I've been pondering this concept for awhile, but I figured it was best to provide a 'proof of concept'-type article (expansion required) as a starting point. Basically, I've been wondering how to address the concept of the D3 player characters in a narrative sense, as simply saying "the nephalem did this" in every article doesn't really cut it when "nephalem" just leads to the race page. D1 is easy in that each hero has been named, D2 is slightly more tricky (in that not each character has been named, and there's more of them), but simply stating a group of heroes seems to cover it. D3 is trickiest because while "group of heroes" is accurate when we factor in followers, Tyrael, etc., storywise it's established that only one Nephalem hero is active. Even if the other classes are nephalem too, just not in the game's story...gah. Anyway, points to make:

  • There should be separation from any named D3 hero character that's established/implied to be the canonical version (Li-Ming for the wizard, Valla for the Demon Hunter, etc.). While most of the heroes can be named through EU and HotS, none of them have outright been stated to be "the nephalem," so this article can cover that. Provided that it doesn't touch on any specific backstory (e.g. just say "the nephalem saw the Fallen Star" rather than specifying each hero's means of doing so).
  • That the Nephalem's activities outside games kinda necessitated this. That narrative can't be applied to every class/character page. It's basically like Commander Shepard - covering the commander outside games, but always using gender/class/role-neutral terms.
  • In the event that Blizzard does specify which hero is the canonical nephalem, articles can be merged, but I'm not counting on that happening for awhile (if ever).
  • "nephalem" (species) remains lowercase. It's a common noun, and it's how Blizzard's been treating race names for awhile in its series (Angels now angels, Protoss now protoss, etc.). "The Nephalem" is capitalized, should be linked as the Nephalem) as it's a title, used as a proper noun. Alternatively could be Nephalem (Character). Created a redirect, but I'm inclined to use "the" in the title.

So, that's me. Feel free to discuss/disagree. Obviously needs work, but you'll hopefully forgive me for not wanting to cover a game's entire narrative in a single sitting. :)--Hawki (talk) 01:17, March 23, 2014 (UTC)


I am not sure if Sonya (barbarian from the HotS) can be considered a canonical Barbarian character, like the rest. Same goes for Nazeebo (named male Witch Doctor). So far there is a defined class-gender-name combination for every class save monk (but monk was male in the trailer). 11:52, April 17, 2014 (UTC), Pryamus

Of the names, I've cut down/altered it a bit. Best COA right now is to list each named character that can be a class stand-in for the Nephalem (key word being "Nephalem" - Zhota represents the monk in his short story but can't be the Nephalem for example) and go into details on their respective pages. This is because a) that can potentially be a long list, and b) Nazeebo is really hard to define - not named in his story, but referred to as male in his story. Obviously Valla and Li-Ming have far more 'canon claim' to be the PC than, say, Sonya and Nazeebo, but I'd rather leave the splitting of hairs down to their individual articles.--Hawki (talk) 23:00, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
I always thought the avatars on in the Skill Calculator section represented what the characters were "canonically" meant to be portrayed as. 01:23, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Heroes vs. HeroEdit

Okay, so, Blizzard has decided to throw yet another spanner in the works with the release of The Story of Diablo. I say spanner because it distinctly refers to nephalem heroes, not hero, flying in the face of the singular tense used in the games themselves and EU material. It backs up the statement that all D3 heroes are nephalem (wherever that statement is), but the article is based on the premise of there being a single hero. I've asked for clarification on the subject (comments section here but I'm not counting on it). So under the premise that there isn't definate word and the contradiction remains, I'd like to propose the following changes:

  • The article remains. Core point. It's essential IMO to have a link to the nephalem hero(es) as opposed to the race. That, or we could link to the D3 heroes section on the classes page (akin to the D2 heroes, whenever they're linked), but as this page exists, may as well make use of it.
  • The article and surrounding text is rewritten to reflect the ambiguity. Keep in mind, it isn't an issue that nephalem heroes are aiding "the Nephalem" ("group of heroes" also encompasses the followers for instance), what is the issue is how much, if any singular responsibility one nephalem can take (e.g. did "the Nephalem" become one with death, or did all of them at the end of RoS?). This article would probably be also grouped in the clan/order category (in that it potentially represents a group) and written without references in the singular or plural. As in, it would start with "The Nephalem was a hero (or group of heroes) active during the End of Days." Or simply say "the Nephalem defeated Diablo" in external pages, without using "hero" or "heroes."
  • Under the confirmation that the D3 characters are all nephalem, pages like Li-Ming, Valla, etc. are, in my mind, confirmed as nephalem. Species confirmed, role confirmed, etc. As such, they may take on narrative in their bios. For instance, Li-Ming's bio can reference her meeting Isendra, as it's exclusive to her, along with other class exclusive tidbits (e.g. mentioned the wizard visited the Great Library in Caldeum before RoS - doubt the other classes did, though correct me if I'm wrong). However, generalized attributes shouldn't be given to them directly (e.g. Li-Ming isn't said to defeat Diablo, more that it was a group effort, with her own focus left vague).

Hopefully Blizzard will respond, but I doubt it. Anyway, don't have time to edit now, and there isn't all that much rush. But any suggestions/disagreements, please say so.--Hawki (talk) 22:53, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Something like that, I guess. Correct me if I am wrong. Pryamus (talk) 23:08, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
This may just be speculation, but I am certain all the possible heroes were the canonical heroes in the mind of Blizzard. I believe this is how it worked in the previous games as well. One hero killed Diablo, three heroes canonically existed; one hero banished Diablo, five heroes canonically existed; one hero banished Baal, seven canonically existed. It may be something of a paradox, but nevertheless is how I think it is meant to be. The way I see it, the game is considered canon, but you only play from one character's perspective at a time (the natural restriction from being a game). Every time you play a different character, you are just seeing another perspective of the same reality.
◄► Tephra ◄► 04:43, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
It's not a paradox, they are just fighting as a group. So they did in D1 and in D2. Aidan was the one to strike Diablo down (because that was personal), but I don't think Moreina and Jazreth just stood aside smoking and making bets. Same goes for D2. A more interesting question: D1 heroes were corrupted, D2 are very far away and / or dead, it is a measure of making sure nobody asks 'they were fighting him last time, why aren't they now?'. But what will happen to the Nephalem? It may sound sick, but I'd love to see in D4 that they were actually made the new hosts for the Seven Evils. Mephisto will love to get used to Valla's body. It's the only way The Nephalem can be inactive at that time. Or will they become Aspects of Death and therefore be beyond mortality and beyond Sanctuary? Pryamus (talk) 04:53, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
The truth may be somewhere in the middle. D1 has always been "Aidan and friends," with Aidan becoming the distinct hero to slay Diablo in D2, and the role of the other classes left vague, only becoming distinct post-D1. D2, the current stance is that "a group of heroes did stuff," with none of them being singled out for any specific deed, but the game itself left it open to the possibility of just one hero existing storywise. D3...well, this talk page is testament to D3's convolution concerning its player character(s). I personally got the distinction of there being one distinct hero for the game storywise (more "the Nephalem and friends" ala D1 rather than the D2 method), but it seems to have harkened more to D2 now.
Anyway, semantics aside, point of the discussion is whether the approach is acceptable (to have the article represent both single hero/multi-hero possibilities) for the article or not. As for D4, sure we've all got ideas, but that belongs in a blog post or forum. Maybe D4 will give the clarification D2 gave D1 concerning characters.--Hawki (talk) 06:08, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.