quote:

Originally posted by Edengoth:
Of course. That's why all of your targets except Talal and Robert De Sable casually kill at least one person for insubstantial reasons. The party line may be "there are no good guys and bad guys", but really, AC1 was pretty clear-cut.
Assassins kill when necessary, and only armed people.
Templars kill whoever they please.
Assassins try to free everyone.
Templars try to control everyone.
The fact that they both want peace is the only "good" thing about the Templars. The fact that they both misrepresent themselves to the public is the only "bad" thing about the Assassins.

You left out killing hundreds of soldiers only trying to keep the street safe and catch that guy who just murdered their boss.

Also, Robert de Sable randomly kills a hostage during the Masyaf siege. And Talal is a slaver. That says enough, I think.

I want to add though that I actually found all their deathbed arguments quite compelling, aside from Majd Addin's "I don't need a stinking motive to have fun!!" which is still quite realistic.

dont forget richard killing his men

also sebrand killed that monk and abul poisoned his guests

The hosatge killed during the siege is an Assassin, and as there were no rules of war/Geneva Conventions back then, his killing was understandable.

You can also argue that the killings were either planned/calculated moves or were nasty character flaws. A planned killing could be Abu'l Nuqoud when he posioned the guests. They were supposdly wealthy/influential people who greatly contributed to the Muslim war effort. Killing them would reduce their capacity to make war. Majd Addin's killings are used to maintain political and civil control over Jerusalem (i.e. make himself feared), although he says its also fun, so could be seen as both a planned move and a serious flaw.

The charactr flaws would be the likes of Tamir and Sibrand. Tamir was a buisnessman with a bad temper. The guy failed to do his job, and had the unfortune for working for a demanding boss with a knife, and a bad temper. Sibrand killed the priest out of fear and paranoia. Who created this paranoia? the Assassins, namely Altair. So although he did kill him, the Assassins own success was working against them.

And as for the Assassins only killing armed men, Altair kills the elderly man at the start of AC and Abu'l Nuqoud is un-armed. So technicaly that would be incorrect.

*Im not trying to say that what these characters did would be right, particularly by today's morals/ethics/standards, only that its not super clear cut as some have made out. Well IMO any way.

quote:

Originally posted by OHS_90:
The hosatge killed during the siege is an Assassin, and as there were no rules of war/Geneva Conventions back then, his killing was understandable.

Actually, there were quite a few rules of war, at least when Saladin and Richard were in charge. Later, when discussing William's own hostage killing, Richard is quite ****ed.

Not that any of Robert's men would squeal on him or worry about Al Mualim writng an angry letter to Richard...

I suppose most of those could be justified, but did you hear Majd Addin's death speech? That man was, by most people's standards, not a "good guy". Tamir's reaction was inexcusable and Jubair's was just plain overkill (pun intended). Other than that, I'll buy a few of those justifications.
Altair got stabbed in the gut for killing the old man, among other misdeeds, so that act represents going against the Assassin's Creed and therefor I don't count it.

I think my point overall was just that for all their talk of moral ambiguity, it seemed like the writers portrayed the Templars as unreasonable and vile while portraying the Assassins as rational and wise.
(With the exception of a few of the death speeches and Al Mualim's betrayal, all of which I thought didn't really match what was seen of those characters before dying or "coming out of the Evil closet".)

I totally see where you're coming from though, OHS. Most of those acts could certainly be justified and most of the acts of the Assassins could certainly be condemned...depending on one's point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Edengoth:
Most of those acts could certainly be justified and most of the acts of the Assassins could certainly be condemned...depending on one's point of view.

Hence the 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'.

I admit, I felt as though the ending wasn't as ambiguous morally as I would have liked it to be. It kind of came down to evil men battling over an artifact, when it seemed as though they were trying to build up the story in a way wherein the Assassins were the ones doing the bad and the targets were not. But then Lucy ended up confirming the whole "Nah, the templars really are bad, they're just deluding themselves" thing.

It's a shame that they didn't flesh out as much of that ambiguous moral ground as they could have, and Altair's confusion over which side was right... but hopefully we'll see a bit more of that in AC2 (with the exception of Altair, of course).

I really like the fact that at the end of the game there wasn't a "good" side. And Altair didn't really know who to trust anymore so he decided to do what he believed was right, valuing the human ability of free-will over the possibility of "true" peace.
By the end of the game he is much wiser and I love the attachment that he writes. ( I hope it comes up in AC2, possibly the codex)

nice sig

Actually, I think the ambiguity becomes incredibly thick once you remember they're fighting for the same thing in the same way. Altair can justify his actions just as much as any of nine men, but he's still murdering strangers because he thinks their death will benefit the land. Not just them, but hundreds of soldiers who were really just fighting for their culture and beliefs.

At the beginning of the game, he is just as horrific as Majd Addin in his views, as are most of the other assassins. Remember how the bureau leaders just shrug at his questions and say, "Al Mualim commamds it."

Just because the Templars work on a grander scale does noty excuse the Assassins anymore for their Animal Farm mentality towards assassination. Also, Al Mualim is worse than any Templar in the game, even Majd Addin. Everyone in the game desires a better world in some way. Only Al Mualim, the role model for Assassin, 'refuses to share'.

"And yet you'd kill us all. For no other reason than it was asked of you."-Talal

yup that's Altair for you. at least at the beginning of the game.

i remember one of the conspiracy theories was that jfk was going to expose the "enlightened ones" or illuminati and was killed for it. maybe it shows that lee was a templar.

if you watch Zeitgeist they talk about the conspirators JFK was trying to uncover if they were templar in origin that I am uncertain

And maybe, Just maybe that is NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. It wouldn't make sense. According to the conspiracies, he didn't even kill JFK, he was just the fall guy. He made a shot with an old rifle with next to no experience with guns that the best rifleman in the WORLD couldn't make with the BEST GUNS in the WORLD. This game is about Assassins, not people who say they did it then get killed by a gunman.

quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Man001:
i remember one of the conspiracy theories was that jfk was going to expose the "enlightened ones" or illuminati and was killed for it. maybe it shows that lee was a templar.

And that is part of the conspiracy. You guys have never heard of the "2 shooters on the grassy knoll" theory?

quote:

Originally posted by com199:
And maybe, Just maybe that is NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. It wouldn't make sense. According to the conspiracies, he didn't even kill JFK, he was just the fall guy. He made a shot with an old rifle with next to no experience with guns that the best rifleman in the WORLD couldn't make with the BEST GUNS in the WORLD. This game is about Assassins, not people who say they did it then get killed by a gunman.

Maybe they keep the real truth in that safe. A dossier about what really happened wouldn't be complete without at least some details about Oswald's involvement, whether he's the actual killer or not.

I think this should explain things.

lol

Lalala lalala. *wanders in and drops some two cents*

IT'S A VIDEO GAME.

*wanders back out* Trala lala.

quote:

Originally posted by com199:
And maybe, Just maybe that is NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. It wouldn't make sense. According to the conspiracies, he didn't even kill JFK, he was just the fall guy. He made a shot with an old rifle with next to no experience with guns that the best rifleman in the WORLD couldn't make with the BEST GUNS in the WORLD. This game is about Assassins, not people who say they did it then get killed by a gunman.

Not trying to be mean but having studied the Kennedy Assassination a lot of what you said is incorrect.


"maybe that is NOT Lee Harvey Oswald."

- That is MOST DEFINITELY Lee Harvey Oswald. I am 100% sure of that.


"He made a shot with an old rifle"

- It was actually a brand new Mannlicher Carcano rifle that he purchased in March of 1963. 7 months before the assassination.


"with next to no experience with guns"

- Lee was actually a certified US Marine "Sharpshooter".


"that the best rifleman in the WORLD couldn't make with the BEST GUNS in the WORLD"

- The shot has been re-created a number of times with similar results. Most recently on a Discovery Chanel show that took into account wind direction and many of the other various factors. It also proved successful.

quote:

Originally posted by Serenity9066:
Lalala lalala. *wanders in and drops some two cents*

IT'S A VIDEO GAME.

*wanders back out* Trala lala.

This.

Ubisoft will explain everything in AC2

or maybe AC3 :O