Sandro/Yog/other lore characters discussion

The role-playing games (I-X) that started it all and the various spin-offs (including Dark Messiah).
User avatar
Corlagon
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1421
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: HC/CH

Unread postby Corlagon » 01 Nov 2010, 17:27

My ultimate point is not incredibly complicated and isn't going to take another quote war to express properly.
You can argue to the point of insanity that Sandro isn't a continuous character between the first four games, but you can't deny that every single one of the other recurring heroes (except Solmyr, since he was in H2 but only in a fanmade map) are clearly the same individuals, between H2 and H3 at least. Alamar, Halon, Gem, Crag Hack, Lord Haart, Roland and Luna are all themselves, one Enroth-based game or the other. Therefore it's practically a foregone conclusion to suggest that Sandro is also the same individual as before.

You're saying he isn't and is an exception, so the burden of proof lies with you. But you're just theorising to support your point. I know for a fact that there is no piece of text in any game saying that Sandro isn't his old self, but there are several pieces of text strongly indicating that he is, including his bio. There are also a few indications that he isn't, but still nothing concrete or irreconcilable.

I could go away and try asking David Mullich for a solid confirmation about it, but I wouldn't want to waste his time with such a non-issue.

These things are typically pretty obvious. Nicolai Griffin can't be Nicolai Ironfist - different world, different parents, different appearance. But Mephala from H3 became an Elf in H4. Does that suddenly mean she isn't supposed to be the same Mephala? No, it means there was a minor retcon or misunderstanding in NWC, so just get over it and work with it. Same question with Sandro.

Anyway, we won't get anywhere by discussing theory and fanfiction further and further because that's all up to opinion, you can propose that the character of Ethric made stuff up to support your argument but you still can't prove that he did, so all I can offer is the view that you're totally entitled to your (not-really-substantiated) position on Sandro, and good luck getting anyone to support it or agree with it.

User avatar
Slayer of Cliffracers
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 549
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Location: Gateshead, England.

Unread postby Slayer of Cliffracers » 01 Nov 2010, 22:45

Corlagon wrote:My ultimate point is not incredibly complicated and isn't going to take another quote war to express properly.
You can argue to the point of insanity that Sandro isn't a continuous character between the first four games, but you can't deny that single one of the other recurring heroes (except Solmyr, since he was in H2 but only in a fanmade map) are clearly the same individuals, between H2 and H3 at least. Alamar, Halon, Gem, Crag Hack, Lord Haart, Roland and Luna are all themselves, one Enroth-based game or the other. Therefore it's practically a foregone conclusion to suggest that Sandro is also the same individual as before.
No it is not a foregone conclusion. Yog is definitely not his Heroes I self, because Yog has been in the Magic Academy in Bracada all his life and so there is no room for any Enrothian past as a Barbarian.

It is clear that at least once, they decided to wipe the slate clean and invent a 'clone' character with the same name, even while keeping some of the heroes with an Enrothian background. They clearly did this in order to make the backgrounds of the characters more interesting rather than repeating the 'came from Enroth fought in Succession Wars line'.

By default yes Sandro would the same character, except that the whole SoD campaign makes little sense if he is the same character. The implausibilities involved in him being same character are so great that it is kind of hard of me to contemplate them being the same character with a straight face.
Corlagon wrote: You're saying he isn't and is an exception, so the burden of proof lies with you. But you're just theorising to support your point. I know for a fact that there is no piece of text in any game saying that Sandro isn't his old self, but there are several pieces of text strongly indicating that he is, including his bio. There are also a few indications that he isn't, but still nothing concrete or irreconcilable.
Not this time Corlagon. This time it's actually the other way around. The number of implausibilities and the extent of them mean that Sandro being the same character is now an extraordinary claim that requires very solid evidence backing it up.

Unless you have such concrete extraordinary evidence, that would to say a direct reference to Sandros past in Enroth as a Necromancer or Warlock, you cannot claim that Sandro is the same character, simply because of the following implausibilities. If you can produce such a reference, you are right about Sandro, until that time I clearly have the upper hand based upon the many implausibilities listed down here (I was going to earlier but my post was already too long).

1. Sandro has not been Ethric's student for 20+ years according the Ethric; yet Sandro describes his old master as finally tracking him down. However, it is implausible that Ethric continued to search for Sandro for so long and did not manage to catch him, especially since he is a high-profile public figure, not a recluse in hiding.

2. Ethric's motives for wishing Sandro dead are to remove the blight on his career caused by Sandros becoming a Necromancer. However after 20+ years (decades), such a motive makes little sense because after so long Sandro would have already blighted his career such that his death now would not salvage the situation. Everyone would know who Sandro is and who taught him, so there would be nothing Ethric could do.

3. Since Sandro fought in Heroes II, alongside or against Gem or Crag Hack, it is extremely implausible that such characters would be so easily deceived by Sandro. For this to happen they would have to be ignorant of who he is, which given the limited selection of heroes in the ranks of any heroes game is beyond implausible.

4. Since Sandro has effectively assumed a cover identity, even if for some 'Hiding in Plain Sight' reason it is called Sandro, he would avoid making any real contact with Crag Hack or Gem (especially the latter). To do so would risk exposure; since no reason exists why he requires the artifacts to be collected by Crag Hack or Gem, he would have hired a local hero that is less likely to know who Sandro is to reduce the risk.

5. As Sandro is already an established Necromancer with a reputation, it is unlikely that he would not have managed to enter Deyja immediately upon arrival in the Contested Lands and conduct the search for the artifacts from there. Also Gem (and the consequent risk of exposure she represents) becomes an unnecessary liability given the artifacts are all in areas full of Deyjan forces anyway.

6. When Sandro remembers kidnapping and raping Jabarkas's daughter, he remembers it as happening several years ago in this region of Antagarich. However not only is this unlikely due to his undead condition (and would be a truly major Squick :) :)) but several years is whatever it means is definitely not 20+ years. And Sandro was in Enroth before very recently.

7. Not only does Sandro a Liche show a sexual interest in Vidomina; but Vidomina shows a similar interest in Sandro. This means that physically he must have either not have been at least completely a Liche at all at that point, or that he had not been a Liche long enough to have assumed a properly skeletal form (and undead psychology perhaps). We know from images of Sandro from Heroes II/I that Sandro definitely has a fully skeletal form already.

Some of these are worse than others, but taken together they constitute a basis for rejecting anything less than completely solid evidence for both Sandros being the same character.
Corlagon wrote: I could go away and try asking David Mullich for a solid confirmation about it, but I wouldn't want to waste his time with such a non-issue.
Actually Corlagon, I think when Sandro was originally added to the game (I think it was in the original version) he was definitely supposed to be the same character and bio Ethric was Ethric the mad.

However the SoD story-writers then decided to axe Sandro's past, along with Yog's because they decided that two 'fresh from Enroth' hero back stories was too many.


Corlagon wrote: These things are typically pretty obvious. Nicolai Griffin can't be Nicolai Ironfist - different world, different parents, different appearance. But Mephala from H3 became an Elf in H4. Does that suddenly mean she isn't supposed to be the same Mephala? No, it means there was a minor retcon or misunderstanding in NWC, so just get over it and work with it. Same question with Sandro.
Yes I am fully aware that Heroes II/I Sandro was retconned, for I am the one arguing this not you. That is what I am essentially arguing by saying they are different characters, as the former does not appear again he was thus retconned.

If it did not require believing in 7 utterly implausible things, already listed above, I would normally agree with you since I do not WANT there to be discontinuity, but the extent and number of the implausibilities are so great.

There is no problem with Mephala being an Elf, because nothing ever established that she was human to start off with.
Corlagon wrote: Anyway, we won't get anywhere by discussing theory and fanfiction further and further because that's all up to opinion, you can propose that the character of Ethric made stuff up to support your argument but you still can't prove that he did, so all I can offer is the view that you're totally entitled to your (not-really-substantiated) position on Sandro, and good luck getting anyone to support it or agree with it.
I am getting somewhere! I have just compiled and added the 7 implausables and the precise criteria of evidence that I would require to believe that Sandro is the same character in the face of these implausables.

What Ethric says doesn't cut it, because given that we know from Rise of the Necromancer that Ethrics entire motive for trying to get rid of Sandro is to avoid the blight on his career in the form of the public knowledge that he did not prevent Sandro from studying Necromancy even though Sandro was under his tutelage.

Ask yourself, does the version of events put forward by Ethric serve this end? Yes it does. Is he concealing relevant information we know (from Sandro's bio) to be true yet does not serve that end? Yes he is for he fails to mention Sandro learned necromancy under his tutelage.

It is not a question here of whether there is direct stated evidence that Ethric is lying, but that it is rather plausible that Ethric is lying, but extremely implausible that he is not. Because if he is telling the truth, then the first two implausibilities come into play.
Self wrote: 1. Sandro has not been Ethric's student for 20+ years according the Ethric; yet Sandro describes his old master as finally tracking him down. However, it is implausible that Ethric continued to search for Sandro for so long and did not manage to catch him, especially since he is a high-profile public figure, not a recluse in hiding.

2. Ethric's motives for wishing Sandro dead are to remove the blight on his career caused by Sandro's becoming a Necromancer. However after 20+ years (decades), such a motive makes little sense because after so long Sandro would have already blighted his career such that his death now would not salvage the situation. Everyone would know who Sandro is and who taught him, so there would be nothing Ethric could do.
Ethric's letter
I received a message from Ethric today. Ethric said it had been decades since Sandro was his apprentice. He said Sandro ran away and become a Necromancer!
Do you really believe that Ethric has been looking for Sandro for DECADES and has just managed to track him down! Is it not like 1000+ times more likely that a man prepared to kill in order to protect his reputation from embarrassing truths would lie in order to cover up those same truths than that the above mentioned improbabilities actually happened!
Working on tracking the locations of Heroes IV battles. Stage 6 of campaign map finished, all initial Heroes IV campaigns mapped.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/ ... hp?t=11973

User avatar
Corlagon
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1421
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: HC/CH

Unread postby Corlagon » 02 Nov 2010, 00:19

Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:Do you really believe that Ethric has been looking for Sandro for DECADES and has just managed to track him down!
Of course I do, because that's what the game tells us. It's a solid fact, as far as you or I know. The only one saying otherwise is yourself, in that it "doesn't cut it", and frankly I still don't agree with you - or the theories you've written - one bit. Sorry about that. I have my reasons. :)
Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:nothing ever established that she was human to start off with.
RTFM, so to speak.

User avatar
Macros the Black
Druid
Druid
Posts: 897
Joined: 21 May 2008
Location: Elemental Plane of Air

Unread postby Macros the Black » 02 Nov 2010, 15:54

Corlagon wrote:You're saying he isn't and is an exception, so the burden of proof lies with you. But you're just theorising to support your point. I know for a fact that there is no piece of text in any game saying that Sandro isn't his old self, but there are several pieces of text strongly indicating that he is, including his bio. There are also a few indications that he isn't, but still nothing concrete or irreconcilable.
Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:Not this time Corlagon. This time it's actually the other way around. The number of implausibilities and the extent of them mean that Sandro being the same character is now an extraordinary claim that requires very solid evidence backing it up.
Well, Slayer has ALOT of speculation, and some of them even perfectly reasonable at that - points 3 and 4 of his argument for instance - but it's still just speculation. Call me crazy, but where I'm from one fact is enough to counter a billion speculations.

Also, don't forget that all of those speculations can also be written off as simply bad writing by the makers of Heroes 3. It happens. It's just a game. Unless you want to go for the position that the writers did intend Sandro to be the same character, however because of their bad writing it is now impossible for that to be the case, so we as fans must say there has to be two of them. Which borders on fanfiction. Otherwise, we have to simply look at the facts and determine the intent of the writers: did they want Sandro to not be the same person as Sandro from HoMM 2? Which depends on another question, namely: did they make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is in fact someone different than HoMM 2 Sandro? Because if their intent was to make him a different person, then they would have made this very clear. Yog seems to be in a gray area when it comes to this. But in Sandro's case they made his bio very clearly indicate that he is in fact the same person.

So yes Slayer, the burden of proof lies with you.
Last edited by Macros the Black on 02 Nov 2010, 19:39, edited 1 time in total.
You'd think Darkmoor was a ghost town, but instead there's plenty of life among the dead.

User avatar
XEL II
HoTA Crew
HoTA Crew
Posts: 945
Joined: 14 May 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation

Unread postby XEL II » 02 Nov 2010, 17:17

Why should Sandro even meet Gem and Crag Hack during Strategic Quest or Succession Wars? The Succession Wars lasted 3 years and involved all of Enroth, the largest continent on the planet. Strategic Quest lasted even longer and also involved the entire continent.
Make you strong places to dwell and practice the evil of your arts. Build great monuments to stand through the ages and remind your followers of the task with which you have been charged. Use these halls of iniquity to perpetrate your schemes against the infestation that has taken the fields and lakes of this land from you, their rightful masters. Never forget the hatred that must finally overcome and consume mankind. Dwell in your dungeons and brood. - Sheltem the Dark

User avatar
Corlagon
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1421
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: HC/CH

Unread postby Corlagon » 02 Nov 2010, 17:21

Wait a second, in the midst of all the arguments I totally forgot about this:

http://www.facebook.com/MightandMagic#! ... 1184829587
http://www.facebook.com/MightandMagic#! ... 1184829587

That's yet more proof that both guys are, canonically, to be considered the same character.
Last edited by Corlagon on 02 Nov 2010, 17:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
XEL II
HoTA Crew
HoTA Crew
Posts: 945
Joined: 14 May 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation

Unread postby XEL II » 02 Nov 2010, 17:31

I wouldn't incorporate Ubisoft statements into this dicussion, since we are talking about NWC storyline. By the way, Yog's profile states that he appeared in Heroes II, while he didn't. But I agree, both of them are clearly and canonically to be considered the same character.
Make you strong places to dwell and practice the evil of your arts. Build great monuments to stand through the ages and remind your followers of the task with which you have been charged. Use these halls of iniquity to perpetrate your schemes against the infestation that has taken the fields and lakes of this land from you, their rightful masters. Never forget the hatred that must finally overcome and consume mankind. Dwell in your dungeons and brood. - Sheltem the Dark

User avatar
Corlagon
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1421
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: HC/CH

Unread postby Corlagon » 02 Nov 2010, 19:44

Aye, I guess they won't be revisiting the old universe or Sandro anytime soon, but there are still points where the Ubi comments prove useful as extra supplementary material (Lord Ironfist's name, confirmation that H4's world is Axeoth, and now the Legendary Heroes article). Then again there was the time they said Antagarich was on Axeoth back in 2005-6, but we can probably let it slide... :P

I suppose that, techically, Yog is in fact present in Heroes II (play the 'Roc Round the Clock custom map) :devious:

User avatar
XEL II
HoTA Crew
HoTA Crew
Posts: 945
Joined: 14 May 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation

Unread postby XEL II » 02 Nov 2010, 19:52

Hasn't NWC said that Axeoth is HoMM IV world? This name also appears in MM9, which is set on the same planet as Heroes IV. And Morglin's name was confirmed before Ubi AFAIK.
Make you strong places to dwell and practice the evil of your arts. Build great monuments to stand through the ages and remind your followers of the task with which you have been charged. Use these halls of iniquity to perpetrate your schemes against the infestation that has taken the fields and lakes of this land from you, their rightful masters. Never forget the hatred that must finally overcome and consume mankind. Dwell in your dungeons and brood. - Sheltem the Dark

User avatar
Slayer of Cliffracers
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 549
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Location: Gateshead, England.

Unread postby Slayer of Cliffracers » 09 Nov 2010, 16:57

Corlagon wrote:
Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:Do you really believe that Ethric has been looking for Sandro for DECADES and has just managed to track him down!
Of course I do, because that's what the game tells us. It's a solid fact, as far as you or I know. The only one saying otherwise is yourself, in that it "doesn't cut it", and frankly I still don't agree with you - or the theories you've written - one bit. Sorry about that. I have my reasons. :)
The game does not say that Ethric has been looking for Sandro for 20+ years. It says that he has just tracked down Sandro after an indeterminate period of time, it does NOT SAY EVER that he has trying to look for him for decades.

But what it does say is that Ethrics motives are to remove a quite real taint from his career (his own responsibility in making Sandro a Necromancer), these are 'dishonest motives'. The longer Sandro is gone, the less he gains from eliminating him and the more likely that he is to have given up searching. And the longer he is searching, the higher the chance of tracking down Sandro before 20+ years becomes.

It is entirely improbable that he (a mortal human) would continue looking for so long and that were he to look for so long he would not find Sandro. This improbability is increased when we consider that Sandro is not a recluse in hiding.

Throw in the other 5 improbabilities and the kind of 'solid facts' you are going to need to prove that the two Sandro's are the same would have to be very strong indeed.

People are not always honest. Ethric's stated motives are dishonest, to conceal information about Sandro. We know this, because if Sandro dies, this does not change anything about Ethric's career, unless he can also conceal all evidence that he ever existed.

I know that we should not automatically assume that characters are lying arbitrarily but when faced with two options, we should always go for the least improbable one.

That Ethric might lie to Gem is highly probable. That all the 6 improbabilities are the case is beyond improbable.

That the two Sandros are different characters is of an unknown probability, because we don't know how common the name Sandro is and we don't know just many Liches there are either.
Macros the Black wrote: Well, Slayer has ALOT of speculation, and some of them even perfectly reasonable at that - points 3 and 4 of his argument for instance - but it's still just speculation. Call me crazy, but where I'm from one fact is enough to counter a billion speculations.
Except that mere statements made by individuals to others (real or imagined) can only be taken as facts sufficient to prove highly improbable things when their honesty can be established as being completely solid.

The only way that the honesty of Ethrics statement would be pretty much solid would be if he revealed novel information to Gem (stuff she didn't already know) which reflected badly on Ethric's career (what motives him to fight Sandro).

If he admitted for instance that Sandro studied Necromancy under his tutelage in addition to it being 20+ years ago, then his statement would take on an actual factual grounding sufficient to prove that both characters were the same in the teeth of all my 'speculations'.

We are both speculating, Corlagon speculates that they are the same character, I speculate that he is not.

To treat unsubstantiated statements by people with a definite personal stake in the issue, who have known dishonest motives, who are prepared to resort to violence in pursuit of those motives, when it is highly improbable that things can be as they say; that is what I might variously call Charlatans Heaven.

A world where mere statements from such people are taken as facts while factual statements as to the improbability of what they say are dismissed as speculation cannot be given a better name.

Macros the Black wrote: Also, don't forget that all of those speculations can also be written off as simply bad writing by the makers of Heroes 3. It happens. It's just a game. Unless you want to go for the position that the writers did intend Sandro to be the same character, however because of their bad writing it is now impossible for that to be the case, so we as fans must say there has to be two of them. Which borders on fanfiction. Otherwise, we have to simply look at the facts and determine the intent of the writers: did they want Sandro to not be the same person as Sandro from HoMM 2? Which depends on another question, namely: did they make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is in fact someone different than HoMM 2 Sandro? Because if their intent was to make him a different person, then they would have made this very clear. Yog seems to be in a gray area when it comes to this. But in Sandro's case they made his bio very clearly indicate that he is in fact the same person.

So yes Slayer, the burden of proof lies with you.
The authors as far as I am aware originally held Sandro to be the same character along with Yog as their Heroes II/I version and then changed their mind. They then backtracked on their position. I don't care, authors might write stories but they are accountable to what they have written (especially in a story where there are multiple authors).

The burden of proof only applies when both statements are plausible. It is not plausible that all 6 implausibilities are true at once.

If there is a set of factors that renders something that we would normally automatically assume to be the case, in this case two similar characters with the same name being the same person, extremely unlikely then it is the burden of proof is not on the claimant that rejects the automatic assumption.

If a person calls themselves by the exact same name as another, we assume that they are the same person.

But if for instance if a person in Britain were say "I am Jack Potter and I traveled here by alien technology from Australia, technology which is in Australia" and we know that a Jack Potter was in Australia an hour ago and this Jack Potter is in Britain, the doubting person does not have to prove his claim that Jack Potter does not have secret alien technology in order to claim that the Jack Potters are not the same.

This is because it is extremely improbable that the alien technology exists and that Jack Potter has it. Thus Jack Potter now has to prove that he *is* the same person, in order that his claim to have secret alien technology in Australia by which he traveled to Britain to be worthy of investigation.

The burden of proof lies on the Jack Potter claimant (Corlagon) precisely because the claim that he is Jack Potter is so improbable. It does not lie on the Jack Potter denier (me).

All I have to do is cast doubt upon the general assumption that two people with the same name are the same person.
Working on tracking the locations of Heroes IV battles. Stage 6 of campaign map finished, all initial Heroes IV campaigns mapped.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/ ... hp?t=11973

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 09 Nov 2010, 19:39


But what it does say is that Ethrics motives are to remove a quite real taint from his career (his own responsibility in making Sandro a Necromancer), these are 'dishonest motives'. The longer Sandro is gone, the less he gains from eliminating him and the more likely that he is to have given up searching. And the longer he is searching, the higher the chance of tracking down Sandro before 20+ years becomes.
Fun fact: travel on horses is way less efficient then in modern transportation... and people nowadays can still hide for years from huge law enforcement organizations, let alone another individual.

so neither option is more likely then the other like you seem to think.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Slayer of Cliffracers
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 549
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Location: Gateshead, England.

Unread postby Slayer of Cliffracers » 09 Nov 2010, 23:30

ThunderTitan wrote:

But what it does say is that Ethrics motives are to remove a quite real taint from his career (his own responsibility in making Sandro a Necromancer), these are 'dishonest motives'. The longer Sandro is gone, the less he gains from eliminating him and the more likely that he is to have given up searching. And the longer he is searching, the higher the chance of tracking down Sandro before 20+ years becomes.
Fun fact: travel on horses is way less efficient then in modern transportation... and people nowadays can still hide for years from huge law enforcement organizations, let alone another individual.

so neither option is more likely then the other like you seem to think.
I've already covered that possibility ThunderTitan. As a recluse in hiding he could perhaps disappear for ever, but he's evidently not a recluse in hiding. Sandro (If I'm wrong) is already a high-profile public figure in Heroes II, one of a very small group of people called 'heroes' in Heroes II.

In real-life there are things called 'spies' that specialize in just this, infiltrating the regimes of high-profile public figures which they could not do if they could not track them down in less than 20+ years. :) :) :)

Tracking down means the tracked down is hiding or running away from the tracker, if Sandro is a hero from Heroes II, then tracking down Sandro would not be Ethric's main problem, it would have been dealing with the whole Necromancer army under Archibald that's protecting him (but this would all have been resolved over a decade ago).

Leading innumerable armies is not hiding or running away, indeed the Heroes II Sandro is a being that most living people in Enroth are busy running away FROM.

There is also the question of motive too, Ethric's motives are clearly stated.
"It seems Ethric, my old master, has finally tracked me down. He hasn't been too happy about me becoming a Necromancer and wants to remove the blight from his career.
If it's 20+ years ago it's not becoming any more, it's having become at the very least if not being. That's just the normal grammar of the English language, one does not use becoming except in relation to very recent events, or events that are presently in process, otherwise one uses the word being. I've said it already, but not to you.

And that doesn't even bring up the question of why Sandro thinks that Ethric thinks he can remove the blight from his career NOW given that Sandro has already been an extremely high-profile Necromancer already and is now practically a has-been. If I were wrong and they are the same character the text would read as follows.

The corrected version for the Sandro being the same character world is thus.
"It seems Ethric, my old master, has finally tracked me down. He hasn't been too happy about me being a Necromancer and wants to take revenge for the blight on his career that I have caused him.
"It seems Ethric, my old master, has finally tracked me down. He hasn't been too happy about me having become a Necromancer and wants to take revenge for the blight on his career that I have caused him.
My explanation is thus better because Sandro is then just what the words in the text clearly imply, he is a fugitive apprentice running away from his master who has after a fairly short period of time managed to track him down. Not an old generalissimo that has departed to a new land, Gem and Crag Hack are such and it took me 5 minutes to work that out.

This is in addition to the actual improbability of the 20+ year unresolved search for a character that isn't trying to hide from anyone. And I've got 5 more improbabilities where that lot came from. :devious: :devious: :devious:
Working on tracking the locations of Heroes IV battles. Stage 6 of campaign map finished, all initial Heroes IV campaigns mapped.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/ ... hp?t=11973

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 10 Nov 2010, 09:55

Why are you assuming that Heroes have to be high profile individuals?! A lot of the heroes you fight with Crag haven't even heard of him, and he's one of the most well known ones... and from the H2 campaign we have no hint that Sandro actually took any significant part in it... he was just around Enroth at the time...

And why assume that even if one is, why would everyone be able to recognize them right away... there's no TV where they are from.

Not that Sandro wasn't stupid by using his real name... heck, might have even be what finally tipped Ethric off.

"It seems Ethric, my old master, has finally tracked me down."
I don't know about you, but that sentence implies that some not-small length of time had to have passed between Ethric starting to search for Sandro and actually finding him...

He hasn't been too happy about me becoming a Necromancer and wants to remove the blight from his career.
If it's 20+ years ago it's not becoming any more, it's having become at the very least if not being. That's just the normal grammar of the English language, one does not use becoming except in relation to very recent events, or events that are presently in process, otherwise one uses the word being.
Your english grammar skills need more work... "became" can be used to refer to a past event easily.

The sentence easily be seen as using a past tense to imply that E. has been upset at S. becoming a necromancer for some time...

Actually the "hasn't" there at the start might even preclude it from being interpreted as referring to anything recent.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Slayer of Cliffracers
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 549
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Location: Gateshead, England.

Unread postby Slayer of Cliffracers » 11 Nov 2010, 18:21

ThunderTitan wrote:Why are you assuming that Heroes have to be high profile individuals?! A lot of the heroes you fight with Crag haven't even heard of him, and he's one of the most well known ones... and from the H2 campaign we have no hint that Sandro actually took any significant part in it... he was just around Enroth at the time...

And why assume that even if one is, why would everyone be able to recognize them right away... there's no TV where they are from.

Not that Sandro wasn't stupid by using his real name... heck, might have even be what finally tipped Ethric off.
Not all the heroes must be high profile, the scenario custom heroes for instance could be low profile. But Sandro was not such a hero in Heroes II and neither were Gem or Crag Hack.

They are famous, we know they are famous because every scenario for a fairly long time revolves around with a few exceptions the same characters, who lead most if not all of the armies.

This could not be so unless their 'reputation precedes them', the exact same heroes are hired time and time again because governments trust in their proven skills in previous campaigns to lead their armies.

The reason they hire 'foreign expertise' to lead their armies is they know that those individuals are tried and proven, otherwise they would promote promising locals to hero status. These famous heroes evidently travel about looking for wars to fight, akin to the way that Condotteri behaves (the only serious difference is the lack of independent mercenary army of any size, in Heroes the leaders are mercenaries rather than the entire army).

Did the Italian city states have televisions? Did people have any problem becoming famous by their military exploits before TV was invented? If anything it's the other way around, few people got famous once TV is invented because the fame of different leaders at different levels of command effective cancel each-other out (considering also that most wars since WW2 have been rather indecisive lose-lose affairs).

Your argument gets even weaker when you consider that (heroes from Enroth) are the very people who are most likely to know who Sandro is aren't they?

It is doubly unlikely in such a situation that Sandro would even dare approach Crag Hack and Gem, let along that he would use his own name.

The reason that he is using his own name is not because he's stupid but simply because he isn't pretending to be anyone he isn't. All he's doing is concealing certain facts about himself (his dabbling in necromancy) which is already part of his ordinary identity.

If Sandro (who is in Antagarich) knows about the 'other Sandro' in Enroth, then using his own name is actually rather clever ruse in order to throw Gem and Crag Hack off guard. Because if you were a necromancer in disguise you certainly wouldn't use the name of a famous necromancer as your cover.

And if they try to cross-reference his identity, they would find that he is who he says he is and that he is not an evil necromancer trying to take over the world.

ThunderTitan wrote:
I don't know about you, but that sentence implies that some not-small length of time had to have passed between Ethric starting to search for Sandro and actually finding him...


I never said otherwise. He might have been gone for like 6 months. But not 20+ years.

ThunderTitan wrote: Your english grammar skills need more work... "became" can be used to refer to a past event easily.

The sentence easily be seen as using a past tense to imply that E. has been upset at S. becoming a necromancer for some time...

Actually the "hasn't" there at the start might even preclude it from being interpreted as referring to anything recent.


Yes I am obviously not disputing that BECAME IS PAST TENSE! It's BECOMING not BECOME, which is absolutely crucial . If a person says.
"My relatives aren't happy about me becoming a Catholic."
"I am becoming a Catholic,"


Then the event is a recent event because it is still in the process of happening (becoming). Becoming applies to an event still in the process of happening but NEVER to a process that has already happened.
"I became a Catholic and my relatives aren't happy about this,"
"I became a Catholic"


This is a transitional process that has finished (became). Became applies a past transition that has been completed while BEING applies to something long established.

"My relatives aren't happy about me being a Catholic."
"I am a Catholic,"


This is an event that is an established state of affairs (being). Generally this means the transitional event that made it so happened a long time ago if there is some.

So if it happened 20+ years ago as Ethric writes to Gem, the passage would read as follows.

Having become is used instead of being when you are referring to the origin of a present is, something that is now integral but was not always the case.

He hasn't been too happy about me having become a Necromancer and wants to remove this blight from his career.


The only way the original statement could possibly refer to anything a long time ago is if Necromancer is some kind of Utopian idealistic objective that no Necromancer after 20+ years would consider themselves to be.

And even if I am wrong, it still leaves basic the problem of why Ethric would have been searching for Sandro for 20+ years before he finally found him. And the other problem of why Sandro would think that his removal would entail the removal of any blight from his career after so long.

So regardless of grammar; the 1st implausibility still is not resolved. The two Sandro's are clearly different characters simply because of the sheer number of stupidly improbable things that must be so for them to BE the same!
Working on tracking the locations of Heroes IV battles. Stage 6 of campaign map finished, all initial Heroes IV campaigns mapped.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/ ... hp?t=11973

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 12 Nov 2010, 07:11

Look at the examples posted by you again and try to see the difference between them and the sentence about Ethric...

And i mean "become" as the general word with all it's forms...

Then the event is a recent event because it is still in the process of happening (becoming). Becoming applies to an event still in the process of happening but NEVER to a process that has already happened.
WRONG. If i said "My family wasn't happy with me becoming a Christian 20 years ago." it would be totally correct. And it would still be correct if i shorten it to "My family wasn't happy with me becoming a Christian."

Same thing with "My family hasn't been too happy about me becoming a Christian 20 years ago."
Did the Italian city states have televisions? Did people have any problem becoming famous by their military exploits before TV was invented?
You think people that are famous and on TV nowadays can go to public places and not be recognizes like famous people used to do in almost all old stories? That's what i was talking about.
If Sandro (who is in Antagarich) knows about the 'other Sandro' in Enroth, then using his own name is actually rather clever ruse in order to throw Gem and Crag Hack off guard. Because if you were a necromancer in disguise you certainly wouldn't use the name of a famous necromancer as your cover.
Except that Crag isn't smart enough to fall for that if he actually knew of a Sandro that was a necromancer...
I never said otherwise. He might have been gone for like 6 months. But not 20+ years.
No see, there's actually no implication of how much time has passed, just that it wasn't a small amount... so not days, weeks or even a few months... sure, it might have been only a little more then 6 months, but you're assuming that based on what you want it to be, not based on the evidence presented.

And even if I am wrong, it still leaves basic the problem of why Ethric would have been searching for Sandro for 20+ years before he finally found him. And the other problem of why Sandro would think that his removal would entail the removal of any blight from his career after so long.
Not familiar with vendettas and people holding a grudge, are you...

And there's no indication that he's been doing nothing but searching for 20 years either...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Secret_Holder
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 266
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Location: The freezing cold North

Unread postby Secret_Holder » 12 Nov 2010, 16:17

Not all the heroes must be high profile, the scenario custom heroes for instance could be low profile. But Sandro was not such a hero in Heroes II and neither were Gem or Crag Hack.
Nope, Sandro was not a campaign-specific hero in HoMM2. Lord Corlagon and Brother Brax were campaign-specific, and the most famous of Archibald's generals

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 13 Nov 2010, 15:55

He didn't mean it like that, he meant that if you could hire him from the Tavern he must have been famous and involved in the conflict... he has issues separating gameplay from lore...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Talin_Trollbane
Swordsman
Swordsman
Posts: 597
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Up North

Unread postby Talin_Trollbane » 15 Nov 2010, 21:21

hahaha oh wow, what a discussion you guys have here.
Ultima, Elder Scrolls and Might and Magic Veteran.

User avatar
GreatEmerald
CH Staff
CH Staff
Posts: 3330
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Location: Netherlands

Unread postby GreatEmerald » 15 Nov 2010, 22:13

Talin_Trollbane wrote:hahaha oh wow, what a discussion you guys have here.
The discussion is basically this. A good visual way to imagine it would be this. :disagree: :D

User avatar
Secret_Holder
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 266
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Location: The freezing cold North

Unread postby Secret_Holder » 16 Nov 2010, 00:07

Yes, it's tough representing reason on the interwebs B-)


Return to “Might and Magic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests