurring point that I tend to emphasize after explaining the complexity of the Sorceress’ situation is that the solution that I’m putting forth also would classify her properly as an “individually limited collective expander” with the Necromancer and Druid, so it’s not like this complexity isn’t legitimately aiming at making sense overall.
Finally, considering all the negative impressions of the secret cow level.
As I said, my claim is that the cow represents a female warrior archetype that could have legitimately added in to the game with an expansion. I have provided strong evidence to support this. And attacking a mother figure makes me think of “The Great Mother” by Erich Neumann. What I find to be complete BS about the book in first impression is, how do you nail down some kind of natural association between the role of a Mother and the Feminine? I could get on board with the idea of evils being part of the masculine and feminine where in situations one ought to be favored over the other, but to associate that with the role and figure of the Mother only appears to be trying to make the Mother look bad. I mean the soloist role has aligned with the mothers role in the game and I feel like there’s some natural truth to that. Maybe we perceives those that are more naturally soloists as being egocentric and special when that’s just a part of who they are. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be aware of this and work on contrasting against their own nature.
Finally, it’s kind of funny that the hero in this game that I just pointed out as being a sore thumb and incomplete as a dependent(sorceress) would find themselves being further singled out at the character select screen. Also having her missing aspects covered up by the Druid and primary aspect stolen from by the Necromancer. Less identity as a dependent means they will definitely have to identify with what they have been surrounded by.
In this case it turns out to be a young female mage(liberal) surrounded by older males. Meanwhile the cow representing the “conservative(warrior) mother” is being mass slaughtered in the secret cow level.
Don’t want that missing arch-conservative mother to represent the kind of hero that would save or influence that female liberal child in such a way for the males to not be able to get what they are trying to get out of her now do they?
keep digging, you’re so close. i already know the answer.
All my D2 characters are gender-fluid. My latest barbarian is actually a femboy.
Awwww now I am going to spend the rest of the day data-mining the latest patch, and if that does not provide any clues I will head out to California to sift through old PC recyclers in hopes of finding that one true backup made of the source code to find the answer.
Any chance I could trade you for the answer? Tell me how many JAHS it will cost me and I will gladly use my secret hack (masculine) to dupe (feminine) to manufacture in my data center bot farm 1 trillion JAHs, and I can do it because I have uniformity and plurality all while having duality of both feminine and masculine characters*
* I know this may be sexist in 2025, but I still prefer my Pally Aura Zealer, no idea what his uniformity is, couldn’t care less about his plurality, but #&@ watching him zeal away at a boss while minions spawn is just something I can never get again in any Diablo game. I mean the D4 Palaidan, I tried it out. it can be some fun at times. But OMFG the “Zeal” with Fanatisiscm aura just absolutely sucks donkey ***. It was the most half *#&$ attempt**, as if** the developers had never once seen a Zealer, never once opened D2**,**
I digress, D4 distracted me, so back to the topic. Yes my D2R Aura Zealer is masculine, has plurality, had uniformity, has a rockin Fana, has a beeching whacking eDeath Berserker, and thats that. Off to California, wish me luck
It’s clicked and wow. I didn’t think that what I was suspecting would be so obvious. But a solid proof still seems like it needs to be nailed down as to how the Sorceress’ design has no structural theme that legitimately exhibits Uniformity like the Druid does and the both of them being part of the same hero set would necessitate an equal sense of the Uniformity that they should be based on.
But has this happened?
Let’s exercise a pre D2R scenario. Take away sunder charms and take away the Druid’s ability to have all of his summons out at once. Now take the Tal-Rasha set and instead of -15 to all enemy individual resists, let’s say it simply unifies all Sorceress’ masteries in to one mastery. So if you have 20 points in to any mastery, the other two masteries will be maxed out. I’d say that you could express the natural strength of the Sorceress as being the “masterer” and the “teleporter”, therefore, you’d expect that if your Tal set was adding + 40 skill points to masteries on a hero who’s uniform value is established by these masteries, that the benefit would be astronomically over powered. But is it? Pretty sure that most players of the Sorceress would still just invest in to one element. Sure they could max Thunder Storm, but if they get infinity on a merc then what’s the point? I guess that they could do something more long range and kitey with a TS/Hydra build that would tide over until infinity, but once they have infinity, would it be worth it to stay on TS/Hydra still? Maybe, maybe not. But because the free +20 in to say Cold Mastery would be useless, then we can ask where the strength or value of Uniformity really is.
Now if Aldur’s set for the Druid performed a similar and proper function compared to what I suggested for Tal’s set, such as the unification of all wolf skills, werewolf, dire wolf, spirit wolf in to one, and then let’s say you are in wolf form and summon dire wolves. Your dire wolves are still receiving all the synergy bonus from +20 spirit wolves in the form of enhanced defense without even being used. So who’s receiving the better buff from their new set bonus in either case? The Sorceress or the Druid?
The answer has to definitely be the Druid.
But guess what? This is even before the addition of sunder charms and the Druid being able to have all of his summons out at once. Sunder charms are like an artificial uniformization for Sorceress elements if you have a couple, and now the Druid can naturally(non artificially) have his spirit wolves out which will also receive the bonus synergies from dire wolves AND his merc, AND his sage.
When the prior points and considerations all come together they magnify what’s really going on in the game and the direction that BlueB is intending to go in, which is to enhance the natural strength of uniformity for the Druid and to eliminate any sense of natural uniform strength of the Sorceress which was never even really there in the first place, yet should have always legitimately been a core theme and value in her nature.
What’s this all about? Notice that there’s more going on here than the Necromancer stealing from the Sorceress identity. Now we have the Druid’s spirit wolf that can now both teleport AND do particular elemental damage(cold). Btw, I am guilty of being part of the movement that got the spirit wolves doing the cold damage. Guess I was suckered in by the teleport.
The spirit wolf has become a miniature representation of the Sorceress. This is representing an enslavement of the female child. Steal the female child’s identity, and make her a slave. But yet it’s all hypocritical. The Necromancer and Druid would be energy based or primal heroes as would the Sorceress. Why are the Necromancer and the Druid energy heroes if they are going to use the energy of their armies to do all the work? They want all the energy but to do none of the work…
Just as they want all of the sex with whom they desire to have sex with, but to not earn it by means of work. A light rape of a target while also getting physical labor out of that target.
And that’s what Diablo 2 is and has always been about and continues to be about to this day under new Blizz but it’s the same Blizz with the same agenda that it’s always been. It’s that very system intending to psychologically desensitize to make attaining the aim that much easier.
It’s pride boys setting up a system so that that they can have their cake and eat it too. A dictation for the sake of sexual freedom and self service of slave labor…
Plurality was probably never really a value of the Pally, just as broadness was never a value of the Amazon. I explained this earlier. The core values of the Barbarian/Paladin are Broadness and Variation.
The American dream has become a system of the nightmare fuel of fear and desire crushing down on anyone lesser in the hierarchy.
Btw, does solving the problem/riddle mean that I get to have my job back where I was awarded employee of the month for being a lead physical laborer, worked 6 days a week for 5 years and never called in once, yet was fired for exercising my freedom of speech against sexist and child degrading themes in video games on social media which my employer had no business in?
Or maybe I could make a living helping people find a cure for core diseases/conditions like the Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex, that I’ve suffered from for the last 24 years ever since a football injury.