PDA

View Full Version : What are the Creeds rules about who 'has to die'?



DangerDrago2015
03-06-2015, 06:38 PM
Stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent.


One of the most important tenets. But what are it's criteria?

Like what if an innocent bystander sees you doing your job, and then runs to tell the guards! Should you kill them? Altair did it.

And speaking of guards:

The game let's you kill guards. It puts you in situations where you have to kill guards. Also, on more than one occasion I have seen my fellow Assassins kill guards themselves. But, like, really? The Brotherhood wants atleast some remotely peaceful society, and the whole point of guards is to keep peace and prevent crime. If they see you assassinate a guy, of course the guards will attack you. Itstheir job to stop who they think are clean cut murderers. They dont know your reasons. They dont know they're defending guys who want to control all of humanity. They are just doing their job, and that doesnt mean they should have their throats obliterated by your hidden blades.

Im currently playing unity, and everytime i fight guards, i either bomb and run or switch to a non lethal weapons (Which I can't even do in combat! Thanks alot Ubisoft)

VestigialLlama4
03-06-2015, 07:30 PM
Like what if an innocent bystander sees you doing your job, and then runs to tell the guards! Should you kill them? Altair did it.

Altair did that in the opening mission of AC1, but he didn't do that after that in the game. The Interrogation was merely lackeys of his targets, corrupt folks themselves.


The game let's you kill guards. It puts you in situations where you have to kill guards. Also, on more than one occasion I have seen my fellow Assassins kill guards themselves. But, like, really? The Brotherhood wants atleast some remotely peaceful society, and the whole point of guards is to keep peace and prevent crime. If they see you assassinate a guy, of course the guards will attack you. Itstheir job to stop who they think are clean cut murderers. They dont know your reasons. They dont know they're defending guys who want to control all of humanity. They are just doing their job, and that doesnt mean they should have their throats obliterated by your hidden blades.

Well in BROTHERHOOD this is explained. Ezio's girlfriend Cristina asks him to spare guards in one mission but Ezio points out that those guards are corrupt folks who follow orders of authorities. The guards are not necessarily innocent. For one thing, they treat all crimes are equal, they don't go after the real thieves (the ones who try and sneak up on yout to rob you), let corrupt Templars do their business with impunity.

AC games are set in the past, the idea of police being good is not the same across history. I mean in BLACK FLAG, all the ships you attack are British and Spanish ships that protect slave plantations, so they cannot possibly be "good" by modern standards. Same with AC3, Connor has a one star notoriety in the Frontier simply because he's a Native American.

AssassinHMS
03-06-2015, 09:25 PM
Yeah, I’m not very fond of that tenet either, or rather, its wording.
Obviously innocence is in the subject and not in the object and in theory, there’s no one actually innocent or guilty just as there isn’t anything beautiful or ugly, there simply is.

I think the real purpose of that tenet is to encourage Assassins on the field to avoid killing people. Why? Well, because a death can compromise a mission or, who knows, the brotherhood. Killings have consequences and not just in the form of a body lying around in the floor (even if the actual games don’t think that killing a guard is a big deal). That is why, it’s important for an Assassin to stay his blade from as many people as possible.
Of course they use the word “innocent” but I think that has to do with how dogmatic the Assassins are or were in Altair’s time. They have very strong notions of “right” and “wrong”, of “guilty” and “innocent” so it’s up to each Assassin to use their own definition of “innocence” (which should be quite similar especially back when they were born and raised in the Order). After all, these people were, supposedly, fighting for the basic notion of “freedom”…so no wonder it’s so easy for them to come up with convenient labels (regarding who is innocent and who isn’t).

Fatal-Feit
03-06-2015, 09:25 PM
It's vague, man. And guards don't have souls.

XxEagleHeartxX
03-06-2015, 09:47 PM
Stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent.


One of the most important tenets. But what are it's criteria?

Like what if an innocent bystander sees you doing your job, and then runs to tell the guards! Should you kill them? Altair did it.

And speaking of guards:

The game let's you kill guards. It puts you in situations where you have to kill guards. Also, on more than one occasion I have seen my fellow Assassins kill guards themselves. But, like, really? The Brotherhood wants atleast some remotely peaceful society, and the whole point of guards is to keep peace and prevent crime. If they see you assassinate a guy, of course the guards will attack you. Itstheir job to stop who they think are clean cut murderers. They dont know your reasons. They dont know they're defending guys who want to control all of humanity. They are just doing their job, and that doesnt mean they should have their throats obliterated by your hidden blades.

Im currently playing unity, and everytime i fight guards, i either bomb and run or switch to a non lethal weapons (Which I can't even do in combat! Thanks alot Ubisoft)

They belong to a Army and you are technically at war with them. When you decide to take one out then you are technically killing him and is not consider murder. I guess "murder" to the Creed means killing a civilian.

Jackdaw951
03-06-2015, 10:00 PM
They belong to a Army and you are technically at war with them. When you decide to take one out then you are technically killing him and is not consider murder. I guess "murder" to the Creed means killing a civilian.

Right. Guards are soldiers, and soldiers should be aware of what they signed up for. They are legitimate enemy targets, not innocents.

SixKeys
03-06-2015, 10:41 PM
Altair did that in the opening mission of AC1, but he didn't do that after that in the game. The Interrogation was merely lackeys of his targets, corrupt folks themselves.

Not all of the interrogation targets were corrupt. One or two of them begged for their lives and made it clear they were under threat of pain or torture if they didn't obey their masters. That's no reason to kill them. Altaïr even expressed sympathy for their plight when one of them asked "Then you will spare me?" and Altaïr replied "Would that I could". He could have spared the man, but he didn't want to risk being exposed. The man was innocent yet Altaïr took his life. No two ways about it.

I also cannot get behind the idea that every single guard during the Borgias' reign was corrupt and evil. Some of them clearly were, but many were just doing their jobs, thinking they were working for the people or the common good. The Cristina memory simply proves Ezio's thinking was too black and white at the time, due to what he had just gone through. He saw every guard as evil whereas Cristina had a more balanced view, and Ezio did the right thing taking her advice.

Jackdaw951
03-06-2015, 10:48 PM
Has nothing to do with corruption or evil. A soldier (guards included) signed up to be muscle for one particular faction. He is an integral part of that faction. In any conflict between factions, he is the front line of defense, and will die well before the entire faction does.

LoyalACFan
03-06-2015, 11:22 PM
Has nothing to do with corruption or evil. A soldier (guards included) signed up to be muscle for one particular faction. He is an integral part of that faction. In any conflict between factions, he is the front line of defense, and will die well before the entire faction does.

Not exactly justifiable. What about all those guards we've killed who were just guarding chests? That's like saying "oh, I was justified in killing that mall cop because I wanted to rob Macy's."

dimbismp
03-06-2015, 11:36 PM
This tenet is really controversial and that's why i like conversations like this.IMO this tenet shows how fanatical the Brotherhood can really get...

So,i believe that most guards are NOT GUILTY.They simply try to do a job,to protect the citizens,especially the national guards in ACU.Sure,some of them may be corrupt and help the dictators and the Templars,but i think that they are a minority.And also,many guards may be unaware of the corruption of the gonverment and/or became guards because they needed the money or something.So,in that case,the guards are innocent.Besides,most of them have families etc,so it is really cruel to kill them.What the assassins should do in my humble opinion,is to completely avoid detection,even from the target.

To declare a man innocent or guilty is really objective and unfair.Usually the assassins kill templars for the sake of it.As LaTouche stated:"Show the assassins a Templar plot and they will do the killings without any questions".Plus,most of the times,the assassins view is blurred by personal matters,like Ezio's revenge, Arno's redemption and Connor's need to protect his village.For example,in ACU,Le peletier should not have been assassinated,as he didn't do anything wrong...Similarly,Connor killed most of his targets because they were Templars...Plus,he killed some poor treasure hunters fellas in a side mission(i remember this being a huge debate in a thread i made a while ago ;) )

JustPlainQuirky
03-06-2015, 11:41 PM
I thought of this before too.

The tenant is so ambiguous to the point it is valueless

HDinHB
03-07-2015, 12:47 AM
That's what Eagle Vision is for. If they glow red, they are obviously not innocent. In Unity single player, I don't kill blue guards except in self defense. Like the OP, I usually run away.


This argument was decisively resolved a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away:

http://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA

Selian DeSang
03-07-2015, 02:04 AM
well there are a few points to this... one first and foremost they are npc's in a video game they are not living or important therefore slaughter to your hearts content

but upon further speculation good and evil are just ideals.

the assassins wants to let the world be peaceful by free will
templars want peace through control

both will kill to support their goals and both are equally evil despite their end game, but isnt the lion evil to the zebra, and the zebra is just lunch to the lion?

point being its perspective to associate evil, think about a lot of the atrocities happening in the united states with cops killing people, in one perspective the officers were upholding the law that was mutually voted on to the legal and lawful, others would see racially inspired violence using authority as a means to get away with murder. both in their own way are right and both are wrong. it is perspective who decides who is right and who is wrong. both concepts are equally corrupt being as they can be changed to fit a situation.

we live in a corrupt world and no rules or creeds can really define it

but the actual creed(not the tenets) nothing is true everything is permitted is first and formost the view of the assassin reality.

VoldR
03-07-2015, 02:33 AM
Its not black & white or a general idea that all guards a re bad or all civilians are good.

sparing the innocent can work two or more ways, first is to get allies. People u spare may be able to help you in the future and choosing a different path could lead you to a more better position away from prying eyes.

Each assassin have spared people who are clearly bad or don't deserve it or not their target... Take ur pick.
Maria, Rodrigo, that agent of cesare who poison the actor... etc.

One reason I love Deus Ex games, I can hear conversations about the NPCs personal lives just trying to survive. Whoever is targeting you, terrorists, strangers, secret org, former allies or even ur own family...

Get to know them and up to u if u want to spare them or not.
PS: You can wkn the game without killing anyone but few bosses

VestigialLlama4
03-07-2015, 04:51 AM
Not all of the interrogation targets were corrupt. One or two of them begged for their lives and made it clear they were under threat of pain or torture if they didn't obey their masters. That's no reason to kill them. Altaïr even expressed sympathy for their plight when one of them asked "Then you will spare me?" and Altaïr replied "Would that I could". He could have spared the man, but he didn't want to risk being exposed. The man was innocent yet Altaïr took his life. No two ways about it.

Henchmen serving Stalin and Nazis used that same excuse as well, were those guys innocent? I don't think they were. In the French Resistance during the second world war, the resistants often killed people in the same way that Altair did, because they knew too much or they risked being compromised. The fact is those heralds knew they were serving a faction of Templars against the interests of state and the people, they were definitely implicated and corrupted to start with.


I also cannot get behind the idea that every single guard during the Borgias' reign was corrupt and evil. Some of them clearly were, but many were just doing their jobs, thinking they were working for the people or the common good.

We don't see any evidence of that. I mean that's why Rome is so rundown, we keep hearing stories of guards raping the wives of common folk, stealing stuff, shutting down local businesses and the like, using Borgia towers to build a police state. You can make a better case that the Janissaries (slave kids sold to the state) are honorable folk following orders, but most of the ones we see in the game are real a--holes. There might have been good guards but as is usually the case in a corrupt police organization, the ones with conscience are kept in minor positions, or since this is Medieval Italy, sent to the warfront to die.

This is one of the problems with doing a modern day AC, in a medieval/historical context you can try and invent ways to justify Video Game cruelty, of killing guards, but in a 21st Century context, killing cops even if they were associated with Templars would make it hard for the hero to be sympathetic.

SixKeys
03-07-2015, 11:18 PM
Henchmen serving Stalin and Nazis used that same excuse as well, were those guys innocent? I don't think they were. In the French Resistance during the second world war, the resistants often killed people in the same way that Altair did, because they knew too much or they risked being compromised. The fact is those heralds knew they were serving a faction of Templars against the interests of state and the people, they were definitely implicated and corrupted to start with.

That's a false analogy, because guards are not henchmen to the big honchos. Guards are just the police. If the president decides to bomb another nation, would you say all cops are evil since they're basically working for the government? Juan Borgia was a henchman. He knew about Cesare's plans and gleefully participated in them. The random guards posted around Juan's party palace most likely never even met the guy before and didn't know anything about Templars.


We don't see any evidence of that.

That's just ridiculous. Are you really saying that literally every single guard in Rome was evil and corrupt and therefore Ezio would have been justified in killing the entire police force? Of course we don't see evidence of that because it would kind of put a damper on the gameplay. "Sure, knock yourself out, kill all these innocent people in sight even though it completely contradicts the creed the hero supposedly follows".

Even Altaïr admitted the Creed was contradictory in his codex:

"What follows are the three great ironies of the Assassin Order:
(1) Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means.
(2) Here we seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to a master and set of rules.
(3) Here we seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet we are practitioners ourselves.
I have no satisfactory answer to these charges, only possibilities… Do we bend the rules in service to a greater good? And if we do, what does it say of us? That we are liars? That we are frauds? That we are weak? Every moment is spent wrestling with these contradictions and in spite of all the years I’ve had to reflect, still I can find no suitable answer… And I fear that one may not exist."




This is one of the problems with doing a modern day AC, in a medieval/historical context you can try and invent ways to justify Video Game cruelty, of killing guards, but in a 21st Century context, killing cops even if they were associated with Templars would make it hard for the hero to be sympathetic.

Why is it any different in a 21st century context? Because police corruption no longer exists? LOL.

It is hard for the hero to be sympathetic if he's killing innocents no matter the context. People keep trying to justify Ezio blowing up an entire city too (Cappadocia) by saying "oh, but they were all evil 'cause they were Templars". How is that any different from saying "oh, it's okay to bomb Afghanistan because they're all terrorists"?

Ezio was a protagonist, not a hero. Protagonists make mistakes, they're flawed, they can be wrong, they can do immoral things in the service of what they see as the greater good. ALL the assassins have killed innocents to serve their own cause. The only thing that matters is whether you're willing to overlook that fact because it makes you feel better about sympathizing with them or if you're willing to criticize them when they're being hypocrites.

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 05:05 AM
That's a false analogy, because guards are not henchmen to the big honchos. Guards are just the police. If the president decides to bomb another nation, would you say all cops are evil since they're basically working for the government?

Now the latter is the real false analogy. Because you are invoking one extreme action rather than serial corruption, which is what Stalinism and Nazism represents. That's a prolonged daily evil we are talking about. The fact is institutions and people do not have the same value at all places and all times. You can't have a career in a corrupt regime without serving the interests and the necessities of your evil masters. There can never in practise, be such a thing as a "good Nazi" or a "good Stalinist".


The random guards posted around Juan's party palace most likely never even met the guy before and didn't know anything about Templars.

But those guards are specifically shown to be corrupt and evil. The guy whose place you took was the one who was planning to murder Egidio Troche even after he brought the money he owed, the ones under his command all react with surprise when that guard (Ezio in disguise) says to spare him. Those guards don't bat an eye when Juan Borgia murders a prostitute at a party. They may not know anything about the Templars but the Templars only kept those guards because they didn't ask questions, were dumb and looked the other way.


That's just ridiculous. Are you really saying that literally every single guard in Rome was evil and corrupt and therefore Ezio would have been justified in killing the entire police force?

The only question is whether it's justified to kill people even if they are evil. The fact is that the Rome we see in the game is a dirty mess until Ezio arrives in town, the countryside is filled with brigands (Cento Occhi) who kidnap, loot and rape with impunity, you have these terrorist cults who operate with zero oversight, your first mission is killing a corrupt Templar overseer. The gameplay points out that pretty much all of Rome that we see in the game is corrupt, so in that environment, guards, the ones who are on duty to make sure people are kept in line, certainly cannot be called "Good".


Why is it any different in a 21st century context? Because police corruption no longer exists?

Simply because values and people's relation to society has changed, today a guy who walks around and stabs policemen around the corner everywhere would be considered a psychopath. In the earlier eras, that was not so. There's a reason why audiences like the outlaw Robin Hood more than the Sheriff of Nottingham after all. Bear in mind that most of human history was endured not in democratic societies, but under kingdoms, empires and monarchies, in those eras the people had no real rights at all and the ones serving the government and enforcing the law were not necessarily very sympathetic by default. You can't apply the values towards police in a democratic society to the same with police in those kinds of societies. In BLACK FLAG, the fact that most of those Empires who fight the pirates are serving the very legal and profitable slave trade essentially clears any doubts you might have about piracy because slavery is ten times more evil than any badly dressed pirate.

As for the rest of your points, I don't want to discuss Assassins individual morality or actions because that's not the point of this post. Its about guards being "innocent" or whether it's okay to kill them or not.

Hrafnagud72
03-08-2015, 09:05 AM
Lots of words

I don't think you have a true grasp on the level of control corrupt leaders maintain. Hitler had millions of people under his control. You really think all of them wanted to be killers? No. His control reaches deep. The systems these corrupt leaders set up terrorize people into doing what they want. They have boundless control. It is easy for you to say that you wouldn't do what Hitler or any other leader commanded you to because you aren't in that situation. But I promise you that if you lived in Germany in the 40s, you would do what it took to live and stay off the radar, which would mean doing what you are commanded. It's easy to be brave when you are safe, it's not easy to be brave when you are in danger.

That being said, I find it impossible for every person doing horrible deeds at the hands of a corrupt master to be evil. Most are merely trying to survive.

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 11:49 AM
I don't think you have a true grasp on the level of control corrupt leaders maintain. Hitler had millions of people under his control. You really think all of them wanted to be killers? No. His control reaches deep. The systems these corrupt leaders set up terrorize people into doing what they want.

If I remember my history correctly, the only people Hitler terrorized was Jews, homosexuals, communists, political prisoners, gypsies and others. He was pretty hands-off to ordinary Germans, that's why practically none of them revolted against him or complained much when he took the minorities civil rights away from them. You can make a case for Stalin terrorizing people, which he certainly did with his Purges and GULAG and the fact that he didn't discriminate between insiders and outsiders. Hitler was the nicer boss and the worse villain.


But I promise you that if you lived in Germany in the 40s, you would do what it took to live and stay off the radar, which would mean doing what you are commanded.

That's not true at all. In BLACK FLAG, the Subject Zero tapes dealt with the Edelweiss Pirates, German kids who resisted army conscription and formed teen gangs, you can live off the radar by not doing what you are commanded.


It's easy to be brave when you are safe, it's not easy to be brave when you are in danger.

I don't think the Guards serving the Borgia in AC2 and Brotherhood (which is the actual subject of this Topic), or the Nazi SS guards or Wehrmacht were in any danger at all. The only people who were in danger were the actual targets of Nazi brutality. Trying to equate them is monstrous and delusional. That's like saying that the Allied Resistance in Poland, Italy and France were wrong in killing Nazis and collaborators, which is patently absurd.


That being said, I find it impossible for every person doing horrible deeds at the hands of a corrupt master to be evil. Most are merely trying to survive.

And they choose to survive by serving the state and enforcing its power and abusing the population, that very choice is fundamentally evil.

Defalt221
03-08-2015, 11:57 AM
1)Kill anyone who dare speaks against freedom. Even teachers if they punish students for doing whatever they wish. Everyone must be 100% free. They should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want. Even if it's evil.
2)Don't kill innocents. But it's okay to let them die indirectly because of you.
3)Kill those who rule a country,kill them. Even if they do it for the betterment of people.

Namikaze_17
03-08-2015, 12:57 PM
1)Kill anyone who dare speaks against freedom. Even teachers if they punish students for doing whatever they wish. Everyone must be 100% free. They should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want. Even if it's evil.
2)Don't kill innocents. But it's okay to let them die indirectly because of you.
3)Kill those who rule a country,kill them. Even if they do it for the betterment of people.

1) So kill anyone who speaks of freedom but everyone should be free? I'm confused.

2) Achilles says hi.

3) So kill an honest and non-corrupt leader because they rule a land? Gotcha. :rolleyes:

---

My two cents: I refuse to believe all guards in every AC game are evil corrupt bastards working with the Templars. It's highly unlikely and just plain silly.

I recall playing AC3 once, and I stumbled upon a group of guards discussing about returning to their wives/familes after their post(s) that sounded very honest and genuine.

So yes, there is some hypocrisy in the Creed of who's deemed 'innocent'. Their view of innocent that is.

SixKeys
03-08-2015, 05:02 PM
If I remember my history correctly, the only people Hitler terrorized was Jews, homosexuals, communists, political prisoners, gypsies and others. He was pretty hands-off to ordinary Germans, that's why practically none of them revolted against him or complained much when he took the minorities civil rights away from them. You can make a case for Stalin terrorizing people, which he certainly did with his Purges and GULAG and the fact that he didn't discriminate between insiders and outsiders. Hitler was the nicer boss and the worse villain.

LOL "Hitler only terrorized (lists off a whole bucketload of people)". :rolleyes:

Don't forget the Nazis went after anyone they deemed a sympathizer towards all those groups you mentioned. That's why there was so much fear and paranoia even among "ordinary" Germans. In essence, nobody was safe, because they were constantly being spied on and speaking your mind could get you into trouble.


And they choose to survive by serving the state and enforcing its power and abusing the population, that very choice is fundamentally evil.

I'm curious now: based on the actions the police force recently took during the Ferguson riots, would you describe the entire American police force as fundamentally evil?

(Serious question, because I actually know people who would say yes. I'm just looking for some consistency here.)

Shahkulu101
03-08-2015, 05:09 PM
I have no regrets about killing any guards whatsoever.

You try to kill me for something as innocuous as being on a rooftop - you're getting knifed in the abdomen.

Let's not forget these people sign up for the guards knowing they will have to kill people. If they murder someone for stealing bread or having an inch of their coat-tail within a restricted area there won't be any "d'awww they just poory woory guards doing their jobs."

VestigialLlama4
03-08-2015, 06:05 PM
Don't forget the Nazis went after anyone they deemed a sympathizer towards all those groups you mentioned. That's why there was so much fear and paranoia even among "ordinary" Germans. In essence, nobody was safe, because they were constantly being spied on and speaking your mind could get you into trouble.

What you describe is true of Nazism in Occupied nations but it's absolutely not true of Germany. The only "Aryan" Germans whose life was threatened were the ones like Sophie Scholl or the military failed assassination plot, as well as the folks who tried to hide Jews or directly spy for the Allies, these people were a minority of German population. Most German people did not have any problems with Hitler until he got them into a war and they didn't have problems until the Allies started bombing their cities which didn't happen (correct me if I'm wrong, 1943, halfway into the war), until that time, Germany was unaffected in terms of daily life by the war. And even then, as Allied soldiers discovered, most Germans did not resist Hitler or Nazism after liberation (unlike say the Italians who rose against Mussolini in 1943 and whose partisans excercised a most grievous vengeance against his person and body) most of them only felt bad that they lost the war, and they would likely have had no problems with Nazism had he won.

Hitler, unlike Stalin, did not bully or abuse his constitutency or turn a police state against them. He didn't attack the property or lives of ordinary Germans, that was the main reason why he was able to do what he did, he managed to convince the German populace that the Holocaust was happening to someone else (just Gays, Commies, Jews et al). Saying that the ordinary Germans were terrorized into helping Hitler, well that's a lie that even Nazi officers didn't say in Nuremberg, they simply said that they were following orders like any military officer. Even Eichmann at his trial never used that as a defense nor did other Nazis, I mean that's why it's so culpable and disturbing since Hitler managed to create consent for his scheme.


I'm curious now: based on the actions the police force recently took during the Ferguson riots, would you describe the entire American police force as fundamentally evil?

(Serious question, because I actually know people who would say yes. I'm just looking for some consistency here.)

Well that goes to the heart of the medieval/modern divide I am talking about. You can take a stand against Nazi police and you can paint the Sheriff of Nottingham as an unsympathetic guy (just as Javert is not as sympathetic as Jean Valjean in Les Miz) but in a 21st Century democratic America, it doesn't mean nearly the same thing.

In any case, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion on real-life police and historical stuff, I only cited Hitler and Stalin as extreme examples partly because I didn't think anyone had serious doubts that they were bad people and that most people who served them wouldn't and can't be considered good people or innocents by any legal or historical judgement. The point is that are the guards in the AC world, "innocents" in the sense that the Civilian NPCs are, my point is that by and large they aren't and given the nature of society the historical time is set in, there is certainly a difference between enforcing law and order in a monarchy and empire or Papacy than it is in a modern era. The Borgia guards in AC2 and ACB are genuinely bad people as we are shown repeatedly in the gameplay and story. Its more questionable in the 18th Century context, but even then the fact that Connor has a permanent Single Level Notoriety in the Frontier, implies that soldiers will willingly attack him because he's a Native American, in the cities you have a Revolutionary context so its sort-of justified. It's one of the ways having a Native American protagonist makes sense because whether it's British or American guards he's going to be a target for his race alone and he's safer in the cities.

In the Victorian era, it will be interesting (in their next game) since this was an era which is very pro-Police and having the main hero attack Bobby cops will be a curious thing for the public to take on, especially if the main Assassin is a white, English middle-class guy (the ones with the least to fear from cops). Before the Victorian era, the English public liked figures who were rogues, pirates, highwayman and the like but during the Victorian age, criminals were not very sympathetic in the fiction and Sherlock Holmes became the first popular lawman figure (in an earlier era Moriarty would be the hero).

AssassinHMS
03-08-2015, 08:35 PM
Let's not forget these people sign up for the guards knowing they will have to kill people.
Yes, most of them willingly signed up for guard duty. And I’m sure they had their reasons, or are you doubting them? Maybe they needed the money or perhaps they were seeking respect, who knows? But I can guarantee you one thing, there is a valid reason for their actions/choices, otherwise they wouldn’t be guards at all.
It’s not like people are born under the same circumstances and some decide they’re ok with killing people for a living, just because.


If they murder someone for stealing bread or having an inch of their coat-tail within a restricted area there won't be any "d'awww they just poory woory guards doing their jobs."
Yes, they aren’t just guards doing their job…they’re people living the way they know how. I may not applaud their choices but I can’t really blame them because I bet that, in their head, their actions are justified.


I have no regrets about killing any guards whatsoever.
Me neither.

Hans684
03-09-2015, 05:38 AM
Anyone basically can die by their rules. It's definition depends who that run things.

Jackdaw951
03-09-2015, 11:16 AM
Not exactly justifiable. What about all those guards we've killed who were just guarding chests? That's like saying "oh, I was justified in killing that mall cop because I wanted to rob Macy's."

No one who comes after me with the pointy end of his sword first is exactly an innocent. I often try to simply get by, but guess what? They see me, and try to do their job, which is to stop me or kill me. It doesn't matter if they support 10 kids, or are exemplary members of their church community. They chose the role of a soldier, and death by opponent in conflict is a risk they would be stupid not to know about in their chosen profession.

Hans684
03-09-2015, 04:20 PM
No one who comes after me with the pointy end of his sword first is exactly an innocent. I often try to simply get by, but guess what? They see me, and try to do their job, which is to stop me or kill me. It doesn't matter if they support 10 kids, or are exemplary members of their church community. They chose the role of a soldier, and death by opponent in conflict is a risk they would be stupid not to know about in their chosen profession.

So killing police today is fine if you get the money because they simply did their job? The places is restricted for reasons, who's money do you steal? I don't know but it's not justice to kill for it and take something that's not theirs. It's not stupid to go your job, do you know any in military or police? I do and they have a chance of dying and it's part of their job indeed but letting crimes happen because the obviously heavy armed hooded guy wants someone's money isn't a good reason to let the crime happen. Would you let someone kill your workers and take your money? Doesn't really matter since the Assassin is gonna take it and all in the name of freedom. Then there is the family part, since it's a job(everyone has and need one to survive), how would you react if [hypothetically] someone from your family got killed guarding something for someone and the killer was never found? Simply because their job has a risk of death doesn't excuse pointless killing of them. So your protagonist wants money, hunt animals and sell it. That's honest earned money.

Shahkulu101
03-09-2015, 04:43 PM
So killing police today is fine if you get the money because they simply did their job? The places is restricted for reasons, who's money do you steal? I don't know but it's not justice to kill for it and take something that's not theirs. It's not stupid to go your job, do you know any in military or police? I do and they have a chance of dying and it's part of their job indeed but letting crimes happen because the obviously heavy armed hooded guy wants someone's money isn't a good reason to let the crime happen. Would you let someone kill your workers and take your money? Doesn't really matter since the Assassin is gonna take it and all in the name of freedom. Then there is the family part, since it's a job(everyone has and need one to survive), how would you react if [hypothetically] someone from your family got killed guarding something for someone and the killer was never found? Simply because their job has a risk of death doesn't excuse pointless killing of them. So your protagonist wants money, hunt animals and sell it. That's honest earned money.

You can't equate the 21st Century police force with the guards in the AC games though. The point is that the guards in AC kill on sight for the pettiest of crimes - like simply bumping into them. If a guy does that, whether it's his job or not he's not innocent. Even immediately resorting to lethal force because of thievery is extreme unless the Assassin has killed first.

And anyway, police forces who exist today that use too much force are not innocent. Are Assad's (Syrian dictator) loyal henchmen innocent? After all it's just a job...No they aren't, because you can't work for such a horrible regime and exist outwith it. They are a driving force in enacting the crimes against humanity that Assad commits. Just as the guards of the Borgia are guilty of aiding the Borgia's corrupt occupation of Rome.

I do agree that it isn't plain and simple, they don't all deserve to die of course - but they aren't as innocent as your regular NPC's.

Selian DeSang
03-09-2015, 05:24 PM
look at it this way... most of us agree that some of the guards are corrupt, i mean there is a guy on the roof lets shoot him and ask questions later. but the other guards despite having families or conscience decided to stay on as guards probably knowing full well the corruption of the government they serve or knowing the atrocities of their associates. a person who lets evil happen is just as evil as the one who commits the crime. so by this logic all the guards are therefore not innocent. as for modern day if a cop does something that goes against the law and others know about it there is usually some kind of punishment(at least when the entire police force isnt in on it) that is why they have the department of internal affairs.

once again it is just a game.... and unity is better in the scheme of keeping the "video games make kids violent" mob at bay.... unlike other games(ac titles included) where you can hunt down and kill other people, in this they are just idiot ai's

SixKeys
03-09-2015, 05:30 PM
The whole problem is that the games themselves are inconsistent with the rule. Altaïr gets punished in AC1 after killing the old man in Solomon's Temple because, as Malik says, "he did not need to die". Why not, though? The old man could have alerted Robert de Sable and his crew. Why did Malik and Al Mualim deem the old man innocent when Altaïr deemed him a threat? Simple: there were other ways to take him down besides killing him.

The same rule should apply to all who are not a direct threat, including guards who will not necessarily get in the assassin's way. That's why non-lethal takedowns exist in the game, after all. The noblest assassination is the one where you only kill whoever is absolutely necessary, preferably only your main target. I understand sometimes other kills are necessary when you slip up, but that's exactly the point. You're not supposed to slip up, because if you do, it causes unnecessary suffering. The assassins are not warriors whose creed gives them permission to kill whomever they wish. Their goal is one target only. If the assassins were true to the Creed, they would always look for non-lethal ways to get rid of people who weren't their target.

AssassinHMS
03-09-2015, 05:34 PM
The point is that the guards in AC kill on sight for the pettiest of crimes - like simply bumping into them. If a guy does that, whether it's his job or not he's not innocent.
What do you mean by “innocent”? What is he not innocent of?


Even immediately resorting to lethal force because of thievery is extreme unless the Assassin has killed first.
What “extreme” is varies from time to time, from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance.


they don't all deserve to die of course
Deserve?

Shahkulu101
03-09-2015, 05:47 PM
What do you mean by “innocent”? What is he not innocent of?


What “extreme” is varies from time to time, from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance.




Deserve?

He's not innocent because he murders folk for bumping into them and other petty things.

Obviously their actions can be justified in certain circumstances but the guards in AC are too quick to draw their swords. All I'm saying is that the guards aren't angels and can't be compared to regular NPC's in terms of "innocence". They are a different entity.

Yes, deserve. Why?

At the end of the day Assassins should try to limit killing to only their targets because it's less likely they get caught that way. If they have to kill guards, it's necessary and they are not killing innocent people if those guards are serving oppressive and corrupt masters.

Defalt221
03-09-2015, 05:48 PM
1) So kill anyone who speaks of freedom but everyone should be free? I'm confused.

2) Achilles says hi.

3) So kill an honest and non-corrupt leader because they rule a land? Gotcha. :rolleyes:

---

My two cents: I refuse to believe all guards in every AC game are evil corrupt bastards working with the Templars. It's highly unlikely and just plain silly.

I recall playing AC3 once, and I stumbled upon a group of guards discussing about returning to their wives/familes after their post(s) that sounded very honest and genuine.

So yes, there is some hypocrisy in the Creed of who's deemed 'innocent'. Their view of innocent that is.

1)Read my post carefully. I said "Kill anyone who speaks AGAINST freedom." Not who supports freedom.
2)Me says (to Achilles),"Hi to you too.."
3) Yeah,like how Ezio almost tried to kill sultan Selim I (in Revelations) who ordered Ezio to leave Constantinople because of the chaos he caused while fighting Ahmet all over the city and outskirts. Even though Selim I was an honest and righteous leader.

VestigialLlama4
03-09-2015, 05:57 PM
Altaïr gets punished in AC1 after killing the old man in Solomon's Temple because, as Malik says, "he did not need to die". Why not, though? The old man could have alerted Robert de Sable and his crew. Why did Malik and Al Mualim deem the old man innocent when Altaïr deemed him a threat? Simple: there were other ways to take him down besides killing him.

It's clearly implied that the old man was a worker and labourer, and not a guard. You can tell from the clothes, the scaffoldings and other material there. It even gets a call back in REVELATIONS, where Ezio defends the old worker in front of Altair's library, telling him to pack his things because Ezio's got his back, that's a reference to the opening of AC1 showing what young Altair should have done at the time.


The same rule should apply to all who are not a direct threat, including guards who will not necessarily get in the assassin's way. That's why non-lethal takedowns exist in the game, after all.

Non-lethal Takedowns only arrived with Ezio, and especially Connor. Altair doesn't fight with his fists. He simply joins his hands and prays like a penitent when he's not stabbing.


The noblest assassination is the one where you only kill whoever is absolutely necessary, preferably only your main target. I understand sometimes other kills are necessary when you slip up, but that's exactly the point. You're not supposed to slip up, because if you do, it causes unnecessary suffering.

Assassins are not supposed to call their work "noble", necessary yes, messy and even brazen and audacious certainly, but not that. The fact is sometimes Assassins have to make their presence known otherwise people will die. The only way Altair can get to Majd Addin is to attack him during a public execution. If you are stealthy, he kills some victims before you reach him. If you go forward, you can save lives.


The assassins are not warriors whose creed gives them permission to kill whomever they wish. Their goal is one target only. If the assassins were true to the Creed, they would always look for non-lethal ways to get rid of people who weren't their target.

Well, yeah but sometimes an opportunity opens and if its a choice between letting that guy go and sparing a few of his evil corrupt guards because they have families, and charging through and ending a huge threat to civilian population (like William Montferrat who murdered POWs and was hoarding food and starving Acre), then the Assassin has to go. Otherwise you can have Assassins patting their back for whacking Hitler in his Bunker in a stealth mission without killing the other Nazi guards, when killing him far, far earlier (say a bomb underneath the Nuremberg Rally) would have saved the millions who died in the camps, at the expense of maybe a thousand irredemably evil Nazis. That's the essence of why Assassins resist Templars and do what they do.

AssassinHMS
03-09-2015, 06:13 PM
He's not innocent because he murders folk for bumping into them and other petty things.

Obviously their actions can be justified in certain circumstances but the guards in AC are too quick to draw their swords. All I'm saying is that the guards aren't angels and can't be compared to regular NPC's in terms of "innocence". They are a different entity.

Yes, deserve. Why?

So, if I murder a person, as long as I do it for reasons that you consider justifiable (due to not so petty things), I am innocent? I think the law in my country would disagree.
I don’t know if the guards aren’t angels but they are people and people are all the same.
And what is this different entity you speak of?

Aren’t guards just NPCs who decided to pursue that particular career?


I don’t think there is such a thing as “deserve”…not outside our heads anyway. In other words, deserving something is an illusion. We get what we get, whether we deserve it or not is up for anyone to decide. All I’m saying is that there are no laws other than the ones we create (to feel safer I suppose). We create this notion of “deserving” as a tool to cope with reality, but it isn’t an actual thing.


At the end of the day Assassins should try to limit killing to only their targets because it's less likely they get caught that way. If they have to kill guards, it's necessary and they are not killing innocent people if those guards are serving oppressive and corrupt masters.
Do you think those corrupt and oppressive masters are any different from the oppressed and “honest” people?
The only things that separates a hero from a villain, in the real world, are the circumstances…and the point of view.

Namikaze_17
03-09-2015, 06:20 PM
1)Read my post carefully. I said "Kill anyone who speaks AGAINST freedom." Not who supports freedom.

Oh. Well my fault then for misreading.

But right, someone who questions endless chaos that results from such freedom should be killed right?

Yeah, that's the way to go.




2)Me says (to Achilles),"Hi to you too.."

I don't think you understand sarcasm...


Yeah,like how Ezio almost tried to kill sultan Selim I (in Revelations) who ordered Ezio to leave Constantinople because of the chaos he caused while fighting Ahmet all over the city and outskirts. Even though Selim I was an honest and righteous leader.

I don't blame Selim.

I too would tell some old hooded man to leave if they damaged my city. :rolleyes:

Shahkulu101
03-09-2015, 06:26 PM
So, if I murder a person, as long as I do it for reasons that you consider justifiable (due to not so petty things), I am innocent? I think the law in my country would disagree.
I don’t know if the guards aren’t angels but they are people and people are all the same.
And what is this different entity you speak of?

Aren’t guards just NPCs who decided to pursue that particular career?


I don’t think there is such a thing as “deserve”…not outside our heads anyway. In other words, deserving something is an illusion. We get what we get, whether we deserve it or not is up for anyone to decide. All I’m saying is that there are no laws other than the ones we create (to feel safer I suppose). We create this notion of “deserving” as a tool to cope with reality, but it isn’t an actual thing.


Do you think those corrupt and oppressive masters are any different from the oppressed and “honest” people?
The only things that separates a hero from a villain, in the real world, are the circumstances…and the point of view.

I not saying the assassins are any more innocent than the guards. Ultimately the Assassin's are just Rogue criminals, I'm not defending them.

Yes and that career involves killing. That's what separates normal NPC's from the guards, it may be his duty but regardless of the circumstances he causes death. That's why civilians are not on the same level as the NPC's. That's why I believe the tenant "do not kill innocents" refers to regular citizens and not the guards.

Yes they are different. Some may agree and support but it's folly to claim that all citizens who are suffering under an oppressive rule are no different if those people's life's are being adversely affected against their will. If circumstances were different and they had the opportunity to become the leaders, perhaps they would do the same. But that's not the circumstance and it's pointless to speculate.

VestigialLlama4
03-09-2015, 06:35 PM
So, if I murder a person, as long as I do it for reasons that you consider justifiable (due to not so petty things), I am innocent?

The Post is about NPC guards are innocent and if so, should they not be included in the AC pro-civilian policy. Nobody is saying the Assassins are saints or innocents for killing guards, they aren't.

Assassin's Creed was a game that was very carefully concieved and set in a particular historical period, dealing (with reasonable accuracy) with how the real-life Asasiyun functioned in the Middle East during the period from the First through Second Crusades. In that era and landscape, the Assassins were kind of like the Middle East Robin Hood who protected the poor communities from the oppressive rulers, exchanged knowledge with travellers and provided refuge and safe passage. The Assassins were quasi-outlaws(they did own and had rule over their lands so they weren't totally illegal) in a time when law and society was breaking down, and as such are more sympathetic and honorable than the corrupt establishment. Jade Raymond specifically stated that the AC wasn't Medieval Hitman and they were clearly fascinated with the outlaw philosophy. So Altair killing guards in that era has justification because he has the public on his side. The game's many Liberation side missions (which increase vigilantes) have guards harassing civilians and threatening to cut off woman's arms for stealing, or harassing scholars, all of whom Altair definitely whacked (and so increased synchronisation).

The minute the game moves out of that established historical framework to later areas, by necessity they have to justify the Protagonist's relation to a new milieu, so Italian City-States, most guards are mercenaries who kill for money. The Borgias are shown to be scum repeatedly (like murdering a woman by stabbing her chest in the finale of BROTHERHOOD). In Revelations, the Janissaries mostly leave you alone until you start raising a fuss while the Byzantines will attack you on sight. In AC3, you are playing a Native American against racist guards on both factions. In the Pirate Era, well the Pirates are egalitarian and proto-democratic while the British and Spanish are enforcers of slave trade, cue the world's smallest violin.

In UNITY, the French Revolutionaries are poor and so evil and the hero is rich and has a Hot Templar girlfriend, so already their justifications are getting stretched by refusing to engage with the historical period. I expect that in AC: Victory set in Victorian London, they would have to make killing Bobby Police an instant desynch and invent a new faction of killable NPCs.

AssassinHMS
03-09-2015, 07:01 PM
Yes and that career involves killing. That's what separates normal NPC's from the guards, it may be his duty but regardless of the circumstances he causes death. That's why civilians are not on the same level as the NPC's. That's why I believe the tenant "do not kill innocents" refers to regular citizens and not the guards.

Well, guards are nothing more than a piece of the puzzle. Let’s say a shopkeeper sees someone stealing his goods and calls the guards who proceed to kill the thief. Who killed the thief? The guards, directly, the shopkeeper indirectly and you could also answer “the thief” for breaking the LAW. All in all, who is responsible for the thief’s death? Everyone, or in other words, Society. Like the “honest” shopkeeper, the guards work for the society. They’re no different, except for the way they serve the society they’re part of. If you are part of that society then you are just as responsible for the thief’s death.
Sure, the guards were the ones who literally killed the thief, but we all took part in it because we all work for the same set of rules, the rules that said the thief SHOULD die. We all cause death.
You can’t blame a piece of the puzzle for the way the puzzle works. Every piece is just as guilty/innocent.


Regardless, I think you are right about the way the Assassins view the tenant.



If circumstances were different and they had the opportunity to become the leaders, perhaps they would do the same. But that's not the circumstance and it's pointless to speculate.

I don’t know but as far as I can see, it seems just as pointless to come up with labels based on our point of view alone.
There will always be oppressors and oppressed and those who believe that there’s a difference.

Shahkulu101
03-09-2015, 07:25 PM
Well, guards are nothing more than a piece of the puzzle. Let’s say a shopkeeper sees someone stealing his goods and calls the guards who proceed to kill the thief. Who killed the thief? The guards, directly, the shopkeeper indirectly and you could also answer “the thief” for breaking the LAW. All in all, who is responsible for the thief’s death? Everyone, or in other words, Society. Like the “honest” shopkeeper, the guards work for the society. They’re no different, except for the way they serve the society they’re part of. If you are part of that society then you are just as responsible for the thief’s death.
Sure, the guards were the ones who literally killed the thief, but we all took part in it because we all work for the same set of rules, the rules that said the thief SHOULD die. We all cause death.
You can’t blame a piece of the puzzle for the way the puzzle works. Every piece is just as guilty/innocent.


Regardless, I think you are right about the way the Assassins view the tenant.




I don’t know but as far as I can see, it seems just as pointless to come up with labels based on our point of view alone.
There will always be oppressors and oppressed and those who believe that there’s a difference.

You're right in what you say, everything is just a product of society and there's no clear picture to interpret. I was just trying to lay out the reasons for why the Assassin's don't view killing them as breaking their tenant. They don't see guards as ordinary citizens and I agree with that personally but I still don't think it's justified to kill them - but I can see why the Assassin's do.

I just don't really see who it makes sense to call "oppressors" and those who are being "oppressed" as one and the same. Were the Jews in Germany equal to the Nazi soldiers who guarded concentration camps? Would killing one not be more reprehensible than killing the other? That's an extreme example that highlights the difference between 'guard' (any corrupt/nefarious police force - not 21st century police) and citizen, it's more subtle but at it's core it's a similar situation.

Hans684
03-09-2015, 07:50 PM
You can't equate the 21st Century police force with the guards in the AC games though.

Just an example, it's why I changed it from police to him(you). It's better to understand different perspectives and situations if you put yourself in them, it's something I do in all games. It's simply done to understand.


The point is that the guards in AC kill on sight for the pettiest of crimes - like simply bumping into them. If a guy does that, whether it's his job or not he's not innocent.

Yes and no, the rules of each game isn't identical because the Animus itself gets updated all the time. Sure it simulates what happened then but things like killing a group of guards in the open world that's not part of a mission or related to full sync is "events" that never happened. Then there is things like how it was historically, as you said. Comparing today's police with guards from X time isn't gonna work that well.


Even immediately resorting to lethal force because of thievery is extreme unless the Assassin has killed first.

True, doesn't change that a crime was committed but the guards do abuse power themselves. So neither can really be considered innocent in the case. Theft and power abuse, both are crimes. To but one above another as better isn't better since at the end of the day both did commit a crime. There us also factors like why, why would someone steal? Greed or survival? Why would someone kill? Greed or survival? Is it bad to steal bread for your starving family? Is it bad to allow the thief to steal to feed it's starving family? "Significance comes not from a single act, but the context in which it is performed" ~ Al Mualim.


And anyway, police forces who exist today that use too much force are not innocent. Are Assad's (Syrian dictator) loyal henchmen innocent? After all it's just a job...No they aren't, because you can't work for such a horrible regime and exist outwith it. They are a driving force in enacting the crimes against humanity that Assad commits. Just as the guards of the Borgia are guilty of aiding the Borgia's corrupt occupation of Rome.

True, but having a kill em' all mentality makes you no better. That was Hitlers mentality regarding Jews, gays etc... By having a back and white view and branding everyone from one group evil/bad and trying to justify the slaughter of all people within the category makes you just as bad. It's fanatic & extreme at best. Then there the factor of once a horrible regime ends, so follow what you said. Anyone that worked for the horrible regime [against their will or not] is still not innocent and deserves to die. Meaning every breathing German that worked for Hitler during WW2 isn't innocent and therefore should all be killed since apparently everyone is guilty. How's that any better than what Hitler did? How's branding everyone of a group bad/evil and trying to justify the killing of them all good? How's that justice? How's that fighting for freedom? How does it accomplish peace?


I do agree that it isn't plain and simple, they don't all deserve to die of course - but they aren't as innocent as your regular NPC's.

Which is why viewing things black and white is dangerous, things isn't plain and simple. It's a mess and complicated, to put one side as the holy one and justifying the killing of everyone of another group is as fanatic and extreme as Hitlers crusade. He made clear results how bad it is. My point regarding Templars never was that they was better or that the Assassins are bad guys. Simply that Templars isn't as bad as they say and Assassins isn't as good as they say, that it's gray will always be my point. It's common to brand an opposing faction as worse because none sees themselves as bad, the faction you support is something you will always consider more sane & better(not talking about you but in general).

Shahkulu101
03-09-2015, 08:08 PM
I'm not viewing things in black and white or saying that the death of guards as justified - I can simply understand why the Assassin's don't put guards in the same category as normal people. I'm not saying that all the guards are evil or that all citizens are perfect, just that there's an obvious distinction between them and that's it's rational and logical for the Assassin's to categorize as they do.

And just to clear things up even though you weren't explicitly referring to me, I don't believe the Assassin's to be 'better' than the Templar's and nor do I think the latter are 'evil'. I enjoy morally grey narratives, characters, factions as much as the next guy.

VestigialLlama4
03-09-2015, 08:16 PM
True, but having a kill em' all mentality makes you no better. That was Hitlers mentality regarding Jews, gays etc...By having a back and white view and branding everyone from one group evil/bad and trying to justify the slaughter of all people within the category makes you just as bad. It's fanatic & extreme at best.

That's a mindblowingly bad analogy. Hitler senselessly slaughtering people did not come from any "black-and-white" perspective. Saying that implies that there was a gray reason for anti-semitism when it was wrong from the very beginning.

A black-and-white perspective is limited but that does not mean that it's wrong.

You can say that America's War on Terror comes from a "Black-and-white" perspective because the terrorists are definitely villains (they killed thousands and are frankly not nice people to say the leas) and America is definitely a "hero"(in that as a society it represents all contemporary democractic ideals). The fact is that black-and-white perspective is useless because it ignores the reasons why Terrorists became terrorists, the fact that they are former beneficiaries of America's foreign policy, that they became villains for a reason. The Nazis had no reason to be villains and had no justification or grounding for what they did.


My point regarding Templars never was that they was better or that the Assassins are bad guys. Simply that Templars isn't as bad as they say and Assassins isn't as good as they say, that it's gray will always be my point. It's common to brand an opposing faction as worse because none sees themselves as bad, the faction you support is something you will always consider more sane & better(not talking about you but in general).

The difference between the Assassins and Templars is simply that when Assassins make a mistake, they own up to it, admit they are wrong and voice doubts. No Templar in the series has ever done that. The people with a black-and-white perspective is the Templars who believe that they are right and everybody else are fools for not seeing it.

Hans684
03-09-2015, 08:28 PM
I'm not viewing things in black and white or saying that the death of guards as justified - I can simply understand why the Assassin's don't put guards in the same category as normal people.

Never said you did, just pointing out a flaw relevant to the topic. Sure I understand why they do it, guards is an opposing force that will attack them if they try to get anything regarding Templars. It's a sacrifice they have to live with.


I'm not saying that all the guards are evil or that all citizens are perfect, just that there's an obvious distinction between them and that's it's rational and logical for the Assassin's to categorize as they do.

True, their job require it to be simple. Digging trough the history of ever guard wouldn't allow them the time to get to their target.


And just to clear things up even though you weren't explicitly referring to me.

I use references to people a lot in the forums, usually with people I disagree with since it gives something for me to counter and in turn makes a strong point.


I don't believe the Assassin's to be 'better' than the Templar's and nor do I think the latter are 'evil'.

It's all about circumstance, perspective and ideology.


I enjoy morally grey narratives, characters, factions as much as the next guy.

Agree, it's why I'm tired of superhero's like Superman or simply hero's. Watchmen and Game Of Thrones is my kind of gray.

Hans684
03-09-2015, 08:55 PM
Here we go again.


That's a mindblowingly bad analogy.

Maybe, how are you still alive?


Hitler senselessly slaughtering people did not come from any "black-and-white" perspective.

You know more of history than me so I won't go to deep, you can always come in and correct it either way. Anyway, it doesn't change the he branded curtain groups bad, is it? Didn't he go after curtain people and throw them all in his gas chambers? So must he in a way put himself above them?


Saying that implies that there was a gray reason for anti-semitism when it was wrong from the very beginning.

He's not the best artist I've seen, his paintings isn't that good.


A black-and-white perspective is limited but that does not mean that it's wrong.

Never said it's impossible for it to be wrong nor that every gray view is correct. It's just that life if not a fairytale and there are no happy endings.


You can say that America's War on Terror comes from a "Black-and-white" perspective because the terrorists are definitely villains (they killed thousands and are frankly not nice people to say the leas) and America is definitely a "hero"(in that as a society it represents all contemporary democractic ideals). The fact is that black-and-white perspective is useless because it ignores the reasons why Terrorists became terrorists, the fact that they are former beneficiaries of America's foreign policy, that they became villains for a reason.

That's how it become after it got worse and worse, if I'm understanding it correctly. US invaded because they tough they made nuclear weapons and of corse the popular oil. Correct? Wrong? You tell me, "teacher".


The Nazis had no reason to be villains and had no justification or grounding for what they did.

Where did I say that?


The difference between the Assassins and Templars is simply that when Assassins make a mistake, they own up to it, admit they are wrong and voice doubts.

The common sane and better I talked about.


No Templar in the series has ever done that. The people with a black-and-white perspective is the Templars who believe that they are right and everybody else are fools for not seeing it.

And the down talking of the opposing faction. Putting one above the other and glorifying the other, it's natural. I don't blame you but we discussing this won't get anywhere nor reach a proper conclusion. You consider bad and corrupt Templars "honest" and "true" to the ideology and cause(look up the lore again, your wrong about that), why do you think I usually don't reply first? I won't get anywhere, your also one of the people I enjoy talking to most simply because we disagree. It's interesting but a curse. And no this is not a talk to the hand reply or never contact me again reply, I'm simply being honest.

VestigialLlama4
03-09-2015, 09:24 PM
And the down talking of the opposing faction. Putting one above the other and glorifying the other, it's natural.

Look there's a reason why the Franchise is ASSASSIN'S CREED, the Assassins are the protagonists and the narratives of all the games regard them as "good guys". The Assassins include the likes of Dante Alghieri, Niccolo Machiavelli, Ludovico Ariosto, Desiderius Erasmus (and Leonardo da Vinci is a "Fellow-Traveller"), Toussaint Louverture, Mary Reade. You know, cool people. Their allies include Caterina Sforza, Lorenzo il Magnifico, Jeanne d'Arc, Anne Bonny, Suleiman the Magnificent, George Washington, Napoleon, Vladimir Lenin and Nikola Tesla. You know the really popular and amazing historical figures, who actually contributed to humanity.

The Templars get the losers and runt of the litter (the Borgia, Thomas Hickey, Benjamin Church) by and large among its Order members. The only golden Templar is probably Nicolaus Copernicus and he quit the minute they decided that science was not meant for ordinary people but only for the special ones, while Copernicus being a real scientist stated its for all. The Templars in the backstory murdered Alan Turing as well, so much for promoting science. The fact is that the games are clearly stating that the Assassins are on the "right side of history". The series has never had a real gray conflict. It should be one, I agree but the games have never given us a Templar ideology that is coherent and positive, that you can actually imagine anyone following for sane reasons. In the case of Haytham, it's "I'm a brainwashed puppet of the guy who whacked by dad and pimped my sister" and in the case of Shay, "The Assassins made me unleash an earthquake for a science project", those are melodramatic reasons not sane reasons. That's not the case with the Assassins.


You consider bad and corrupt Templars "honest" and "true" to the ideology and cause(look up the lore again, your wrong about that)

Look the point is that most Templars ultimately do default to Rodrigo Borgia once their veneer of civilization and pretensions slip away. Prince Ahmet in Revelations was a nice guy and then in the end, he decides to screw Ezio over by deciding, "You gave me what I wanted with the Masyaf Seals but I'm going to hang your girlfriend anyway because I'm an a--hole." Governor Torres talks about slavery being bad and the like and criticizes Woodes Rogers, then finally, he massacres native people in the end, including sending soldiers to burn huts and villages and executing them by firing squad, because he's an a--hole. Haytham Kenway unleashes the Boston Massacre, plans to murder George Washington, tries to lie and manipulate to his son and finally decides to strangle him because he's an a--hole. Ultimately, all Templars become just like Rodrigo which is why I think he was "ahead of the curve" as Joker would put it.

The fact is that the Templars as we see and play and know them in the series are plainly bad guys and the stories are only gray when the heroes are conflicted and worried about their choices. It is the Assassins who are complex not the Templars.

SixKeys
03-10-2015, 08:33 AM
It's clearly implied that the old man was a worker and labourer, and not a guard. You can tell from the clothes, the scaffoldings and other material there. It even gets a call back in REVELATIONS, where Ezio defends the old worker in front of Altair's library, telling him to pack his things because Ezio's got his back, that's a reference to the opening of AC1 showing what young Altair should have done at the time.

The person's profession shouldn't matter. You keep trying to justify the game's attitude by saying guards were somehow different several centuries ago, but they really weren't. Today's police forces around the world are just as capable of corruption and blind following of orders, regardless if it's morally right.

With that said, Altaïr also killed heralds who didn't always have any choice but to work for someone they knew was corrupt. Their own lives or those of their loved ones were in danger, what else were they supposed to do? They were just regular people, not trained to be soldiers. Why was Altaïr justified in killing them if not the old man in Solomon's Temple (who was most likely a lookout, so he was also working for the Templars)?

Ezio sparing the one worker in ACR makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. He has no problem blowing up an entire city full of civilians, yet we're supposed to admire him for saving one person who demonstrably was working for the Templars? Altaïr would have killed him in a heartbeat, just like he killed all those heralds who were working for Templars. It was dangerous to let him live, yet Ezio did it anyway. That's why I say the Creed gets treated inconsistently throughout the games. Sometimes it's okay for the hero to kill innocents (soldiers or not), sometimes it's not.


Non-lethal Takedowns only arrived with Ezio, and especially Connor. Altair doesn't fight with his fists. He simply joins his hands and prays like a penitent when he's not stabbing.

I agree with the person who pointed out that the Animus gets updated all the time and the events we see in an earlier game may not accurately reflect the protagonist's actual abilities. AC1's manual claimed Altaïr never learned to swim, but AC2's manual retconned that and said it was just a glitch in the Animus. I find it hard to believe that the assassins in Al Mualim's time wouldn't have known how to perform non-lethal takedowns, especially considering they claimed to be all about preserving peace, more so than later assassins.


Assassins are not supposed to call their work "noble", necessary yes, messy and even brazen and audacious certainly, but not that. The fact is sometimes Assassins have to make their presence known otherwise people will die. The only way Altair can get to Majd Addin is to attack him during a public execution. If you are stealthy, he kills some victims before you reach him. If you go forward, you can save lives.

"Noble" was a poor choice of words, I'll admit. I guess "the cleanest assassination" or "most excusable" would have been more accurate. The assassin is only supposed to kill one person if they can help it. Any additional casualties are failures to be avoided and learned from. Altaïr spares Maria despite the fact that she directly attacked him, simply because she wasn't his real target. Ezio berates one of his students in ACR who attacked a lookalike of his real target, even though the mistake was understandably human. Ezio gave the student a hard time for it because no innocent lives should be taken, even in error. (Which is the point where I would have to bring up his hypocrisy at Cappadocia again. Ah, the contradictions.)

VestigialLlama4
03-10-2015, 09:24 AM
The person's profession shouldn't matter. You keep trying to justify the game's attitude by saying guards were somehow different several centuries ago, but they really weren't. Today's police forces around the world are just as capable of corruption and blind following of orders, regardless if it's morally right.

To quote a line from the only great Charlton Heston movie, "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

The fact that there are corrupt cops in democratic societies, racist ones who pull over African-Americans and kill them with trigger fingers, is disturbing but that doesn't mean that the law or society is against the public or citizens. Such behavior is abhorrent and not part of law and policy. In a police state (and the majority of states across history in all nations have generally been that), that is not so. Already in AC1, we have the city liberation missions, where ordinary people are bullied by guards in Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus, by both Crusaders and Saracens, some of them will lose their hands for stealing bread, others are scholars and priests, merchants and peasants, and they all have authority to do that by the laws of the time. I mean that's probably a good explanation for social stealth, the reasons Altair and other Assassins blend into the crowd is that the crowd are protecting them and they take it for granted that anyone the police chases is innocent and "if he's going to sit on my bench, I'm not sticking my neck out".

I mean all the civilian NPCs are criminals too you know, deeply guilty of "Failure to report a crime". It only counts as one if Guards see it. And bodies just lie there until a guard stops and asks around. All that suggests that the guards do not have the support, trust and friendship of the civilian populace.


With that said, Altaïr also killed heralds who didn't always have any choice but to work for someone they knew was corrupt. Their own lives or those of their loved ones were in danger, what else were they supposed to do?

I'd buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that they are the only corrupt heralds. All the other heralds, in AC1, talk or preach against regular issues. If heralds truly were threatened or endangered, wouldn't the Templars do that for all the heralds in the city. The ones they have are a small number which shows otherwise. In the later AC games, with Ezio and the like, we bribe heralds with petty cash, so that shows corruption is endemic but that's apparently not so in the Holy Land during the Crusades. So the argument that the heralds weren't willing stooges and lackeys just doesn't work.


I agree with the person who pointed out that the Animus gets updated all the time and the events we see in an earlier game may not accurately reflect the protagonist's actual abilities.

By that logic, we can even say that maybe the Assassins didn't in fact murder guards or heralds but that's a feature of the Animus and that the real Assassins were pure stealth all the time. We can make anything up then. I'd prefer to take the game at face value, and Altair in Ac1 didn't have non-lethal takedowns whereas Ezio, Connor and the pirate Edward did.


Altaïr spares Maria despite the fact that she directly attacked him, simply because she wasn't his real target.

Altair spared Maria because she was hot. That falls under "everything is permitted".

Jackdaw951
03-10-2015, 10:24 AM
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the thread has devolved into such a mix of moralistic dilemmas, but I am. Look: it's really simple. It's a matter of choice. Guards/soldiers/policemen chose to put their lives on the line, and arm themselves to defend something. It doesn't matter if they are good, evil, corrupt, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The risk to their lives while performing their duty comes with the job, and they would be foolish to think it doesn't exist. A mother and child shopping at a market did not choose to risk their lives in defense of anything. It doesn't matter if they are good, evil, corrupt, Jews, Muslims or Christians. They are innocents when it comes to discriminating between targets and civilians.

I am done.

VestigialLlama4
03-10-2015, 11:26 AM
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the thread has devolved into such a mix of moralistic dilemmas, but I am.

Well, the discussion did dovetail neatly to the issues of gameplay and the coding of behaviors between protagonist and NPCs, so I think it was a pretty good discussion on the whole.

The thing is open-world games have this promise of freedom, especially with GTA, that is freedom of choice and activity. But GTA have criminals and once they cornered the crime genre, others interested in open-world genre had to change the metaphor. You can't have a Cop go around and kill people like in LA Noire and be taken seriously as a cop, Batman can't smash and beat up civilians or technically "kill people" (though his punches should have opened and caved in many skulls).

Patrice Desilets and others created the historical GTA, where its the past, smaller cities, Parkour for traversal, moving from high to low points, social stealth, and Guards are fair game but no one else. Desilets called it "organic design" and it unified the gameplay with the story, and the foundation of that was the historical environment and society. As an Assassin, Altair is not just any killer, he's an outlaw and outsider who takes a critical, and political stand against society and by rooting it in history (that is the Assassins represent values that are more progressive than the ones of society at the time) you have a complex approach to open world gaming than other games did. And questions of killing NPCs and how we look at it is determined by those aesthetic decisions.

Namikaze_17
03-10-2015, 01:25 PM
^ "The more you talk, man, the less I understand."


Altair spared Maria because she was hot.


http://new2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Quot+hey+dude+help+me+find+myself+quot+that+s+deep +_6bea1a2d574054199458f5f785945757.gif

Defalt221
03-10-2015, 06:42 PM
Oh. Well my fault then for misreading.

But right, someone who questions endless chaos that results from such freedom should be killed right?

Yeah, that's the way to go.





I don't think you understand sarcasm...



I don't blame Selim.

I too would tell some old hooded man to leave if they damaged my city. :rolleyes:

1) U r point is valid too.
2) I DO UNDERSTAND sarcasm. But... I felt like talking to Achilles' spirit.
3)If it had been me,I'd kill Ezio. Selim was capable of fighting and killing Ezio. In case you didn't know, Sultans at that times were trained heavily at very young age to combat enemies like this. Even as dangerous as Ezio or the Janisseries.

Hans684
03-10-2015, 07:52 PM
Look there's a reason why the Franchise is ASSASSIN'S CREED.

Yes, it's the Assassins Creed viewed from different perspectives. There is no limit to the perspective their Creed can be viewed from.


The Assassins are the protagonists and the narratives of all the games regard them as "good guys".

That's Ezio's story until Revelations, Unity & Rogue, those white washes the Assassins/Templars giving no reason to question or doubt what they do. The only thing they need to know is to stab the bad guys, that only require knowing how to kill and not think. There no reasons to think, things like that causes blind followers who don't question. There is no philosophy, just brainless killing and babbling. Watchmen on the order hand gives the protagonist consecvenses for what they do, the Assassins(with a gray story) can be replaced by Rorschach(who operate similar to the Assassins) and the story would be just as gray, just as deep. If you believe everything the Assassins say and act as paranoid around Templars, then it's clear there is a white and black view(and vise versa), Bellec is an extreme example of an Assassin with such hollow views. His Mentor made peace(their ultimate gaol) with the enemy and was about to do it again but since he's a fanatic that's part of an order with an ultimate gaol of peace he kills him over the simplest thing(Germain is an example of an extremist Templar). The ideological deference between both orders, freedom and order, to get hung up on the ideology(freedom and order) and kill for it. Starting the fighting again will not accomplish peace, it just continues an never ending war. That's both orders being just as misguided and having lost it's cause.


The Assassins include the likes of Dante Alghieri, Niccolo Machiavelli, Ludovico Ariosto, Desiderius Erasmus (and Leonardo da Vinci is a "Fellow-Traveller"), Toussaint Louverture, Mary Reade. You know, cool people. Their allies include Caterina Sforza, Lorenzo il Magnifico, Jeanne d'Arc, Anne Bonny, Suleiman the Magnificent, George Washington, Napoleon, Vladimir Lenin and Nikola Tesla.

Cool is subjective, the word your looking for is famous.

I'm well aware. Nothing to argue about Dante, pass. Niccolo could easily been a Templar, people build order(The Price) doesn't go against the Templar ideology. Don't remember Desiderius or Ludovico so I'll let them pass. Catherine was fighting against the Borgia, the situation is obvious. Jeanne's situation is also obvious, she's a woman posing as a male knight in a time where woman don't have such righties. Don't know much of Suleiman other that he's known as Suleiman the wise, clearly a title for a good person. Don't remember much of Lenin so I'll let it pass. Nikolai is another obvious situation.

Leonardo's contribution is thanks to the First Civ.(The Apple of Eden showing images of things like tanks and planes), the Templars for giving him enough resources to actually make it and to the Assassins he is a fellow traveller and friend that does small time jobs like decoding codex pages or making the upgrades from them. His contribution isn't from him alone, the only thing he alone did was his paintings.

Toussaint can be argued since he(like Templars have) started a revolution and if we're gonna judge fairly we have judge both orders acts the same, so if it's bad that one side starts a war/revolution it must be just as bad when the other side does it. Exceptions breaks that and makes it biased since you will then ignore one order doing something, only to hypocritically disapprove another order doing the exact same thing because reasons.

Mary Read and Anne Bonny [Cormack :rolleyes:] was pirates, now pirates are thief's with ships with their own criminal headquarters at Nassau. They steal money and do as they please, their no different than Thomas Hickey who wanted a simple life with beer in one hand and tits in the other. All of them wanted money and an easy life. Thomas isn't a pirate but he had his black marked, both the Pirate Republic and black markets are illegal organizations that commit crime. Hickey is only considered bad because the colonies became "free" and he tried to kill Washington. Had the British won and he succeeded he would be the good guy and not Washington, so again perspective is important. Washington would be branded a power abuser and burner of natives but since he is "good" people don't mind him burning native villages. It's a sacrifice for freedom that's approved for some reasons.

Lorenzo on the other hand can be questioned, his assassination contracts began entirely focused on the corrupt Templar but become more and more personal. We assassinated a guard that hired a painter so he could have him to paint him, a assassination of someone that used to talk to someone related to him and random political opponents. The last assassination is Ezio being ambushed for the carelessness of Lorenzo.

Good ol' Georgy has burned down native villages, that's no different that Torres burning down the villages of the Guardians. Both properly have killed over hundreds of people doing it.

Napoleon's rise to power is because of the carelessness of Arno and the French Assassins, they have saved him on multiple occasions and didn't question why he was at the kings office looking for treasure. He's been using them like Lorenzo but on a larger scale. He's the Hitler of Assassins(I know Hitler is worse, no need to tell), they let him to power and it hit back on everyone. So he got the Apple, used the Assassins and rised to power and then his tyranny started. They let him to power like the Templars during Hitlers time let him to power.


You know the really popular and amazing historical figures, who actually contributed to humanity.

History is written by the victor.


The Templars get the losers and runt of the litter (the Borgia, Thomas Hickey, Benjamin Church) by and large among its Order members.

Not denying there is bad and corrupt Templars, that's reality. Everything has a bad and extreme.


The only golden Templar is probably Nicolaus Copernicus and he quit the minute they decided that science was not meant for ordinary people but only for the special ones, while Copernicus being a real scientist stated its for all. The Templars in the backstory murdered Alan Turing as well, so much for promoting science.

True, the Italian and WW Templars did that. Regarding Ezio, he killed the Hermetics in Italy who kidnapped Da Vinci(I know it's bad, no need to tell). They wanted him to open a First Civ. vault so they could share the knowledge either everyone. Then he gets Leonardo to open it for him anyway and they enter and see letters and numbers. So killed a group that's focus was to share knowledge with everyone, the Borgia didn't do that. Ezio did, so a situation about knowledge and both kill the opposer so it's not shared. WW Templars is extreme at best.


The fact is that the games are clearly stating that the Assassins are on the "right side of history".The series has never had a real gray conflict. It should be one, I agree but the games have never given us a Templar ideology that is coherent and positive, that you can actually imagine anyone following for sane reasons.

If you don't break it down, look over each piece of the puzzle and then built if up again. Then yes, right now your mentioning a couple of names. Not going in to details, not breaking it down. Simplifying, approving an action by one order only to brand the other for the same thing. Saying every bad events done by Templars and ignoring everything bad done by Assassins. And you still wonder why I won't believe that AC isn't gray. If your so hellbent on judging the way you do, at least judge both the same way. If not the result will be biased, one sided, white washed and no better than propaganda that's meant to show the other side as white knights in shinning armor.


In the case of Haytham, it's "I'm a brainwashed puppet of the guy who whacked by dad and pimped my sister"

Let's look at the events, so Birch kills an enemy(, adopts Haytham and sells his sister to slavery somewhere in the Middle East. Now to say killing your enemy is bad is ridiculous, the Assassins and Templar has been killing each other for centuries. Now instead of just killing Haytham he adopts him and gets approval from his mother(mama he killed a man, shoot him in the head. Now he's dead). If training someone young into an order is creating brainwashed puppets then both sides has been doing it for years, Assassins and Templars usually train their children [even against their will] in yo their order. Altaïr was trained since he was young, Ezio got training without knowing, Élise got trained without knowing ect... Both as just as guilty of brainwashing. Nothing justifiable with slavery, that's the straight up bad thing he did. We could however argue that all the brainwashed puppets is slaves, they just feel free and believe what they are told to believe.


In the case of Shay, "The Assassins made me unleash an earthquake for a science project", those are melodramatic reasons not sane reasons. That's not the case with the Assassins.

Not the reason he left, his reason was that they ignored the warnings and planned on finding more Temples. So his plan was to infiltrate the Manor, take the manuscript and make sure it will not happen again. Had it gone smoothly and he got it without Achilles accusing him of betrayal and attacking him, then his story would be of a former Assassin trying to escape and hide the manuscript so none could find and no more earthquakes would happen. He never planned on joining them, he attacked for wanting to prevent more earthquakes and tried to kill himself so they would be able to continue. Because "all those souls lost... One more hardly matters", he was broken and willing to kill himself. His priority, simply stopping them but he survived the suicide attempt and got taken care of by a family that had a Templar son. Monroe was the guy that suggested taking care of him since he clearly saw him laying around somewhere unconscious and shoot in the shoulder. Something bad must have happened to him.


Look the point is that most Templars ultimately do default to Rodrigo Borgia once their veneer of civilization and pretensions slip away.

The qualities needed to be considered corrupt and bad like the Borgia is personal gain(power & money) and not fighting for the actual Templar cause. He was bad but unlike Germain isn't as extreme, that's what separate those who, one fight for the cause but take it go the extreme and another care for only himself. It's like saying ISIS is true and honest Muslims who follow the Quran correctly and soft Muslim is "ahead of the curve" as Joker would put it. I could be just like you and say people like Abbas, Al Mualim or Achilles is true to the Assassin cause because the true cause of the order is murder and mayhem, to create terror and chaos by running around killing without tough. But I don't because I understand the cause as much as the next guy, ignorance is a bliss. Never harbor hate for something, such thoughts are poison; and will cloud your judgment.


Prince Ahmet in Revelations was a nice guy and then in the end, he decides to screw Ezio over by deciding, "You gave me what I wanted with the Masyaf Seals but I'm going to hang your girlfriend anyway because I'm an a--hole."

Doesn't make him anything close to the Borgia, let's be realistic. Ezio would simply come running after him either way, capturing his GF simply buyed him more time, a--hole. Yes. But corrupt, extreme or bad? Hardly, what he did was no different than Ezio caring Lucrezia with a blade against her trout. Both events has a woman with a risk of death. But this obviously is bad either way, Sofia about to get hanged is clearly worse than bombing the city with over 300 variations, obviously worse than starting a riot at the heavily armed arsenal, obviously worse than killing innocent Tarik, obviously worse than having a gang war at the street(den defense, that's on both orders), obviously worse than burning down an entire fleet with Greek fire, obviously worse than destroying both towers holding the chain with a bomb ten times stronger than the standard, obviously worse than setting of a bomb in in a city in a mountain strangling hundreds and obviously worse than about to kill Selim because he told you to leave the city and to never come back. That's Ezio compared to Ahmet, the bad his order did was having pointless fights between ottoman and Byzantium, Shackulu torturing ottoman spies. But spies is nothing but undercover guards working for Ottomans so it can be argued since apparently guards during the time can't be considered good because of corruption.


Governor Torres talks about slavery being bad and the like and criticizes Woodes Rogers, then finally, he massacres native people in the end, including sending soldiers to burn huts and villages and executing them by firing squad, because he's an a--hole.

He's not wrong about slavery, his massacre is no different than the massacre they have done to uninvited pirates or any other treasure hunters. We know the Guardians hang the people they kill around like Christmas decoration, so they massacre and have a fetish dead people as art. Their just as bad as him.


Haytham Kenway unleashes the Boston Massacre, plans to murder George Washington, tries to lie and manipulate to his son and finally decides to strangle him because he's an a--hole.

The Boston massacre can't be argued, it's a straight up massacre. Washington is a general for an army like guy that got killed at bunker hill, only thing separating those is Washington's buring of native villages. So killing him should as justified as Torres, unless you do don't mind him killing as much natives as he wants in the name of freedom for the colonies. Not my problem if they have a war years later after loosing their land and slavery becomes such a big thing it needs a bloody Civil War to stop. Yes he lied and manipulated but so did Achilles & Washington. All tree used him, the only guy that didn't use or lie to Connor is the guy at the store where Connor buyed supply for the Homestead. At least unlike Connor he didn't accept a truce only to brake it, attack him & co and suggest a truce in the middle of the attack of his stronghold. Haytham killing Connor would just be another Templar killing an Assassin and vise versa.


Ultimately, all Templars become just like Rodrigo which is why I think he was "ahead of the curve" as Joker would put it.

Being an a--hole isn't the same as using the order for personal benefit or taking it to extreme. A--hole is a--hole, corrupt is corrupt, extreme is extreme, fanatic is fanatic and bad is bad. Your definition of Borgia like Templars has such big horizon that everyone is going to a Borgia Templar in your eyes. You clearly have a black and white view and kill em' all attitude against Templars. So let's put ourselves in AC for a moment.

Let's say your brotherhood got news that the Norwegian Assassins is in a poor condition, full of traitors or your order hasn't gotten a single message from them in a suspicious long time. So you are tasked to travel there and investigate what's going on. You find the Assassin HQ empty and see the Grand Master(me) waiting for you, what do you do? Attack without hesitation? Or let him say what he wants?


The fact is that the Templars as we see and play and know them in the series are plainly bad guys and the stories are only gray when the heroes are conflicted and worried about their choices. It is the Assassins who are complex not the Templars.

If you say so.

VestigialLlama4
03-10-2015, 08:33 PM
Niccolo could easily been a Templar, people build order(The Price) doesn't go against the Templar ideology.

The Prince is not meant to be taken as literally you make out to be. Machiavelli wrote that book to parody books on political advice which all dealt with ideal republics. Machiavelli wrote about how politics really worked and he wrote it in vernacular language, which meant anyone can read it. The Prince is the book of Republicans, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out.


True, the Italian and WW Templars did that.

Are you familiar with something called No True Scotsman. I keep pointing out the consistency with which Templars are shown to be fundamentally bad people, and you say it's this time, that they are not really Templars or representative. The fact is those are as Templar as they come.


Regarding Ezio, he killed the Hermetics in Italy who kidnapped Da Vinci(I know it's bad, no need to tell). They wanted him to open a First Civ. vault so they could share the knowledge either everyone.

If the Hermeticists knew about the Vault, the First Civilization, Assassins and Templars, they already had a lot of knowledge that they were keeping from the public anyway.


Saying every bad events done by Templars and ignoring everything bad done by Assassins. And you still wonder why I won't believe that AC isn't gray. If your so hellbent on judging the way you do, at least judge both the same way. If not the result will be biased, one sided, white washed and no better than propaganda that's meant to show the other side as white knights in shinning armor.

Who said anything about "knights in shining armor" that's silly. I kept saying that the Assassins are outlaws and they never deny that they are outlaws. The Templars however work in the trappings of deeply corrupt society and achieve far less than the likes of Washington and others do. The fact is that the vast majority of bad actions were done by the Templars in the game. Mostly because their plans are stupid and incompetent and the Assassins have to fix their messes. Throughout the games we never see Templars contribute anything useful to society, mostly they mess up and lie to themselves about their self-importance. As we can see with Abstergo Entertainment and their constant inflated propaganda.


If training someone young into an order is creating brainwashed puppets then both sides has been doing it for years, Assassins and Templars usually train their children [even against their will] in yo their order. Altaïr was trained since he was young, Ezio got training without knowing, Élise got trained without knowing ect... Both as just as guilty of brainwashing. Nothing justifiable with slavery, that's the straight up bad thing he did.

There's a huge difference, a gigantic difference, between raising and training your kid in the family business or tradition or whatnot, and deliberately lying to your charge about the circumstances of their life and their actions, while deceitfully feigning affection. Reginald Birch screwed Haytham all his life, sent him on wild goose chases promising to help find his father and sister, it was Haytham's childhood friend Holden who finally got him that.


We know the Guardians hang the people they kill around like Christmas decoration, so they massacre and have a fetish dead people as art. Their just as bad as him.

You cannot seriously equate people protecting their land, including hanging pirates as a warning on display...its really racist to assume that it's some kind of art by the way, to people who come with an army and brutally kill them and burn their homes. That is incredibly racist and colonialist.


Washington is a general for an army like guy that got killed at bunker hill, only thing separating those is Washington's buring of native villages. So killing him should as justified as Torres, unless you do don't mind him killing as much natives as he wants in the name of freedom for the colonies.

Except, the Templars don't want to kill Washington to avenge any of that, as Connor pointed out. They want to kill Washington because they want to make Charles Lee the dictator of America. You see, the Templars want to be the one with sole monopolies to do dirty work, because when they do it, its justified. And you know Washington was the superior man at the end for all his flaws, he looked at the Apple of Eden and told Connor to throw it in the bottom of the sea, that's something even Altair never did. If Haytham or Lee got hold of the Apple, you would see the Tyranny DLC America for real.


Your definition of Borgia like Templars has such big horizon that everyone is going to a Borgia Templar in your eyes.

Well I am simply saying that Borgia is as much a Templar as anyone. I mean Stalin isn't representative of Communism and Communism isn't representative of Marxism, but to say that Communism is not Marxist and Stalin is not a Communist is delusional and false.


Let's say your brotherhood got news that the Norwegian Assassins is in a poor condition, full of traitors or your order hasn't gotten a single message from them in a suspicious long time. So you are tasked to travel there and investigate what's going on. You find the Assassin HQ empty and see the Grand Master(me) waiting for you, what do you do? Attack without hesitation? Or let him say what he wants?

If the Grand Master attacks me or sets an ambush I'd obviously be forced to defend myself. Otherwise, I'd listen and gather information.

Namikaze_17
03-10-2015, 08:51 PM
1) U r point is valid too.
2) I DO UNDERSTAND sarcasm. But... I felt like talking to Achilles' spirit.
3)If it had been me,I'd kill Ezio. Selim was capable of fighting and killing Ezio. In case you didn't know, Sultans at that times were trained heavily at very young age to combat enemies like this. Even as dangerous as Ezio or the Janisseries.

1) Well thank you.
2) Um, okay?
3) Oh, well okay? Cool story bro.

SixKeys
03-10-2015, 11:05 PM
To quote a line from the only great Charlton Heston movie, "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

The fact that there are corrupt cops in democratic societies, racist ones who pull over African-Americans and kill them with trigger fingers, is disturbing but that doesn't mean that the law or society is against the public or citizens. Such behavior is abhorrent and not part of law and policy. In a police state (and the majority of states across history in all nations have generally been that), that is not so. Already in AC1, we have the city liberation missions, where ordinary people are bullied by guards in Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus, by both Crusaders and Saracens, some of them will lose their hands for stealing bread, others are scholars and priests, merchants and peasants, and they all have authority to do that by the laws of the time. I mean that's probably a good explanation for social stealth, the reasons Altair and other Assassins blend into the crowd is that the crowd are protecting them and they take it for granted that anyone the police chases is innocent and "if he's going to sit on my bench, I'm not sticking my neck out".

It's a bit vague whether or not the citizens you save in AC1 were actually innocent or not. Either the guards were making stuff up and just harassing them for the sake of it, or they were simply abiding by the laws of the time - harsh though they were - and stopping criminals. If Altaïr was killing the police simply for doing their jobs (punishing a thief for stealing bread etc.), then by the Creed's rules he was in the wrong, simple as that. Later games made YOU the one who chased down thieves, so there's a disconnect there too. By the same token it could be said Ezio was "bullying" ordinary people whenever he tackled or killed a pickpocket.


I mean all the civilian NPCs are criminals too you know, deeply guilty of "Failure to report a crime". It only counts as one if Guards see it. And bodies just lie there until a guard stops and asks around. All that suggests that the guards do not have the support, trust and friendship of the civilian populace.

They do report crimes. When citizens see you committing a crime, there are always some who loudly shout "guards, come quick, he just killed someone!". There is something to be said for gameplay vs. realism here, since obviously NPCs don't actually interact with guards (it was a planned feature originally, but they decided against it). So I think ultimately it's up to the player to decide what actually happens in canon there. Do guards come by to look at the body because somebody reported it or do they just happen upon the scene by chance?


I'd buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that they are the only corrupt heralds. All the other heralds, in AC1, talk or preach against regular issues. If heralds truly were threatened or endangered, wouldn't the Templars do that for all the heralds in the city. The ones they have are a small number which shows otherwise. In the later AC games, with Ezio and the like, we bribe heralds with petty cash, so that shows corruption is endemic but that's apparently not so in the Holy Land during the Crusades. So the argument that the heralds weren't willing stooges and lackeys just doesn't work.

There's another problem: Altaïr also killed or harassed corrupt merchants. In the PC version of AC1, there's a mission type called "merchant stand destruction challenge". You go around bumping into guards long enough until one of them gets pissed off, then you have to throw them into market stalls to destroy the merchants' stands. Now, the merchant either runs away in terror as do the other civilians, or they get crushed under the falling debris. So there goes the "Altaïr never killed civilians" argument. They're merchants, not soldiers. He could have threatened them, but he didn't have to kill them. So how should they be treated under the Creed's rules? They're not exactly innocent, they're Templar lackeys, so you could say Altaïr should treat them as targets and kill them, like he did with the heralds. But he doesn't always. The merchants can run away and he doesn't chase after them. So why does he allow some corrupt targets to live while killing others?


By that logic, we can even say that maybe the Assassins didn't in fact murder guards or heralds but that's a feature of the Animus and that the real Assassins were pure stealth all the time. We can make anything up then. I'd prefer to take the game at face value, and Altair in Ac1 didn't have non-lethal takedowns whereas Ezio, Connor and the pirate Edward did.

Full sync is the clue here. Anything that gives you sync points happened in canon. Everything outside of that can be considered debatable or non-canon. (FWIW, the merchant destruction challenge counts towards full sync, so that must have happened.)


Altair spared Maria because she was hot. That falls under "everything is permitted".

That's debatable. The fact remains, he told her "you are not my target" when asked why he spared her.

wvstolzing
03-11-2015, 12:04 AM
There are several interweaving debates here (and on those that concern the 'innocence' of the various victims of the player characters, I'm with SixKeys), but insofar as there's a genuine *problem* worth discussing *here*, it's that we're killing a tad too much in this game.

And that's a question of game design -- how those 'main pillars' were decided upon, way back in 2004, or whenever development started.

The lore prescribes that the Assassins are a secret organization who have successfully *remained* secret, with the exception of a brief period around the 3rd Crusade, for approx. 75000 years. Moreover, they aren't comicbook-style 'vigilantes' -- they specialize in taking out the highest-profile targets.

Those two points alone would seem to demand gameplay that's all about being a ghost -- a 'third person' version of the Thief series, if you like. *Sheer detection* would have to cost 'sync points' in that case, and so would killing *all* but the highest-profile targets. *All* gameplay elements would be constrained accordingly.

I believe they could have designed the first game along these lines; in which case, the player's status with respect to noise levels, light levels, etc., would be counted among the 'main pillars'; 'social stealth' would take more than blending into quartets of 'scholars' or just walking slowly (duh...); and *minimal kill runs* would be a *possibility*, no doubt a challenge, but a *possibility* nevertheless. (As is the case in the Deus Ex series, and the Thief series.)

Instead, they half-assed what the lore demands of the gameplay. I believe that's what this 'problem' comes down to.

And now we have the absurdity of investigating murder cases, while leaving behind a trail of dozens of dead bodies on the streets; not to mention the badassery-points that are awarded per kill. Badasserty as an *assassin* should've been a matter of *avoiding kills, and all sorts of detection*.

VestigialLlama4
03-11-2015, 03:37 AM
...but insofar as there's a genuine *problem* worth discussing *here*, it's that we're killing a tad too much in this game.

And that's a question of game design -- how those 'main pillars' were decided upon, way back in 2004, or whenever development started.

That is actually a fair point. But that's part of the commercial logic of AC games. These were always meant for a mass-market audience and removing combat altogether was hardly ever an option.


The lore prescribes that the Assassins are a secret organization who have successfully *remained* secret, with the exception of a brief period around the 3rd Crusade, for approx. 75000 years. Moreover, they aren't comicbook-style 'vigilantes' -- they specialize in taking out the highest-profile targets.

Those two points alone would seem to demand gameplay that's all about being a ghost -- a 'third person' version of the Thief series, if you like. *Sheer detection* would have to cost 'sync points' in that case, and so would killing *all* but the highest-profile targets. *All* gameplay elements would be constrained accordingly.

The problem with that logic is that the historical Asasiyun weren't "ghosts". Otherwise we wouldn't even know of them. They operated in the same way that the Assassins did there, publicly walk in the crowds and shank an authority figure in broad daylight and either die in the attempt or hightail it fast. That's part of their ethos, to show that authority is not so powerful at all. The Anarchists in the 19th Century would call it "propagande de la fait" (Propaganda of the Deed) and they had a similar philosophy. With AC2 onwards you are right, once it moved to Italy and embraced conspiracy mythology, it should paradoxically be more stealthy but then that's part of the charm of the game I think.


Instead, they half-assed what the lore demands of the gameplay. I believe that's what this 'problem' comes down to.

Well once they introduce Parkour and climbable buildings then the conventional stealth is already compromised. The only way your suggestion would work is if they kept social stealth and Assassination with Hidden Blade and nothing else, go super minimalist. I cannot fathom why people want AC to be more like THIEF, a great game sure but one with a completely different ethos and idea than the AC games do. The fact is the games as they are plenty enjoyable and the inconsistencies that bother people are part of its charm.


If Altaïr was killing the police simply for doing their jobs (punishing a thief for stealing bread etc.), then by the Creed's rules he was in the wrong, simple as that. Later games made YOU the one who chased down thieves, so there's a disconnect there too.

There's a difference between stealing bread and pickpocketing cash of ordinary citizens. But you are right about the citizens calling for guards when you attack them in public and so on.


That's debatable. The fact remains, he told her "you are not my target" when asked why he spared her.

Do we have to take everything literally, that is unless Altair makes some obvious emotional gesture or says it, it doesn't count. I mean it was pretty obvious why he did it.

SixKeys
03-11-2015, 03:48 AM
Do we have to take everything literally, that is unless Altair makes some obvious emotional gesture or says it, it doesn't count. I mean it was pretty obvious why he did it.

Honestly, I didn't see any sort of attraction between them at that point. If there was a concession made, he may have spared her because she was a woman, which would be pretty dumb but fitting for the times. There were no romantic undertones in their relationship until Bloodlines (subtle, but there).

Hans684
03-11-2015, 07:55 PM
The Prince is not meant to be taken as literally you make out to be. Machiavelli wrote that book to parody books on political advice which all dealt with ideal republics. Machiavelli wrote about how politics really worked and he wrote it in vernacular language, which meant anyone can read it. The Prince is the book of Republicans, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out.

Actually I haven't read it but I saw your comment about it in the "Why is Machiavelli an Assassin" thread. To put the entire thing another way, havering the people on your side doesn't contradict the Templar ideology.


Are you familiar with something called No True Scotsman.

I am, thing about it it's that it leaves out a lot of context. Example:

Person A: "No Brit doesn't drink tea"
Person B: "But my father only drink coffe"
Person A: "No true Brit doesn't drink tea"

Now the thing about this is that it doesn't include things like statics, the aims of something, goals, rules, requirements, it's everything or nothing. Either all are this or either all isn't this, it's an absolute. If statistically most Brits does drink tea(I know it's a bad example but I'm following the from Wiki) or it's a tradition that been going on in the country for years(meaning the majority will). Then it means the majority does drink tea. Yes they are all Brits but that alone doesn't make both fully right or fully wrong since it all or none. Both are wrong and right, the thing is that some drink tea and others doesn't. However drinking it of not doesn't determine if your Brit of not. You have be from there, get citizenship or be [random number]% Brit, so we have Brit as main label/category and 3 kinds of kinds of Brit. One is born in Britain, one is from another country but has citizenship saying the person is now official accepted as Brit, the other can be born anywhere but has a curtain percentage of Brit. These 3 are a subcategory coming after the main one, the tea drinking is the last category for those who drink it. There are different kinds something of everything, but it's the subcategories that sets people apart. It's layered.


I keep pointing out the consistency with which Templars are shown to be fundamentally bad people, and you say it's this time, that they are not really Templars or representative.

They practice power more than the Assassins. Context like, when? Why? Where? What is the requirements of the Templar ideology? What is the requirements of the Assassin ideology? What does it mean to be an Templar? What does it mean to be an Assassin? What is the Assassins Creeds goals? What is the Templar goals? This like that is important stuff No True Scotsman leaves out, it simplifies everyone(all or none). Since it's doesn't take take things like rules to consideration.


The fact is those are as Templar as they come.

Yes all of them are Templars, like all Assassins are Assassins but there is different kinds of Templars and Assassins. The ideology itself stays the same regardless of how many of it's rules they break, the ideology can be considered a guideline explaining what you have to do("Hide in plain sight"), what the goal of the ideology is(peace) and how your going to reach the goal(freedom). Now if an Assassin kills innocents he's not following the rules of his ideology, if an Templar uses power for personal gain. Then that Templar(like the Assassin) isn't staying true to the cause of the ideology they follow. Going against rules or simply hindering the possibility if reaching the goals of the ideology makes the person less worthy, less true to the cause. The goals and how to reach them comes with their own requirements, the ideology stays the same regardless of the corruption, extremism, fanaticism of it's members. Someone that follows the ideology by the book is true to the cause, does follow the rules set by his ideology, dies use the ways the ideology says and comes the closest to the end goals of his ideology than the rest that either uses it for benefit(corruption), take it to extreme or simply hiders progress over small things(fanatics). All those 3 breaks the rules sett by their ideology(unless of course chaos is their ideology). It's like the concept of sins, you are considered bad in the eyes of The Lord(the ideology) if you go against his laws(the requirements) but religion also has the concept of redemption from committing a sin. There is so much the No True Scotsman doesn't consider and it's to simplifying, both saying everyone is or everyone isn't is wrong. All Templars/Assassins are Templars/Assassins but not all Templars/Assassins are the same kind of Templar/Assassin, some do things that either go against their ideology or hiders them from reaching it's goals.


If the Hermeticists knew about the Vault, the First Civilization, Assassins and Templars, they already had a lot of knowledge that they were keeping from the public anyway.

All orders in AC is guilty of that, the Assassins or Templars doesn't go around telling everyone about Genetic Memories, Apples Of Eden's, the First Civ or Conspiracies. They need their way to be secret, becoming official again and tell everyone things like this will create global chaos. There will be panic in the streets and all of it would be out of control.


Who said anything about "knights in shining armor" that's silly.

Indeed, it's silly.


I kept saying that the Assassins are outlaws and they never deny that they are outlaws.

But they can deny that what they do isn't always good. Simply believing your the good guy and all you do is good doesn't make it so.


The Templars however work in the trappings of deeply corrupt society and achieve far less than the likes of Washington and others do.

True but the government doesn't consist of Templars alone(like Assassins isn't the only criminals) and the Assassins that constantly kills them before they reach 40+ isn't helping either. They Templars didn't get proper grounding and power until after the WW and the founding of Abstergo(Abstergo is a prime example of an corrupt, extreme and misguided order). So other than making a killing natives and give the colonies a government without Britain, what else did he accomplish that's so good?


The fact is that the vast majority of bad actions were done by the Templars in the game.

Curicimstance and perspective, there is far more factors than a simple act alone(no I'm not saying every damn thing is justified). For example I'd say Ahmet & his order is a far better than Ezio during the time, Ezio did more damage than fixing in Revelations but aperantly strangling his GF is Borgia level bad compared to bombing and city destruction. Therefor Ahmet is worse than Ezio & Co. I'd take lawful evil over chaotic stupid any day.


Mostly because their plans are stupid and incompetent and the Assassins have to fix their messes.

Getting control isn't a bad plan, the bad about the plan is how you do it. But yes the Assassins fix their mess from time to time.


Throughout the games we never see Templars contribute anything useful to society, mostly they mess up and lie to themselves about their self-importance.

Both orders do that, each claiming they know the solution to getting peace.


As we can see with Abstergo Entertainment and their constant inflated propaganda.

True but their not the only ones twisting words. Sure they may not have a company but simply making anyone belive your enemy is the next anti-Christ/Satan is enough. You only need someone to belive your enemy is worse than you at everything, everywhere and every time. A Templar saying things like the true nature of Assassins is to create terror or an Assassin saying that the true nature of Templars is tyrrany. Both are lying about the cause of their enemy to get people on their side.


There's a huge difference, a gigantic difference, between raising and training your kid in the family business or tradition or whatnot, and deliberately lying to your charge about the circumstances of their life and their actions, while deceitfully feigning affection.

Hudge difference but same tactic, both are situations with kids being told this and that that results with them following you. Things a parent say to their kid will influence them.
Expect things like doing it against their will or not letting them choose themselves. Their just kids and both situations is a kid not given the freedom to choose. If the kid wants to then it's another matter but taking advantage of a child and saying "these guys are the monster hiding under your bed, all of their group is bad and has to be killed". Convinielty add words like good guys and bad guys or something along the lines and your kid will follow.


Reginald Birch screwed Haytham all his life, sent him on wild goose chases promising to help find his father and sister, it was Haytham's childhood friend Holden who finally got him that.

True.


You cannot seriously equate people protecting their land.

They don't own the Obervatory, that's the property of every Sage. And every Sage is a recarnifaction of Aita that worked there, they simply build there homes there and desided to guard it.


Including hanging pirates as a warning on display.

So your saying pirates isn't innocent then or just the ones killed by the Guardians? The Guardians have massacred people themselves, we see what they have done when first visiting. Their just guilty.


Its really racist to assume that it's some kind of art by the way.

I knew you'd get hung up on that.


To people who come with an army and brutally kill them and burn their homes.

Templars killing Assassin allies is no difffrent than the Assassins doing the same, and Washington did the same to natives. You seem to accept that or ignore it.


That is incredibly racist and colonialist.

Just playing with you, no need to sharpen your knives. But if you insist I can tell you my sins.


Except, the Templars don't want to kill Washington to avenge any of that, as Connor pointed out.

Doesn't change that fact that he did the same as Torres, they just have different titles.


They want to kill Washington because they want to make Charles Lee the dictator of America.

He'd simply be a leader(like any other system with one leading) but he being a poor one I'd something we can agree on.


You see, the Templars want to be the one with sole monopolies to do dirty work, because when they do it, its justified.

They want order, purpose and direction. So unity is a way to discribe it and dirty work is their Templar worker outside the law, like the Assassins doing their dirty work outside the law and closing if all to be justified because they do it. Their no different in that regard.


And you know Washington was the superior man at the end for all his flaws, he looked at the Apple of Eden and told Connor to throw it in the bottom of the sea, that's something even Altair never did.

Superior to Charles, yes. A good guy, no. And it's true he did that, doesn't change that he did dirty work himself.


If Haytham or Lee got hold of the Apple, you would see the Tyranny DLC America for real.

They didn't aim for personal gain, power is a means to an end. Not end by itself. Sure the possibility is there like with everyone close to it but how likely is another matter.


Well I am simply saying that Borgia is as much a Templar as anyone.

They are Templars but not the same kind. A corrupt cop is a cop exempt he allows things that go against being a cop to happen for things like money or power.


I mean Stalin isn't representative of Communism and Communism isn't representative of Marxism, but to say that Communism is not Marxist and Stalin is not a Communist is delusional and false.

First you break down what Communsim is and it's rules and goals, then do the same to Marxism and finish of by comparing it to Stalin's rule. Breakdown, overlook and comparison. It should give you the awnser you seek.


If the Grand Master attacks me or sets an ambush I'd obviously be forced to defend myself. Otherwise, I'd listen and gather information.

Now after you discovered the Grand Master, he talks about some deal and explains the Norwegian Assassins have accepted a truce, to fight for the end goal of the ideologies and do if by the books. Fighting each other will damage that and continue a never ending battle, as an example he points at a dead Assassin that was so hanged up on the freedom vs control that he didn't consider making peace. Now before this truce happened the Grand Master's order was focused on the people, simple control really but with a low profile and as little attention as possible(as in influence). So the Norweagian Assassins have worked with the Grand Master without knowing to help the people, to build a better future. Controlling without a iron first and actually guiding, giving purpose, direction. Trying to unite and make peace, so since he have been an ally(without their knowledge) he when going to their HQ alone and unarmed would appear weird for a "random ally not knowing of Assassins". So when the Grand Master enters the HQ and gives them a simple yet conflicted offer. Peace, a truce. Some liked and other thinks he's been useing them and intents to take it further. Natural reactions and argueing all over the room, now someone will try to kill the Grand Master. It's common in a conflict to put yourself above your enemy, so a fight breaks out in the middle go the HQ. There is those who belive it's "treason" to make peace(end goal of both ideologies) with the enemy and those who fight for peace(by the book) and since the Grand Master is unarmed he's forced to run and hope an Assassin saves him. So the Grand Master runs and gets to a dead end. Cornered and with a sword pointing against him, he tries to disarm him but fails and gets knocked to the ground and the Assassin is about to swing his sword and cut his trout but gets stabbed by another Assassin. After the entire conflict escalated the truce was accepted, so consider the mess and the place being compromised it's agreed to be a becon to attract other Assassins/Templars around the world. Useing the place give the same offer of a truce to anyone around the globe and spreading tge word. Now the Grand a Master doesn't know what kind of Assassin that does come, so he as always prepares just in case. So he gives new arrived Assassins the same offer. What will you do?
As a reminder he also says that he will take care of any Templars from his order that's just as willing to destroy everything the cause stands for, it just require different methods. A coup is to be expected.

VestigialLlama4
03-12-2015, 05:28 AM
But they can deny that what they do isn't always good. Simply believing your the good guy and all you do is good doesn't make it so.

The Assassins only believe that they are better than the Templars that's all.


So other than making a killing natives and give the colonies a government without Britain, what else did he accomplish that's so good?

Why don't you read a history about the real Washington? Gore Vidal's Inventing a Nation carries my recommendations.


They don't own the Obervatory, that's the property of every Sage.

Didn't you read how they treated Thom Kavanagh in his letters. The confused sage who the Assassins helped to heal and who later found warmth and friendship among the guardians. Judging the Guardians to be mindless savages based on two missions without considering context is pure racist-colonialist logic.


And every Sage is a recarnifaction of Aita that worked there, they simply build there homes there and desided to guard it.

So a land where people have built their homes and livelihood is not theirs? And after all, they were RIGHT to protect the Observatory against imbeciles like Torres who charged with no clue as to what he was doing, with no possibility of success who ended up getting all his soldiers killed by observatory defenses and achieved nothing but massacring several people. That in a nutshell is


So your saying pirates isn't innocent then or just the ones killed by the Guardians?

Obviously pirates aren't innocent. Edward Kenway isn't innocent by any means (and he has never claimed to be), and the authority of Havana, Nassau, Kingston and the Guardians have a right to take action against piracy and stealing. The Guardians are no different from the cages of Pirates and signs of "Pirate warnings" we see in those cities. Edward when he goes to the Observatory with Black Bart (as per full synch objectives) uses non-lethal methods to incapacitate the Guardians where Black Bart wanted him to murder them all. The game doesn't feature the silly Jack Sparrow fantasy of a "good guy pirate".


They are Templars but not the same kind. A corrupt cop is a cop exempt he allows things that go against being a cop to happen for things like money or power.

Again false analogy. Templars are supposed to be enlightened ones trying to build an utopia (with them in charge). A cop is simply a job designation not an ideology.

Monochromeblade
03-13-2015, 06:04 AM
Now after you discovered the Grand Master, he talks about some deal and explains the Norwegian Assassins have accepted a truce, to fight for the end goal of the ideologies and do if by the books. Fighting each other will damage that and continue a never ending battle, as an example he points at a dead Assassin that was so hanged up on the freedom vs control that he didn't consider making peace. Now before this truce happened the Grand Master's order was focused on the people, simple control really but with a low profile and as little attention as possible(as in influence). So the Norweagian Assassins have worked with the Grand Master without knowing to help the people, to build a better future. Controlling without a iron first and actually guiding, giving purpose, direction. Trying to unite and make peace, so since he have been an ally(without their knowledge) he when going to their HQ alone and unarmed would appear weird for a "random ally not knowing of Assassins". So when the Grand Master enters the HQ and gives them a simple yet conflicted offer. Peace, a truce. Some liked and other thinks he's been useing them and intents to take it further. Natural reactions and argueing all over the room, now someone will try to kill the Grand Master. It's common in a conflict to put yourself above your enemy, so a fight breaks out in the middle go the HQ. There is those who belive it's "treason" to make peace(end goal of both ideologies) with the enemy and those who fight for peace(by the book) and since the Grand Master is unarmed he's forced to run and hope an Assassin saves him. So the Grand Master runs and gets to a dead end. Cornered and with a sword pointing against him, he tries to disarm him but fails and gets knocked to the ground and the Assassin is about to swing his sword and cut his trout but gets stabbed by another Assassin. After the entire conflict escalated the truce was accepted, so consider the mess and the place being compromised it's agreed to be a becon to attract other Assassins/Templars around the world. Useing the place give the same offer of a truce to anyone around the globe and spreading tge word. Now the Grand a Master doesn't know what kind of Assassin that does come, so he as always prepares just in case. So he gives new arrived Assassins the same offer. What will you do?
As a reminder he also says that he will take care of any Templars from his order that's just as willing to destroy everything the cause stands for, it just require different methods. A coup is to be expected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXtyELRHlqE

Except I want him to give the assassins the identity,location and reason why these corrupt or extreme templars have to die and even then we have to observe their daily activity for a while to see if your telling the truth, after all wouldn't your fellow templars be scared or distrustful of you killing off their members based upon your word only and besides how am i sure that your successor will be as "incorruptible" as you are because it sounds like this truce will only last as long as your alive?

pirate1802
03-13-2015, 11:58 AM
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the thread has devolved into such a mix of moralistic dilemmas, but I am. Look: it's really simple. It's a matter of choice. Guards/soldiers/policemen chose to put their lives on the line, and arm themselves to defend something. It doesn't matter if they are good, evil, corrupt, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The risk to their lives while performing their duty comes with the job, and they would be foolish to think it doesn't exist. A mother and child shopping at a market did not choose to risk their lives in defense of anything. It doesn't matter if they are good, evil, corrupt, Jews, Muslims or Christians. They are innocents when it comes to discriminating between targets and civilians.

I am done.

The ****...

By this logic I should totally run my car over that traffic police standing at the intersection because hey, he chose to stand there, he knew the risk. Then I should go and bludgeon a security guard to death before looting a shop. He knew the risk too when he decided to be a guard.

Right?

Hans684
03-13-2015, 05:23 PM
The Assassins only believe that they are better than the Templars that's all.

Both orders have members believing that, nothing new.


Why don't you read a history about the real Washington? Gore Vidal's Inventing a Nation carries my recommendations.

It will be done soon enough.


Didn't you read how they treated Thom Kavanagh in his letters. The confused sage who the Assassins helped to heal and who later found warmth and friendship among the guardians.

I know his story.


Judging the Guardians to be mindless savages.

Give me a quote of me saying that.


Based on two missions without considering context.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/you_got_me_breaking_bad.gif
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g137546945018816480.jpg

Why would I do that? We're talking in circles and is no closer to resolution than last time. I've stopped caring by this point, I won't repeat myself a third time and discussions everything about this with you again. Other topics but not this, at least not fully. I won't repeat everything again, that's guarantied. At some point I'm simply not gonna awnser regarding the topic.


Is pure racist-colonialist logic.

Your not wrong, your just an a--hole.


So a land where people have built their homes and livelihood is not theirs?

Yes that's their but not the Observatory, not the land it covers.


And after all, they were RIGHT to protect the Observatory against imbeciles like Torres who charged with no clue as to what he was doing, with no possibility of success who ended up getting all his soldiers killed by observatory defenses and achieved nothing but massacring several people. That in a nutshell is

It didn't need their protection, you said it yourself. It's a death trap without a Sage to turn of the defenses and impossible to enter without a Sage or a Blood Vial with a Sages blood. So why should they risk their own lives over something capable of defending itself? It's unneeded protection that only puts them in the danger zone for people looking for it. They also worked with Assassins like other factions like pirates, except the others wasn't stupid enough to be in a death zone attracting all kinds of treasure hunters forcing them to having kill them(and set up warnings) for simply having to go trough their village to reach a death trap that will kill them defending itself. Why is so difficult to simply let the treasure hunters walk in to their own grave instead of massacring them? Everyone has something to blamed of regarding the situation, like Edward. Had he let Torres know he had the skull(something he didn't). Then what Torres did could have been avoided because he'd have no reason to go there.


Obviously pirates aren't innocent.

True.


Edward Kenway isn't innocent by any means (and he has never claimed to be), and the authority of Havana, Nassau, Kingston and the Guardians have a right to take action against piracy and stealing.

True.


The Guardians are no different from the cages of Pirates and signs of "Pirate warnings" we see in those cities.

Nothing new, it's everyone against everyone.


Edward when he goes to the Observatory with Black Bart (as per full synch objectives) uses non-lethal methods to incapacitate the Guardians.

Expect the people he does it with can end up in coma or other dangerous conditions caused by that. It's something games don't add in term if realism.


Black Bart wanted him to murder them all.

No doubt about that, expect his crew isn't skilled enough. It's why he sent Edward in the first place, to get rid of the danger.


The game doesn't feature the silly Jack Sparrow fantasy of a "good guy pirate".

I know.


Again false analogy. Templars are supposed to be enlightened ones trying to build an utopia (with them in charge). A cop is simply a job designation not an ideology.

Just change it from cop to [something with ideology] then, doesn't change the point. What you are, what your ideology is, how your ideology work and what your ideologys goals are. All those comes with their own terms and conditions. Yes the Templars are supposed to be enlightened ones but not all follow the terms and conditions.

Shahkulu101
03-13-2015, 05:29 PM
The ****...

By this logic I should totally run my car over that traffic police standing at the intersection because hey, he chose to stand there, he knew the risk. Then I should go and bludgeon a security guard to death before looting a shop. He knew the risk too when he decided to be a guard.

Right?

Nobody's saying they deserve to die, simply that it's logical to classify guards differently from other citizens.

pirate1802
03-14-2015, 06:08 AM
Nobody's saying they deserve to die, simply that it's logical to classify guards differently from other citizens.

But the mere fact that you (the assassin who intends to cause trouble no less) classifies him differently means it is somehow less bad to kill them simply because the 'knew the stakes'. I can understand applying this line of thinking to corrupt guards, but for normal guards it's actually mind-blowing. That guy standing before the treasure chest I intend to loot is 'not innocent' because he 'knew the stakes'. And so my heart lightens!

Do I get a lighter sentence because the person whose bike I ran over was not wearing a helmet, for example? Going by this logic it would seem so, because he 'knew the stakes' by not wearing a helmet and thus should be classified differently that a normal helmet-wearing law abiding citizen.

Jackdaw951
03-14-2015, 11:33 AM
The ****...

By this logic I should totally run my car over that traffic police standing at the intersection because hey, he chose to stand there, he knew the risk. Then I should go and bludgeon a security guard to death before looting a shop. He knew the risk too when he decided to be a guard.

Right?

Don't be obtuse. That seems so out of character for you. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? If I cross the street legally, I know there's a risk of getting run over by a drunk or a texting teenager. Hell, I could be hit by a meteor just sitting here typing this. That's a far cry from choosing a profession which involves armed, deadly combat. I am deliberately putting myself in harm's way. It should be no surprise that harm eventually will come, particularly during times of heavy conflict between groups competing for supremacy.

pirate1802
03-14-2015, 12:48 PM
Don't be obtuse. That seems so out of character for you. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? If I cross the street legally, I know there's a risk of getting run over by a drunk or a texting teenager. Hell, I could be hit by a meteor just sitting here typing this. That's a far cry from choosing a profession which involves armed, deadly combat. I am deliberately putting myself in harm's way. It should be no surprise that harm eventually will come, particularly during times of heavy conflict between groups competing for supremacy.

Agreed. i still can't fathom how any of this pertains to the discussion we are having. Okay, so these guys knew the risks. So? Does that put them on a different platform in the great sliding scale of innocence? If yes, that's ludicrous. If no, that's irrelevant. This is all I'm trying to understand. Oh and most of these guards may not even be aware that this great assassin-templar conflict is taking place. For all they know, they are guarding an entrance to a graveyard in Istanbul. One moment he is looking over towards the bazaar and the people milling in and out, the next moment a blade is sinking into his back and he is sinking down. Yeah. He totally did have full knowledge of just what a chaotic times he guarded a graveyard in. Completely.

PS: Being obtuse actually seems in-character for me because as you see I'm a pirate and pirates are oft drunk, and thus obtuse.