PDA

View Full Version : What was Haytham's reaction when he learned the TRUTH about his Edward?



Defalt221
02-10-2015, 06:29 PM
I mean,he went on preaching everywhere that Assassins are the worst beings on earth. And then he learns the person he cared about most (aka his dad-Edward) is an Assassin. Why didn't he reconsider that the Templars were evil when he found out that Reginald manipulated him into joining the order?

Namikaze_17
02-10-2015, 06:35 PM
Haytham didn't see the Templars as evil. He still thought their ways and philosophy suited him more than the Assassins regardless of his father and Reginald's manipulation.

He did however ponder if Edward would be proud or disappointed with the choices he made.

I personally think Edward would've been proud.

Farlander1991
02-10-2015, 06:40 PM
Edward taught Haytham to think for himself, dispute opinions of others and make the choices that feel right for him. Haytham did precisely just that.

AjinkyaParuleka
02-10-2015, 07:07 PM
Templars are not evil!And the assassins aren't the good guys either.7 main games with Assassins,mostly the ezio games make people believe that templar=evil,assassin=good.Edward might have been kinda sad that his son was a templar but would've been proud that he thought all by himself,same way how haytham was proud of connor.

marvelfannumber
02-10-2015, 07:09 PM
"What was Haytham's reaction when he learned the TRUTH about HIS Edward?"

Is this a literal literal question or.....?

GunnerGalactico
02-10-2015, 07:22 PM
Haytham didn't see the Templars as evil. He still thought their ways and philosophy suited him more than the Assassins regardless of his father and Reginald's manipulation.

He did however ponder if Edward would be proud or disappointed with the choices he made.

I personally think Edward would've been proud.

^ It also had to do with the fact that Reginald Birch had already steered Haytham's life into serving under the Templar's cause and it was simply too late to come out of it. Even though he discovered that his father was an Assassin, he chose to remain a Templar because their ways appealed to him more and were more in tune with his own philosophies. Haytham saw the similarities between Assassins and Templars, he did not view the Templars as evil. At one point, he even thought that Assassins and Templars could work together and peacefully co-exist (even Connor thought the same thing).

Edward would not have blamed him for turning out the way he did. If circumstances were different, Haytham would've been an Assassin.

wvstolzing
02-10-2015, 07:47 PM
Reginald Birch's manipulation isn't a trivial detail -- if Haytham really were such an independent, critical thinker, he'd have to face the fact, i) that he was indoctrinated, and ii) that Templar ideology practically prescribes the same for mankind at large. *And* if he were a consistent thinker, he'd have to reject that ideology, in that it's simply at odds with the principle that every person ought to have the freedom to think for himself/herself.

Instead, it looks like he simply found it 'comfy', and 'to his tastes', and decided to stay there.

It amazes me how the demeanor of a person, the cadence of his speech, etc., shape others' perception of him/her, to the neglect of the content of their thoughts: Haytham sounds cool, and self-assured -- hey, he must be a guy that 'thinks for himself'. Nonsense.

Farlander1991
02-10-2015, 08:21 PM
*And* if he were a consistent thinker, he'd have to reject that ideology, in that it's simply at odds with the principle that every person ought to have the freedom to think for himself/herself.

I'm not in agreement with Templar ideology, but isn't this like saying that Assassins should reject their ideology because they kill people whose thinking is not in line with theirs therefore going against the freedom of thought that they're going for? There are ironies in both ideologies and ways of thinking.

wvstolzing
02-10-2015, 08:39 PM
I'm not in agreement with Templar ideology, but isn't this like saying that Assassins should reject their ideology because they kill people whose thinking is not in line with theirs therefore going against the freedom of thought that they're going for? There are ironies in both ideologies and ways of thinking.

That's a fair point; but the most charitable interpretation for the Assassins' standpoint is *probably* that they try to eliminate those who work actively to impede/limit/constrain *everyone else's* freedoms.

The idea that an 'elite' segment of society can tell 'the masses' 'noble lies' for 'their own good' -- that only the elite should be trusted to exercise their freedoms to the full, while patronizing the rest as so many children -- is an old, and tired idea, and it's the very basis of totalitarianism. Even with the recent 'nuanced' approach, the Templars consider themselves an 'elite' of precisely *this* sort.

It's not that the Assassins don't 'respect' their freedom of *thought* -- but these guys aren't book publishers. They secretly manipulate governments, economies, the course of everyone's lives, without giving those people so much as a *say* as to what's happening to them. So the Assassins answer their hidden violence with violence of their own.

I don't think for a moment that the Assassins are a perfectly consistent bunch -- but for all the silliness of the lore, one of its pretty well grounded aspects is this struggle between the right to be one's own man/woman, and being treated as so many 'children' by a self-appointed elite. It's true that attaching the label 'evil' to the latter is all too easy -- it's simple moralistic finger-wagging. But *disrespect* for human dignity -- and that's what the Templar position comes down to -- *is* the worst moral transgression if you ask me.

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 08:45 PM
Let's face facts here. Both sides are just messed up in the head. They're both two sides of the same coin. Its kinda like a pick your flavor kind of thing with them. Now Juno is completely different. She's about absolute control over the entire human race. Making them her servants. While my group, which isn't official, is all about absolute freedom. No rules, no structure, no order.

Defalt221
02-11-2015, 11:04 AM
Templars are not evil!And the assassins aren't the good guys either.7 main games with Assassins,mostly the ezio games make people believe that templar=evil,assassin=good.Edward might have been kinda sad that his son was a templar but would've been proud that he thought all by himself,same way how haytham was proud of connor.

Intentionally killing hundreds of innocent people who are only demanding justice (Boston massacre) isn't justified no matter how noble the goal is.

Perk89
02-12-2015, 01:36 AM
Lolololol at anyone saying the Templars aren't about "complete control."
Thats been proven to be the case and time and time again.

As for Haytham, i think Edward would be disappointed his son was manipulated to join such an evil organization, but I do think he would still care for him and see the best in him.
Then there is redemption in Connor for the family's legacy so I think he'd be glad for that, but disappointed that Haytham, choose that path that ultimately ended up in his necessary demise and disappointed it came to that.


Intentionally killing hundreds of innocent people who are only demanding justice (Boston massacre) isn't justified no matter how noble the goal is.


Oh oh on what about racially charged mass execution of a certain people group or trying to launch a satellite into space that would give them direct control over everyone's minds., etc. etc. etc...

"But but but their intentions are good! They aren't so bad, really!


That's honestly the biggest load of hogwash I have ever seen.

""A body enslaved inspires the mind to revolt. But enslave a man's mind and his body will follow on naturally."


―Laureano Torres

now does that really sound like someone who wants complete control


Oh wait yes it does

The only argument for "moral greyness!!! I've ever seen people contend is that it is, supposedly, according to them, more "realistic" (as if real world politicians and dictators have such an upstanding track record that would back this lol).

there is nothing actually in-game that supports this notion other than cheesy "FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JEDI ARE EVIL" dialogue. AC1's and AC3's kill scenes gave some bleeding heart dialogue on a *couple* of occasions that fell under the weight of the means they used (and it wasn't even close) but other than that, outside of meaningless, cliche dialogue,there has been nothing to support the notion that entire organization is... Wait for it...


Evil.

Locopells
02-12-2015, 02:02 AM
Perk, the 'Edit Post' button exists for a reason...

Perk89
02-12-2015, 02:06 AM
But I wanted to get over 500 posts.

pirate1802
02-12-2015, 06:42 AM
The only argument for "moral greyness!!! I've ever seen people contend is that it is, supposedly, according to them, more "realistic" (as if real world politicians and dictators have such an upstanding track record that would back this lol)..

Sorry to break it to you but real world people (politicians and all), except the likes of hitler or ISIS, are rarely are completey black or white. You'd find complete ******bags with some worthy qualities and you'll see good people having vainglorious streaks. Rarely you'd find real people who are absolute creatures of darkness with nary a thing called heart, except like the above examples, or a white knight with no black speck on his character whatsoever. There's a reason whygrey characters are considered to be better written than straight black-and-white stereotypical ones, you know.. just saying.

As for the OP, Edward would have been unhappy no doubt, but ultimately accepted it. He didn't ingratiate his son with Assassin principles, like Giovanni did. He trained him physically, but not philosophically. Because he wanted him to keep an open mind and decide for himself. Because that's what Assassins believe in. Hating him for coming to a conclusion different than his own would have shown Edward to be a massive hypocrite.

There is actually a passage in the book on this; Haytham wondering what his father would have thought of him had he seen what he is now. Edward himself didn't seem to harbour a burning hatred for Templars; just a professional one. There's a line he said about the Templars wanting to keep humanity safe and placid in a golden cage, away from chaos but drained of their vitality. This shows that he does disagree with Templars, but on a professional level and doesn't take it up to fanatic levels. And he hired Reginald Birch well knowing he was a Templar. Where does this all point?

DemonLord4lf
02-12-2015, 06:47 AM
Sorry to break it to you but real world people (politicians and all), except the likes of hitler or ISIS, are rarely are completey black or white. You'd find complete ******bags with some worthy qualities and you'll see good people having vainglorious streaks. Rarely you'd find real people who are absolute creatures of darkness with nary a thing called heart, except like the above examples, or a white knight with no black speck on his character whatsoever. There's a reason whygrey characters are considered to be better written than straight black-and-white stereotypical ones, you know.. just saying.

As for the OP, Edward would have been unhappy no doubt, but ultimately accepted it. He didn't ingratiate his son with Assassin principles, like Giovanni did. He trained him physically, but not philosophically. Just asked him to keep an open mind and decide for himself. There is actually a passage in the book on this; Haytham wondering what his father would have thought of him had he seen what he is now. Edward himself didn't seem to harbour a burning hatred for Templars; just a professional one. There's a line he said about the Templars wanting to keep humanity safe and placid in a golden cage, away from chaos but drained of their vitality. This shows that he does disagree with Templars, but on a professional level and doesn't take it up to fanatic levels. And he hired Reginald Birch well knowing he was a Templar. Where does this all point?

Reginald Birch then ended up killing Edward >.> So in the end assassins and templars will never be friends.


not as long as I can help it...

pirate1802
02-12-2015, 08:45 AM
^Which is not the point of the thread, the point is Edward's hypothetical reaction.

JustPlainQuirky
02-12-2015, 06:54 PM
Can't believe there are actually people against moral greyness.

That's like being against villains who aren't 1-dimensional unjustifiable baddies there for the sake of being an obstacle to the protagonist.

Let's just make all villains a jerk for no believable reason.

Because that's good character development. Ayup.

Please.

Hans684
02-12-2015, 06:55 PM
Can't believe there are actually people against moral greyness.

That's like being against villains who aren't 1-dimensional unjustifiable baddies there for the sake of being an obstacle to the protagonist.

It's a common superhero fantasy.

JustPlainQuirky
02-12-2015, 06:58 PM
Petition to make all future AC villains Dik Dastardly

https://amiinbath.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dd.png?w=767

It's Victorian London up next. All dem mustaches. Now's your chance Ubi!!

UBI BE CHANGE SINCE E3! PETITION EVERY DAY EVERY MONTH EVERY YEAR

Hans684
02-12-2015, 07:25 PM
Petition to make all future AC villains Dik Dastardly

https://amiinbath.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dd.png?w=767

It's Victorian London up next. All dem mustaches. Now's your chance Ubi!!

UBI BE CHANGE SINCE E3! PETITION EVERY DAY EVERY MONTH EVERY YEAR

Expect it, you should. http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/British_Rite_of_the_Templar_Order

Not much in the main page but a lot in the page of each member especially the Collon family. Wile they don't have a page I've read they tried to kill Élise and considered a truce with Assassins blasphemy.

JustPlainQuirky
02-12-2015, 07:36 PM
How idiotic.

Kill first think later is one of the most unhealthiest mentalities and is by no means suitable for an organization seeking peace.

Namikaze_17
02-12-2015, 07:38 PM
While we're at it, lets make the opposition a righteous organization who can do no wrong and is fighting against bad guys. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
02-12-2015, 07:39 PM
while we're at it, lets make the opposition a righteous organization who can do no wrong and is fighting against bad guys. :rolleyes:

'MURICA!!






v

Namikaze_17
02-12-2015, 07:42 PM
'murica!!






v


freedom!!!!

Hans684
02-12-2015, 08:23 PM
How idiotic.

Kill first think later is one of the most unhealthiest mentalities and is by no means suitable for an organization seeking peace.

It doesn't even make sense for an organization wanting order to create chaos.

JSF-89
02-12-2015, 10:03 PM
It doesn't even make sense for an organization wanting order to create chaos.


This is what is so utterly hilarious about the hipster "realists" who try to bang the Templar drum in the name of "MORAL GREYNESS HUZZAHH!!" The Templars make no sense within the context of the game if we are to believe that they want "peace." They can't exist in the world they purportedly want to create. The Templars themselves have initiated violence for violence's sake countless times, most recently In Unity where they apparently started the whole French Revolution. To take it a step further, they apparently started it, at least in part, to help overthrow THEIR OWN ORDER so they can take control.

So what we have here is an organization that has been directly responsible for the deaths of billions throughout history in the name of "peace" (lulz) or an order that believes it and it alone is united and fit to have absolute power when the Templars have proven countless times that they are about as far away from being united as you can possibly get.

The Templar hipsters here (because let's face it, they only started popping up when the Assassins became GASP! MAINSTREAM!!! constantly berate Rodrigo Borgia for his "evilness" (which was frankly a pretty accurate portrayal of him if we're being honest) but it only serves to validate my point-that none of them are actually united in any capacity. The Templars are so divided by cultures, colors, and other belief systems that it's outright comical to think any peace or "orderly control" would come with their reign. (Though technically the Borgias are revered by modern Templars so lol at that crowd)

This isn't just commentary on how flawed the Templar ideology is either. What I'm saying is that it's SO flawed that it transcends any form of realism and the high brow, pseudo-intellectual crowd banging the "MORAL GREY" drum as if they've stumbled upon some piece of higher learning than us mere mortals cannot comprehend is absolutely comical.


to quote one of their beloved walking contradictions: perhaps I am not wise enough to understand, but I suspect the opposite is true. That I am too wise to believe such rubbish.
there is nothing about "moral greyness" that carries any semblance of higher learning, especially in a universe where a group of individuals fight for a narrative they quite obviously couldn't exist in.

JSF-89
02-12-2015, 10:22 PM
And honestly, just on the real, if we're going to get into the discussion of intellectual concepts, it's admittedly pretty disturbing that this generation's understanding of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil is so shallow that it is defined by cartoons. No offense, of course. Just kind of concerning for the future.

DemonLord4lf
02-12-2015, 10:24 PM
:: sits in a corner and watches all the chaos unfold about morel greyness, and laughs and laughs and laughs ::

JustPlainQuirky
02-12-2015, 11:09 PM
SO flawed that it transcends any form of realism

False.

The templar ideology of sacrificing free-will for the sake of stability is prominent in many countries past and present. Some dictatorships have even been 'successful' depending on your perspective.

Just because you can't see why others would find it practical, doesn't mean it isn't a common way of thinking.

And if it is a common way of thinking, obviously there is a form of realism to it. Hence the desire for moral greyness.

Perk89
02-12-2015, 11:44 PM
False.

The templar ideology of sacrificing free-will for the sake of stability is prominent in many countries past and present. Some dictatorships have even been 'successful' depending on your perspective.

Just because you can't see why others would find it practical, doesn't mean it isn't a common way of thinking.

And if it is a common way of thinking, obviously there is a form of realism to it. Hence the desire for moral greyness.


Lol you removed all context to find one fragment of a sentence so that you could parrot this line and hope to discredit what I said.

youve missed the point entirely. This isn't about "iron-fisted" ruling versus democracy or whatever you're trying to contend that this is. This is about the Templars actions and belief systems being so inconsistent that it isn't even believable within the context of a fictional universe.

about the time Ubisoft decided to bang the hallowed "moral greyness" drum we had the major retcon of the Templars desiring not control but "peace." The problem with that is that it shot the narrative's credibility into a million and one little fragments that make no sense when weighed against the actions the Templars have taken within the game's universe (starting wars that result in the death of millions for instance)


It is an indisputable fact that the Templars goal of absolute control is a much more believable ambition given what we know about them, and Ubisoft's attempts at trying to jimmywaggle "peace" in because it sounds better are weak, forced and have been a significant detriment as a whole.
of course, even then, the idea that men who believe that they alone are worthy to guide humanity will suddenly settle down and lose all ambition once the Templars win and they are each given their own standing army, land and all the weaknesses that come with it, etc etc etc and the fact that we've yet to see a single Templar (or anyone else)make this realization while they waltz under the delusion that the world shall become paradise (for them, no doubt) also crosses the border from "weak plot hole" into "embarrassing attempt at trying to create the sympathetic villian)

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 12:00 AM
Templars actions and belief systems being so inconsistent that it isn't even believable within the context of a fictional universe.


There are different variations of templars just as there are different variations of christians, democrats, etc.

a label does not immediately indicate consistency.


we had the major retcon of the Templars desiring not control but "peace."

Are you serious? Even in AC1 Al Mualim even blatantly says the templars share the same goal of peace but just have different means of achieving it.

Control is simply means to achieve peace.


(starting wars that result in the death of millions for instance)


Saving lives has never been templar's clearly defined goal of reaching peace. Sacrifice is a mean of achieving peace in their eyes. And their version of peace is order/stability even if that means killing in order to attain control.


Ubisoft's attempts at trying to jimmywaggle "peace" in because it sounds better are weak, forced and have been a significant detriment as a whole.

I disagree. The templar philosophy was arguably justified in AC3 for example


of course, even then, the idea that men who believe that they alone are worthy to guide humanity will suddenly settle down and lose all ambition once the Templars win and they are each given their own standing army, land and all the weaknesses that come with it, etc etc etc and the fact that we've yet to see a single Templar (or anyone else)make this realization while they waltz under the delusion that the world shall become paradise (for them, no doubt) crosses the border from "weak plot hole" into "embarrassing attempt at trying to create the sympathetic villian)

the idea of being worthy to guide humanity isn't exclusive to templars. its a common leadership trait even found in presidents. in some cases it's even a requirement.

and the reason we havent seen a 'successful' templar (though i'd disagree on that assessment) is because we haven't played as enough templar ancestors thus don't know of all the success stories.

and whether the world the templars create is a paradise (depending on the result) varies person to person

DemonLord4lf
02-13-2015, 12:16 AM
man this drama is better then most of my shows i watch. :: slirps on some soda ::

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 12:18 AM
tis just a debate mate

Perk89
02-13-2015, 12:19 AM
Lolololol sacrifice?! ...Sacrifice??

From the games alone-not the parts of history yet unexplored -but the games alone, from the Crusades, to the French Revolution, to WW2, to the modern day (airport executions, blatantly faulty products, kidnapping/body dumping, false flag ops)-the Templars have killed roughly a billion people.


you call that sacrifice? Lol

Sacrifice is when you're willing to give up what you want or what benefits you for someone else or something better. Treating people as if they're disposable-especially on a horrifying large scale- in the name of the goals you want to achieve isn't sacrifice. It's murder.



As for the Templars being "varied" why yes, that's part of my initial point. You know what all those different political parties, religions, cultures have some throughout human history? They've fought.

To pretend as if a tiger will change his stripes and those men will lose all ambition and stop fighting is absurd. They're men, who by their own admission, believe themselves above the common man. Do you really think men with that attitude towards life wouldn't think themselves above those who they break bread with? Now with power and wealth? The entire idea is ridiculous, and it's ridiculous that the Templars are so oblivious to it. For all the reflecting we see the Assassins do, it's remarkable that the Templars are so oblivious to such basic philosophical observations,

DemonLord4lf
02-13-2015, 12:20 AM
tis just a debate mate

A debate can be quite dramatic. Checkmate

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 12:33 AM
you call that sacrifice? Lol

Sacrifice is when you're willing to give up what you want or what benefits you for someone else or something better. Treating people as if they're disposable-especially on a horrifying large scale- in the name of the goals you want to achieve isn't sacrifice. It's murder.


There are different views on sacrifice.

What you described is your perspective.

But in many cases, especially in times of war, killing is seen as a necessary evil.

Such as bombings for example.

You may not agree with it, but you don't have the right to define what is sacrifice to everyone.



As for the Templars being "varied" why yes, that's part of my initial point. You know what all those different political parties, religions, cultures have some throughout human history? They've fought.


Every second every day every month every year there are fights. That statement hardly is exclusive to those you've described.


To pretend as if a tiger will change his stripes and those men will lose all ambition and stop fighting is absurd. They're men, who by their own admission, believe themselves above the common man. Do you really think men with that attitude towards life wouldn't think themselves above those who they break bread with? Now with power and wealth? The entire idea is ridiculous, and it's ridiculous that the Templars are so oblivious to it. For all the reflecting we see the Assassins do, it's remarkable that the Templars are so oblivious to such basic philosophical observations,

As I stated before, the idea of believing you're what's right for your people isn't exclusive to templars.

That same logic applies to many if not all political leaders.

And it's your opinion that it's ridiculous. As i said, several dictatorships that follow that philosophy has been successful depending on perspective.

Perk89
02-13-2015, 12:57 AM
There are different views on sacrifice.

What you described is your perspective.

But in many cases, especially in times of war, killing is seen as a necessary evil.

Such as bombings for example.

You may not agree with it, but you don't have the right to define what is sacrifice to everyone.



Every second every day every month every year there are fights. That statement hardly is exclusive to those you've described.



As I stated before, the idea of believing you're what's right for your people isn't exclusive to templars.

That same logic applies to many if not all political leaders.

And it's your opinion that it's ridiculous. As i said, several dictatorships that follow that philosophy has been successful depending on perspective.


Just because killing babies makes me feel powerful, doesn't mean it's justified lol. My "perspective" is the perspective of a healthy mind. The casualties the Templars are willing to sacrifice aren't part of a war. They are innocent people who have no affiliation to the Templars. An inherent, implied fact (as in not able to be construed to whatever suits the user) is that it entails giving up something that matters to you. The mass murder of a billion lives with no affiliation or benefit to the Templars is, by the very distinction of the word, not sacrifice.


And yes, I'm aware that ego trips nor combat is exclusive to Templars. You're relating exactly what I'm saying but not understanding.The underlying theme of every party mentioned is that they are human, and, lo and behold, so are the Templars. The notion that those things stop with them in charge is insanity.

meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 01:04 AM
Just because killing babies makes me feel powerful, doesn't mean it's justified lol.

Killing babies and whether or not something like a dictatorship is a good idea are two entirely different things.


My "perspective" is the perspective of a healthy mind.

That is about the most biased statement of all mankind.

Of course people will view their own morals as "the right" path.

That obviously isn't necessarily the case as there are tons of religions, laws, and philosophies out there.


The casualties the Templars are willing to sacrifice aren't part of a war. They are innocent people who have no affiliation to the Templars.

The war i describe is an implied war. A war templars have to fight in order to gain control. Loss of life is a necessary evil in their eyes. Whether it's justifiable depends on the circumstances and each individual's personal views.


The mass murder of a billion lives with no affiliation or benefit to the Templars is, by the very distinction of the word, not sacrifice.

Not if the templars prefer not killing. The US for example didnt WANT to bomb innocents in Japan but they felt it was necessary. (though this is on the lines of too political which i will stray away from for the sake of staying on-topic)


And yes, I'm aware that ego trips nor combat is exclusive to Templars. You're relating exactly what I'm saying but not understanding.The underlying theme of every party mentioned is that they are human, and, lo and behold, so are the Templars. The notion that those things stop with them in charge is insanity.


And as I said for the third time, there have been successful dictatorships out their depending on perspective.

aL_____eX
02-13-2015, 01:09 AM
https://31.media.tumblr.com/c573361cf2e8fff30fb40a677653f2ba/tumblr_njn1avup4B1sj3heko1_500.gif

Perk89
02-13-2015, 01:12 AM
Years ago Marvel did the now well known Civil War series, and they vastly underrated their consumers' intelligence.

Marvel, so absolutely sure that the general populace would take to Iron Man's side for superhero registration (they didn't) overcompensated to make the politics of the discussion seem balanced. The problem was, that not only did people not back Iron Man's side for the most part, they went to extraordinary measures to make it seem fair. Iron a Man became an insane government nutcase, releasi villains from prison and contracting them to hunt down, and in some cases kill, the very people and heroes he was just friends with.

There comes a point where you cross a line from ends justify the means up to evil. It doesn't matter how noble your intentions are-evil doesn't have to entail twirly mustaches and death metal.

A river of blood one billion lives strong has gone way, way across that line and anyone who would say otherwise needs immediate psychiatric attention.


but here's the thing-those statements are a revelation to nobody. They aren't the point,

The point is there is no have your cake and eat it too scenario here.

In no way can a river of blood that strong be rationalized-it is evil.

so the Templars are, because of this river, the evil beings we've known them as (preferred, given the early games were strong and used real life people who embodied this well in their actual lives) OR trying to rationalize that river of blood with bleeding heart dialogue is poor, inconsistent storytelling.


the two are mutually exclusive. They, in no way, can both exist. Either the Templars are evil (it doesn't mean that every man who dons a Templar tricorn is) or it's poor storytelling to try and make them seem not so bad in the wake of the things we know they done.


This isn't one those middle ground times-it's one or the either-either the Templars are GASP! bad, or the storytelling is-because trying to justify all they've done simply isn't practical at this stage (and Ubisoft, frankly, kind of sick)

Perk89
02-13-2015, 01:19 AM
Killing babies and whether or not something like a dictatorship is a good idea are two entirely different things.



That is about the most biased statement of all mankind.

Of course people will view their own morals as "the right" path.

That obviously isn't necessarily the case as there are tons of religions, laws, and philosophies out there.



The war i describe is an implied war. A war templars have to fight in order to gain control. Loss of life is a necessary evil in their eyes. Whether it's justifiable depends on the circumstances and each individual's personal views.



Not if the templars prefer not killing. The US for example didnt WANT to bomb innocents in Japan but they felt it was necessary. (though this is on the lines of too political which i will stray away from for the sake of staying on-topic)



And as I said for the third time, there have been successful dictatorships out their depending on perspective.


Lol alas those poor Templars, sleeping not so soundly at night because of all the other people whose death they personally arranged wasn't something wanted! It was necessary!

Killing babies isn't like a dictatorship, no. It's more like systematically executing a certain people group or beheading thousands so you can find a treasure or whatever. Which is what we're talking about. Not dictatorships. We aren't talking about complete control remember? The Templars don't want that! They're just nice guys who want peace and are the only ones qualified to lead mankind to it!

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 01:20 AM
http://i.imgur.com/YFYIbtL.jpg

If you're going to counter argue, please don't use superhero comics of all things as a reference.


It doesn't matter how noble your intentions are-evil doesn't have to entail twirly mustaches and death metal.


The issue is templars aren't inherently evil. conceptually, all they desire is peace through strict order and the means of achieving such order may require sacrifice through human life but it is a necessary evil.



A river of blood one billion lives strong has gone way, way across that line and anyone who would needs immediate psychiatric attention.


but here's the thing-those statements are a revelation to nobody. They aren't the point,

The point is there is no have your cake and eat it too scenario here.

In no way can a river of blood that strong be rationalized-it is evil.


bombings.


so the Templars are, because of this river, the evil beings we've known them as (preferred, given the early games were strong and used real life people who embodied this well in their actual lives) OR trying to rationalize that river of blood with bleeding heart dialogue is poor, inconsistent storytelling.


the two are mutually exclusive. They, in no way, can both exist. Either the Templars are evil (it doesn't mean that every man who dons a Templar tricorn is) or it's poor storytelling to try and make them seem not so bad in the wake of the things we know they done.


This isn't one those middle ground times-it's one or the either-either the Templars are GASP! bad, or the storytelling is-because trying to justify all they've done simply isn't practical at this stage (and Ubisoft, frankly, kind of sick)

War involves tons of bloodshed. Even to the innocent. Yet that does not automatically deem all participants of war evil.

And Haytham's actions as a templar can arguably be justified. He has only killed soldiers in an act of war. He had goals of removing washington and replacing him with lee because washington was not a suitable leader in his eyes. and to degree washington was as seen by his horrific treatment of native americans.

it isn't black and white. factions that last long end up lasting long for a reason. their philosophies hold weight to many


Killing babies isn't like a dictatorship, no. It's more like systematically executing a certain people group or beheading thousands so you can find a treasure or whatever. Which is what we're talking about. Not dictatorships. We aren't talking about complete control remember? The Templars don't want that! They're just nice guys who want peace and are the only ones qualified to lead mankind to it!

except that treasure is something that in their eyes could bring peace to all of humanity, thus giving up some humanity in order to improve the world overall. And templars DO want control. Because control is their means of achieving peace.

Perk89
02-13-2015, 01:54 AM
Alright this argument is going around in circles so I'm only putting in a few more tokens for this ride.
We aren't talking about bombings. Bombing is an act of war. We are talking about execution.

And yes, I'm aware the Templar claim "peace through control" as their goal. What I'm saying is that it isn't going to happen. Even if every leader on earth became a Templar-the in-fighting amongst themselves would irrefutably then begin. This is simply am observation of human nature. One that is especially more quickly to occur given the nature of these man and the varied opinions they have.

You could say that just because this fact exists that it doesn't mean they'd give up on their goal-which leads me to the issue of poor storytelling-we've yet to see a single Templar who wasn't so deluded to believe that once they won everything would be fine. Not talking to himself, not to his comrades of enemies.they all firmly believe all their problems would go away. Either it's poor storytelling to try and maintain the "end justify the means narrative" or maybe were meant to believe that the Templars really are that dumb. I'm not sure which,

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 01:59 AM
We aren't talking about bombings. Bombing is an act of war. We are talking about execution.

Templars are undergoing an implied war.


And yes, I'm aware the Templar claim "peace through control" as their goal. What I'm saying is that it isn't going to happen.

"it isn't going to happen" is pretty bold considering the concept of peace via full control already has happened in several countries throughout history.


Even if every leader on earth became a Templar-the in-fighting amongst themselves would irrefutably then begin. This is simply am observation of human nature. One that is especially more quickly to occur given the nature of these man and the varied opinions they have.

that's simply your hypothesis, unable to be proven.


we've yet to see a single Templar who wasn't so deluded to believe that once they won everything would be fine.

Except that arguably isn't a deluded mindset nor did any templar outright imply "everything would be fine" once further steps to worldwide control were achieved.

Storytelling has nothing to do with it.

DemonLord4lf
02-13-2015, 02:30 AM
http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/joker_eatin_popcorn_by_capnectoplasm_d39sa07_1.gif

Fatal-Feit
02-13-2015, 08:20 AM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/3a/3a08ae0ba36efaa908cb22e699ea487f361ac9e21365224683 64f9c56deb6f02.jpg

pirate1802
02-13-2015, 09:38 AM
And honestly, just on the real, if we're going to get into the discussion of intellectual concepts, it's admittedly pretty disturbing that this generation's understanding of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil is so shallow that it is defined by cartoons. No offense, of course. Just kind of concerning for the future.

Objective morality does not exist. What you consider good and bad is shaped by the society you grew in, and by the religious books you follow (if any). That might differ drastically from what I consider good. In south asian countries it is considered okay to piss in public, but kissing is a grave sin; in Murica the opposite is true. The sooner people get over this drama about good and bad, the sooner they'll have one less reason to fight and kill each other. Yes, I have a parameter of what is good and what is bad, but I won't pretend that my way is the absolute one, and other such parameters equally valid do not exist. I'm not talking about any game or cartoon or comic; I'm talking about what I really think; because apparently some people are concerned someone else's moral compass doesn't coincide with their own.


If you're going to counter argue, please don't use superhero comics of all things as a reference.

If you are tired of the same old superhero tropes, I'd suggest reading a thing called Watchmen. (If you haven't already). It brilliantly deconstructs the whole idea of a perfect heroic savior superhero. I generally avoid superhero comics for this very reason, but Watchmen is something I'll take to my funeral pyre, and read in the afterlife.