PDA

View Full Version : I really don't understand Rogue



Alphacos007
03-20-2015, 12:46 AM
Could someone explain it to me? Back when I played in on PS3 I tought I'd understand it all better when I played for the second time on PC, but it doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm recurring to you guys :rolleyes:

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SPOILERS HERE, DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED.

So, first of all, the biggest question for me is about the end. Why did Otso send Shay's video to the Assassins? It makes no sense, if anything he is helping them by showing stuff that they didn't know about, like the anti-earthquake temples. But even weirder is the Assassin's reactions. "William Miles is Dead", "No he's not", "Every Cell, Hide!", "It's the great purge all over again", etc. Why the hell are they all panicking just because of a video they received? I seriously don't get it.

Second, when Shay is already a templar and chasing the Assassins, they plan all that distraction thing so that Achilles and Liam could get to the temple before he got to them. But why the hell distract him instead of simply killing him? And even if they decided just to distract him, why tell him it was a distraction? I mean, they had plenty of opportunity to kill him but didn't, Hope had he on her arms, all she had to do was expand the hidden blade and he would be dead. Instead, she gave him poison and let him escape. And then later when he finally gets to the Chevalier (I'm not sure how to write it), why does he tell Shay that it was a distraction? If he didn't, Shay would have got to a dead end, at least for a while untill he managed to find where Achilles and Liam went. And why have a map showing the actual location that Achilles was going? It's like they wanted Shay to find them.

Third, why do the Assassins act as a Mafia? In the very beginning they talk all about how they are up for freedom and free-will, but then when Shay is at the family house recovering from his wounds, Assassins get in the house and try to beat up the old guys (sorry, I really don't remember their names) because they wouldn't pay for protection. What?
Also, aren't Assassins supposed to be secretive and all? Why are they all over the place with forts and huge flags showing everyone about their presence?

Then, if the Assassins wanted Shay dead so much, why didn't they even bother to check if Shay was actually dead after the fall? And all that chase was because of the manuscript that Shay was going away with, but after Shay supposedly dies, they don't bother to go down to get it from his body, instead leaving it there so that the Templars could find it.

And last but not least, why is Shay so agressive against Achilles when he comes back from Lisbon? I mean, it's not like Achilles destroyed the whole city in purpose, he didn't know that such thing would happen. If you listen to the conversation between Achilles and Adewale in the beginning, Adewale says that someone couldn't complete the mission because an earthquake striked right while his mission was in progress. After Lisbon it's obvious that the Temples are the ones doing it, but before that no one could know what would happen. If Shay had talked with Achilles for 10 minutes before going all traitor, I'm sure they would have agreed in beeing more carefull and everything would have ended there.

I actually had more questions but they don't come to my head right now. I'll post more here if I remember anything else.
Thanks in advance to whoever takes the time to read/answer this thread! :cool:

ze_topazio
03-20-2015, 01:03 AM
Otso is a delusional fool

Considering Shay was kicking butt left and right the best they could hope for was distracting him.
Hope had a weak spot for him.

The Assassins don't act like the mafia, Hope acted like the mafia.
The philosophy of hiding in plain sight taken to the letter.

We don't know if they checked or not, Shay lost his conscience, next time he opened his eyes he's in New York.

Shay was traumatized by the event and feeling guilty of killing thousands, probably in a sub-conscientious attempt to cope he blamed Achilles instead.

pirate1802
03-20-2015, 07:10 AM
It's not the Assassins who are acting like mafia. Remember the mercenaries from AC2-B whom the men in hoods employ to do their dirty work? Yes it is they who act like mafia. Both sides hire people to do their bidding, they did. But it always perturbed my how even the assassin's hired guns smelled like roses. AC IV/Ro set that right.

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 02:11 PM
Don't dare question Rogue or the Templars, lest you be called an intellectual lightweight who only enjoys cartoony, black and white stories. :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
03-20-2015, 02:44 PM
Third, why do the Assassins act as a Mafia? In the very beginning they talk all about how they are up for freedom and free-will, but then when Shay is at the family house recovering from his wounds, Assassins get in the house and try to beat up the old guys (sorry, I really don't remember their names) because they wouldn't pay for protection. What?

Out of curiosity, do you think that the money that Ezio received for all the ships he owned in Rome and Constantinople was out of respect? :rolleyes: It was protection money, essentially. And people like the mercenaries, thieves or courtesans that we constantly used could theoretically get out of hand sometimes (heck, they did, in ACB we dealed with traitors and whatnot).


Also, aren't Assassins supposed to be secretive and all? Why are they all over the place with forts and huge flags showing everyone about their presence?

'Too much power' thing, I guess. I mean, Assassins aren't always secretive - AC1, ACR are good examples of where they're not secretive at all. ACB they may not have flags everywhere, but they sure like to yell 'Vittoria Agli Assassini'

wvstolzing
03-20-2015, 03:16 PM
but they sure like to yell 'Vittoria Agli Assassini'

... that was their Power Rangers-period. Every secret society goes through it; something like adolescence.

Alphacos007
03-20-2015, 03:18 PM
Out of curiosity, do you think that the money that Ezio received for all the ships he owned in Rome and Constantinople was out of respect? :rolleyes: It was protection money, essentially.

I get your point, but one thing is receiving money for actually protecting someone, the other one is asking money not to beat them up, that was my question :P

Markaccus
03-20-2015, 03:37 PM
I thought rogue was pretty much a non-event. I was planning on finishing it and doing a fair bit of the side stuff before getting the ps4, but it just failed to keep me interested. I am one of AC3s detracters, because i find it dull and boring, but i think Rogue is close to being the same. Not ubi's finest hour imo.

EaglePrince25
03-20-2015, 04:17 PM
Otso's reaction to Shay's history literally makes no sense, nor does the reaction of the modern day assassin's to receiving the video. In terms of the latter, the only thing I can think of is that they were panicking because he was able to contact them so easily at all. For the former, the lesson Otso seems to take from Shay's life is that the Templar way is automatically better than that of the Assassin's, that the Assassin's are powerless, and that even an Assassin will choose the path of the Templar's in the end when given the choice. The first and second have quite simply been challenged and proven wrong again and again over the course of centuries now, with all these games, and considering that he's working in the department that has access to the true history of the games, and then warps them for public propaganda, i'm not sure why he'd think that exactly beyond delusions. The final point then falls flat, because Shay didn't choose the Templars. He was forced to go to them when the Assassin's (And note this is just one group of Assassins, that even at the time of Rogue had many others to be compared to) refused to listen to him about the Temples. Furthermore, it only worked out in the end because one Templar in particular chose not to kill Shay, showing him kindness when his friends had turned against him and tried to kill him. They then actually bothered to listen to him as well, making the thought of joining them in order to prevent another terrible event that much more attractive. It really had nothing to do with Assassin or Templar beliefs at all.

Sorry for the rant, but that ending conclusion to the game just made no sense whatsoever to me on the parts of anyone involved. Beyond that I loved the game. Though I also agree with you, OP, on the confrontation between Shay and Achilles. I just finished played it a second time and that really doesn't make any sense for either character. Shay barges in angry and yelling at Achilles, blaming him for making Shay kill thousands, when that's clearly not what he wanted to do. Achilles told him up front that it was to retrieve an artifact, not to cause a catastophe. The fact that the mission led to that then makes it clear that it was soemthing other than what Achilles thought it was. Him being in a state of shock and lashing out is the only way his assumption makes sense. What I wondered was why he then felt the need to instantly act right away and try to steal the manuscript from Achilles, instead of trying to talk things out. Achilles was wrong, we can agree, and he admits it in the end, but barging in, ranting like a madman obviously wasn't going to convince him that you (Shay) knew what you were talking about. Had Shay actually calmed down, and explained everything that happened in detail, and that the manuscript didn't lead to Pieces of Eden, but Temples that could trigger quakes i'm fairly certain the entire events of the game could have been avoided. In turn though, Achilles telling Shay that he was flat out wrong also didn't help matters, or make much sense. He knew about an earthquake that had happened already, and another just occured, both involved Assassins searching for artifacts. Maybe, just maybe there's a connection? :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
03-20-2015, 04:48 PM
I get your point, but one thing is receiving money for actually protecting someone, the other one is asking money not to beat them up, that was my question :P

Isn't that what we did as Ezio? Either you're with us and paying money, or you're not with us which means you're with the Borgia (even if you're not) and we're beating you up :p Okay, that's a purposeful exaggeration, don't take it too seriously.

But the point is, we're dealing with criminal elements here. There's going to be bad apples. We've dealt with them in ACB, for example. When Hope talks about her people in New York, it's about scouting, information, weapons development (just like Leonardo :p ) etc. for her, removing authorities, and probably people protection as well (i.e. pretty much like it is with Ezio), but she doesn't look after each of her men to make sure they don't do anything stupid, just like we as Ezio don't really do that with ACB.

ERICATHERINE
03-20-2015, 04:53 PM
Could someone explain it to me? Back when I played in on PS3 I tought I'd understand it all better when I played for the second time on PC, but it doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm recurring to you guys :rolleyes:

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SPOILERS HERE, DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED.

So, first of all, the biggest question for me is about the end. Why did Otso send Shay's video to the Assassins? It makes no sense, if anything he is helping them by showing stuff that they didn't know about, like the anti-earthquake temples. But even weirder is the Assassin's reactions. "William Miles is Dead", "No he's not", "Every Cell, Hide!", "It's the great purge all over again", etc. Why the hell are they all panicking just because of a video they received? I seriously don't get it.

Second, when Shay is already a templar and chasing the Assassins, they plan all that distraction thing so that Achilles and Liam could get to the temple before he got to them. But why the hell distract him instead of simply killing him? And even if they decided just to distract him, why tell him it was a distraction? I mean, they had plenty of opportunity to kill him but didn't, Hope had he on her arms, all she had to do was expand the hidden blade and he would be dead. Instead, she gave him poison and let him escape. And then later when he finally gets to the Chevalier (I'm not sure how to write it), why does he tell Shay that it was a distraction? If he didn't, Shay would have got to a dead end, at least for a while untill he managed to find where Achilles and Liam went. And why have a map showing the actual location that Achilles was going? It's like they wanted Shay to find them.

Third, why do the Assassins act as a Mafia? In the very beginning they talk all about how they are up for freedom and free-will, but then when Shay is at the family house recovering from his wounds, Assassins get in the house and try to beat up the old guys (sorry, I really don't remember their names) because they wouldn't pay for protection. What?
Also, aren't Assassins supposed to be secretive and all? Why are they all over the place with forts and huge flags showing everyone about their presence?

Then, if the Assassins wanted Shay dead so much, why didn't they even bother to check if Shay was actually dead after the fall? And all that chase was because of the manuscript that Shay was going away with, but after Shay supposedly dies, they don't bother to go down to get it from his body, instead leaving it there so that the Templars could find it.

And last but not least, why is Shay so agressive against Achilles when he comes back from Lisbon? I mean, it's not like Achilles destroyed the whole city in purpose, he didn't know that such thing would happen. If you listen to the conversation between Achilles and Adewale in the beginning, Adewale says that someone couldn't complete the mission because an earthquake striked right while his mission was in progress. After Lisbon it's obvious that the Temples are the ones doing it, but before that no one could know what would happen. If Shay had talked with Achilles for 10 minutes before going all traitor, I'm sure they would have agreed in beeing more carefull and everything would have ended there.

I actually had more questions but they don't come to my head right now. I'll post more here if I remember anything else.
Thanks in advance to whoever takes the time to read/answer this thread! :cool:

I have a theory about that.

I don't know if you've noticed, but right before Shay enter Achilles house, we can see there is assassin's in front of the door. Also, right at the moment where we can see them, we hear a whisttle and then, they go in that direction. I then have heard a horse going away while runing. I think it was actually the templar that found him uncounscius. So, maybe he actually found Shay before the assassins with them, actually going to see if he is dead. Also, since the templar found him first the assassins could not finished the job.

That's my theory. What do you think about it?

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 06:00 PM
Out of curiosity, do you think that the money that Ezio received for all the ships he owned in Rome and Constantinople was out of respect? :rolleyes: It was protection money, essentially. And people like the mercenaries, thieves or courtesans that we constantly used could theoretically get out of hand sometimes (heck, they did, in ACB we dealed with traitors and whatnot).

Ezio doesn't get protection money. He's the Landlord. He owns Monteriggioni (or rather his family does). He opens up shops, invites aspiring merchants to set up shop, offers them decently priced rent and invests in local trade, the money he makes is the stuff he's earned as a loyal investor and stock-holder. He's a banker's son after all, and obviously he learned a lot from Giovanni on how to stimulate local trade via double-entry bookkeeping, stuff like that was how the Medici became big and how the Renaissance happened. Helping people to start businesses and the like is not mafia behaviour at all because one you are actually helping people make stuff and you are building jobs. In BROTHERHOOD and REVELATIONS, Ezio ensures that blacksmiths, tailors, art dealers, booksellers, doctors and bankers start offices and build trade, he's the model of the Renaissance Patron of the Arts. The real-life Lorenzo Medici gave money to everything, including Amerigo Vespucci's voyage to the New World and the like.

In AC3, Connor is a one-man American Dream, building a community, establishing free trade and via his naval missions, destroying and circumventing an English blockade intended to cripple Colonial economy. In Black Flag, Edward Kenway and his Pirates don't build anything except when Edward Kenway decides to convert the Island he hijacked from the Templars into a Mini-Nassau shantytown, but he's a pirate and not an Assassin.

In the GTA games, you buy existing businesses and skim off them, and/or use them as fronts to do further illegal activity, that's parasitic behaviour because you are not building anything new or creating new jobs. You only make money for yourself and nobody else.

As for the Assassins being mafia in ROGUE, bear in Mind we only see the Assassins from Shay's perspective and interactions, and he's not all that interested in questioning Templars. Like why does he shut up when Christopher Gist calls Lawrence Washington and James Wardrop good men when the Assassins pointed out that the first guy is a slaveowner and the second guy committed many massacres against native americans. The Assassins are deliberate outlaws and they do support certain areas of the criminal element, Ezio did that in AC2 with the Venice and Florence thieves. The Templars do this too (Thomas Hickey later on, and two of the UNITY Templars are mob bosses). But that doesn't mean that it's all they do.

Namikaze_17
03-20-2015, 08:40 PM
Don't dare question Rogue or the Templars, lest you be called an intellectual lightweight who only enjoys cartoony, black and white stories. :rolleyes:

Don't dare question AC2 or the Assassins, lest you be called an intellectual heavyweight who only enjoys pretentious, grey stories. :rolleyes:


The contrast is strong... :/

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 09:00 PM
Don't dare question AC2 or the Assassins, lest you be called an intellectual heavyweight who only enjoys pretentious, grey stories. :rolleyes:


The contrast is strong... :/

From what I gather, its the Templars who have the black-and-white worldview while the Assassins are the gray ones.

Personally I don't think having black or gray villains has any bearing on the quality of the story. In most stories, either the game is about heroes or its about villains. In AC1, Altair attains understanding by observing, understanding and then killing his targets while storywise he's in disgrace with his fellow Assassins, so by nature of the character, the story has a gray theme.

In AC2, Ezio hates the bad guys and he wants revenge but his friendship and bonds of trust keep from going insane and brutal. So while AC2 has more caricatured villains, its got a richer and more varied supporting cast. Ezio is this spoiled rich kid who learns that when the chips down his real friends aren't the aristocrats who shun the Auditore, but its the city's lowlives - thieves, mercanaries, prostitutes who show real loyalty and go out of their way to help him and his family, that the only true friend is this gay genius painter guy who he didn't take seriously at first (see the mission where Maria introduces Ezio to Leonardo, and Ezio is all "Okay boring charity project for Mom to deal with on free time"). That's why he's such a man of the people idealist type. Altair's life experience leads him to believe, "People are idiots for fighting the Crusades, the Templars are idiots who want to lead other idiots, the Assasins are idiots for following Al Mualim and are idiots for following me, and I am an idiot for following the Apple."

In AC3, Connor is this young guy who has no friends and is cut off and isolated from the world he grew up as a kid and ends up losing his father figures. So agian that lends to a gray story.

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 09:18 PM
Don't dare question AC2 or the Assassins, lest you be called an intellectual heavyweight who only enjoys pretentious, grey stories. :rolleyes:


The contrast is strong... :/

Except that doesn't really happen.

Oh and I personally think AC2 isn't that good. I've just noticed people pouncing on anyone who enjoys AC2 and Ezio lately in a condescending manner because it massages their ego's.

Namikaze_17
03-20-2015, 09:51 PM
For the record, what I said was a joke to go with what Shahk said.


Templars who have the black-and-white worldview while the Assassins are the gray ones.

That's a pretty black & white generalization.


either the game is about heroes or its about villains.

No, it isn't.

The war is between two groups that share the goal of peace but different means in achieving them.

Both become corrupted in their ideals of control and freedom such as with the Borgia & Achilles.

One can even say a fanatic such as Bellec inherited his way of thinking from the original fanatic himself, Ezio Auditore.

It was Ezio who served as the original extremist with his black & white view that the opposing side should rather be destroyed than making peace with them like Mirabeau or Connor tried to do.

Whilst the teachings of the Colonial Templars soon become lost and forgotten by Modern Day Templars.

All in all, both sides are not truly "good or evil".


As for the Assassins, I agree that Alta´r had a greyness in his story due to his interactions with his targets, his memorable conversations with Al Mualim, and his questioning of the Creed and himself.

Connor's generally came from his interactions with Haytham and his Templars than being isolated and such. Sure, it had its place, but it wasn't really focused IIRC.



Except that doesn't really happen.

Oh and I personally think AC2 isn't that good. I've just noticed people pouncing on anyone who enjoys AC2 and Ezio lately in a condescending manner because it massages their ego's.

Oh, its happened. :rolleyes:

I personally don't think Rogue is that good either btw. But I see where you're coming from with the condescending part.

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 10:01 PM
That's a pretty black & white generalization.

Clay Kaczmarek: That's the trouble with the Templars in general, I think. Their philosophy is just so damn simple, so tantalizing, offering easy solutions to complex problems. Just do X, Y, and Z and all your problems disappear.



It was Ezio who served as the original extremist with his black & white view that the opposing side should rather be destroyed than making peace with them like Mirabeau or Connor tried to do.

Why should Ezio make peace with the Borgia Templars when they are all such irredemable murderous colossal a--holes. Only morons would think of making peace with those likes. And as for destroying the opposing side, he let Lucrezia Borgia live, he pardoned Rodrigo too and merely humiliated him. The latter got the message and left him alone until Cesare ruined everything again. Where do people get this idea of Ezio being this fanatic, its not there in the games at all. Even Prince Ahmet, he kept his word to Suleiman to spare him only for that guy to be killed by his own brother.


Whilst the teachings of the Colonial Templars soon become lost and forgotten by Modern Day Templars.

The Colonial Templars think Charles Lee is a better President than Washington. Their legacy of stupidity is fullly practised and continued by Modern Templars.

Mr.Black24
03-20-2015, 10:08 PM
Its poor planning and writing, like that article I mentioned before, right here on this post: (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1035655-Ubisoft-Montreal-is-feeding-its-writers-criticism-sandwiches) things would have made much more sense if they took the time to find out methods to correct lore before moving on to phase 2.

Like for example, how and why did Shay go into hiding after retrieving the Box in 1776? He isn't the type to hide from danger, and being an Assassin Hunter, he would have set out to kill Connor during the span of 1776-1783. Why would he be absent during that time? It makes no sense and its poor planning I tell ya!

Megas_Doux
03-20-2015, 10:08 PM
I just dont like this game, my least favorite so far amongst the main games for sure.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 05:18 AM
The reason Juhani sent the Assassins the video of Shay is because he's attempting to demoralize the Assassins. For millennium the Assassins have depended on the idea they have the moral high ground with the Templars.

Showing them the perspective of an Assassin who chooses to leave their Brotherhood for the Templars on moral grounds is a big psychological strike.

The Assassins only exist because of their fanaticism and faith in the Mentors--which Juhani is undercutting.

D.I.D.
05-14-2015, 11:38 AM
The reason Juhani sent the Assassins the video of Shay is because he's attempting to demoralize the Assassins. For millennium the Assassins have depended on the idea they have the moral high ground with the Templars.

Showing them the perspective of an Assassin who chooses to leave their Brotherhood for the Templars on moral grounds is a big psychological strike.

The Assassins only exist because of their fanaticism and faith in the Mentors--which Juhani is undercutting.

I wish the game had shown that the Assassins are immoral at times, but it didn't. Shay was ranting and hurling accusations, refused to calm down when asked by his friends to discuss the situation, stole from the order and then had to flee. Achilles was left ignorant of the situation and the moment he was told in person what would happen if he touched the artefact, he stopped immediately and apologised for his ignorance.

Shay comes across as ridiculously stupid. He knows the Assassins use overdoses of a single anaesthetic as a medicine, a knockout drug and a deadly poison. The Templars point out the Assassin factory, tell him that the Assassins plan to murder everyone in New York with it, and Shay takes them at their word. This is so absurd. Shay doesn't question why they'd do that, what the benefit would be, doesn't investigate if they're actually making Ye Olde Tylenol.

Surely the Assassins would watch this, shrug, and think, "Well, that guy's an idiot".


Either the writing was really poorly sketched out from the start or the writer was given unchangeable details by the design team and just had to go with it, but somebody wasn't doing the story any favours here.

Fatal-Feit
05-14-2015, 12:55 PM
Don't dare question Rogue or the Templars, lest you be called an intellectual lightweight who only enjoys cartoony, black and white stories. :rolleyes:

I know this is sarcasm, but damn, I really found Rogue to be cartoony and quite black and white. And a parody of the last two games. For some reason, it gets worse every replay and that upsets me because I did enjoy Rogue's story the first time.

I still stand by the gameplay being more than mediocre, though.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 01:17 PM
I wish the game had shown that the Assassins are immoral at times, but it didn't. Shay was ranting and hurling accusations, refused to calm down when asked by his friends to discuss the situation, stole from the order and then had to flee. Achilles was left ignorant of the situation and the moment he was told in person what would happen if he touched the artefact, he stopped immediately and apologised for his ignorance.

To be fair, Rogue did point out the big flaws of the Assassins.

1. The Assassins are self-righteous about being champions of the little guy even when allying with the Mafia and street gangs.

2. The Assassins kill Templars just for being Templars even when they're decent people.

3. The Assassins cause a lot of collateral damage as we see with the massive battles they orchestrate to get at their targets.

4. The Assassins know less about the Pieces of Eden than the Templars but try to get at them anyway.

It's just that the whole Lisbon earthquake thing is a terrible accident which doesn't really have anything to do with the Assassins being evil. It's big and dramatic but poor Shay is irrational about the whole thing.

D.I.D.
05-14-2015, 01:43 PM
To be fair, Rogue did point out the big flaws of the Assassins.

1. The Assassins are self-righteous about being champions of the little guy even when allying with the Mafia and street gangs.

2. The Assassins kill Templars just for being Templars even when they're decent people.

3. The Assassins cause a lot of collateral damage as we see with the massive battles they orchestrate to get at their targets.

These are all things we've seen over and over again in every AC game. Rogue gave us no new perspective on this. I would prefer to see the assassins do something outright awful than this bland treatment.


4. The Assassins know less about the Pieces of Eden than the Templars but try to get at them anyway.

I don't see how this is a problem. Sometimes the Templars learn how a PoE works first, but every time the assassins realise they need to prevent the Templars from having that power because they plan to do something bad with it. This is the only time that the Templars have had a genuinely altruistic reason for controlling artefacts, and the assassins had no reason to expect that.

Fatal-Feit
05-14-2015, 02:18 PM
These are all things we've seen over and over again in every AC game. Rogue gave us no new perspective on this. I would prefer to see the assassins do something outright awful than this bland treatment.

I don't see how this is a problem. Sometimes the Templars learn how a PoE works first, but every time the assassins realise they need to prevent the Templars from having that power because they plan to do something bad with it. This is the only time that the Templars have had a genuinely altruistic reason for controlling artefacts, and the assassins had no reason to expect that.

MMM, yeah, this is the thing w/ Rogue that disappoints me the most. It doesn't offer anything new despite having the advantage of twisting the narrative around, and sadly, the other games (3&4) did a much, much better job of making us sympathize w/ Templars. Rogue, at its best, reminds players that Assassins aren't always good, but come on, AC3 and 4 absolutely nailed that aspect, whereas Rogue ironically went down the black and white subway.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 03:03 PM
It's just that the whole Lisbon earthquake thing is a terrible accident which doesn't really have anything to do with the Assassins being evil. It's big and dramatic but poor Shay is irrational about the whole thing.

My major problem with ROGUE is the Lisbon Earthquake thing. It is supremely overpowered and jump-the-shark in terms of series lore. The First-Civ were always shown as being godlike but not actually Gods, they die and even natural phenomenon like the Toba Catastrophe can finish them off. The whole Pieces of Eden was this MacGuffin that literalized the theme of control over people's minds, it was invisible, kind of scary and even Lovecraftian in that trying to understand how it worked can and does drive people mad. That was something small and poetic. The whole Objects Causing Earthquakes is in my view cheap and disgusting, it trivializes real natural tragedy and expands the Templars and Assassin influence to the realm of Godlike power. Darby McDevitt himself said that he wanted to make the Pieces of Eden less powerful and more subtle than the Apples, what the hell are these earthquake tombs then?

About the only moral Assassins can take away is next-time you platform off a cool Tomb Level, think twice! Nothing about the Creed, nothing about actual choices and consequences just a plot-mandated contrivance and that is beneath contempt. I also generally dislike the fact that the Templars and Shay Cormac are sanitized in ROGUE. You are not challenged in your identifcation. Being a Templar means doing bad things but believing that these bad things have to be done for a greater purpose. Whether its Talal buying injured and insane people and then sending them to Garnier who treats them brutally but at the very least gives them treatment which they otherwise will not get in that time period? That's a legitimate moral conundrum and ambiguity. From the movies, in Apocalypse Now, Martin Sheen is the hero fighting the evil Kurtz but you see him murdering poor Vietnamese fishermen traveliing on a Sampan. That moment isn't there in ROGUE even if it was needed. In Rogue, Shay has the ability to murder civilians but this never comes in the storyline, so a fundamental level ROGUE is dishonest about the character and his story. The Templars like Christopher Gist think Lawrence Washington a slaveowner and James Wardrop, an ethnic cleanser, as great men.

So the fact is these Templars are not good at all they are involved in slavery and genocide, they just present a sympathetic front to Shay. They have a token black guy but he never voices his views on the Assassin-Templar conflict at all. Ultimately ROGUE is a fantasy of self-righteousness (as is UNITY), its about being the guy who's right when everyone is wrong and so you have a license to do anything to stop them. And that fantasy is kind of dubious in my view. You have these Assassins who are multi-cultural led by Achilles with Adewale as an Obi-Wan type. And you know, the message of the game is, if you ignore the Assassin-Templar conflict and the first-civ lore, is "Put an African-American in charge of the Brotherhood, he'll bring the whole world down and its up to well-thinking white people to put a stop to his blindness and make him learn a lesson by kneecapping him for being uppity."

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 04:35 PM
MMM, yeah, this is the thing w/ Rogue that disappoints me the most. It doesn't offer anything new despite having the advantage of twisting the narrative around, and sadly, the other games (3&4) did a much, much better job of making us sympathize w/ Templars. Rogue, at its best, reminds players that Assassins aren't always good, but come on, AC3 and 4 absolutely nailed that aspect, whereas Rogue ironically went down the black and white subway.

I'm confused. AC3 and AC4 had the Assassins portrayed as not just good but saintly.


se Now, Martin Sheen is the hero fighting the evil Kurtz but you see him murdering poor Vietnamese fishermen traveliing on a Sampan. That moment isn't there in ROGUE even if it was needed. In Rogue, Shay has the ability to murder civilians but this never comes in the storyline, so a fundamental level ROGUE is dishonest about the character and his story.

That assumes a Templar killing the innocent is a thing inherent to them, which is ridiculous.

There's no component to the Templars which requires them to kill civilians.

And it would be stupid if they did have such a thing.


The Templars like Christopher Gist think Lawrence Washington a slaveowner and James Wardrop, an ethnic cleanser, as great men.

Actually, it nicely AVOIDED the usual Ubisoftism of making complex historical figures into one-note caricatures.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 04:48 PM
That assumes a Templar killing the innocent is a thing inherent to them, which is ridiculous.

No it isn't, it is inherent to their entire philosophy. There is no Templar tenet explicitly saying "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent". The Templars have no fetters or limitations nailed down, they allow themselves no boundaries except what they think is necessary and sufficient to achieve a certain goal. Shay Cormac outside of the game can kill civilian NPCs without being desynchronized, that's because its part of how a Templar would be in AC.


There's no component to the Templars which requires them to kill civilians.

And it would be stupid if they did have such a thing.

The point is Haytham thinks its dandy to start a Boston Massacre, Governor Torres thinks massacring the Taino people to get to the Observatory, including burning down villages and settlements, to be fair game. Those by the way are "the enlightened Templars" not the "supposedly corrupt" Borgia ones. Templars are inherently corrupt, in that they see no contradiction between means and ends. Haytham himself says, "they only need the world to be as it is" so to pretend that this isn't there in the lore and accepting the sanitized vision we see in ROGUE as legitimate and consistent is to be in denial. You can make a Templar game but it has to be honest, it has to be dark and it has to be morally challenging to the player, you have to make the player get his hands dirty. It will be like Spec Ops: The Line only you willingly unleash White Phosphorus for the greater good. This by the way is not necessarily "Evil", history is full of famous figures who did horrible things but felt it was necessary or justified, so the Templars can present a darker side of the history.

The fact is the political and cultural implications of ROGUE is pretty nasty. It's a white man colonialist story that's there in ROGUE and a dishonest one too. The only reason its escaped comment so far is that its a minor title that's been forgotten except by AC fans.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 05:06 PM
[No it isn't, it is inherent to their entire philosophy. There is no Templar tenet explicitly saying "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent". The Templars have no fetters or limitations nailed down, they allow themselves no boundaries except what they think is necessary and sufficient to achieve a certain goal. Shay Cormac outside of the game can kill civilian NPCs without being desynchronized, that's because its part of how a Templar would be in AC. /quote]

That is cartoonish, I'm sorry. The Templars have no rule against killing the innocent, true, but that doesn't mean a Templar should or must. It merely means their organization has no rules against it. Their Creed is the accumulation of power to build a better tomorrow. Yes, they have no limits on it but how such is pursued is up to each Templar.

[quote]Haytham himself says, "they only need the world to be as it is" so to pretend that this isn't there in the lore and accepting the sanitized vision we see in ROGUE as legitimate and consistent is to be in denial.

I disagree given we don't see any such sanitizing in Rogue. The Templars do kill people all the time to get their advancement. It's just that war and conflict throughout history have involved in the innocent.

Also, it misses the Templars are building their idealized world to protect the innocent. Both groups do not recognize their actions as fettered by traditional morality, it's just the Assassins are precision while the Templars are blunt.

And I say that believing the Templars should be face-stabbed.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 05:18 PM
That is cartoonish, I'm sorry.

It is cartoonish but that is what we see in all the games so far. ROGUE can't magically and radically alter the picture with so little explanation using some magic-fantastic plot contrivance.


The Templars have no rule against killing the innocent, true, but that doesn't mean a Templar should or must. It merely means their organization has no rules against it. Their Creed is the accumulation of power to build a better tomorrow. Yes, they have no limits on it but how such is pursued is up to each Templar.

Look, if you are a politician and decide that you are going to fire at protestors and if there's no law written down, you can be sure they will do it. They HAVE done it in fact, even when there are laws. If the Templars have no rules or guidelines arguing for concrete limits, then that means they condone the deaths of innocent civilians.

To put it simply, you can't accept good-guy Noble Haytham and pretend that the Boston massacre or his torture of British POWs is a totally different person. It's the same guy. Same with Torres, who I like more than Haytham.


I disagree given we don't see any such sanitizing in Rogue.

Yes we do. The whole point of the magic-earthquake (which I refuse to accept as legitimate) is to sanitize them.

phoenix-force411
05-14-2015, 05:19 PM
I really didn't get Otso Berg's fascination with Shay's story either.

I think the assassins were sort of being like Mafia due to them being in power of those areas for quite awhile already. It's that whole thing with power can corrupt and all that good stuff.

Shay's angry with Achilles mainly because Achilles wished to go after more artifacts even after the earthquake in Lisbon caused by Shay accidentally. Of course, he was also mad at Achilles after returning from Lisbon, because he caused those deaths by accident and he blames himself heavily. I think Achilles or Adewale should have had some clue after the event that happened before Adewale returned to the Homestead in the beginning. Shay did tell Achilles of what happens when the artifacts are tampered with when Shay returned from Lisbon, and like I said, it was wrong of Achilles to pursue the artifacts after Shay's departure.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 05:23 PM
I think someone said the story needed an extra 1-3 sequences to really explain Shay's motivations.

A couple of scenes where Haytham asks, "Shay, are you doing this because of the Earthquake or because you want to bring order?"

And Shay would say, "I started because of the Earthquake but I really see the Templars are better because [explains reasons]."

Just my .02.

But it would have been cooler to have one of the Assassins actually WANT to use the earthquake machine(s). "WIth this, once we control it, we could destroy the the Templars across the world and end the war!"

That might have been a little TOO supervillainous, though.

Hans684
05-14-2015, 05:37 PM
AC2 and Brotherhood is as ridiculous as Rogue, it's one sided games. No ambition, no reason to question since there is a clear bad guy. Using "trendy" words it's evil games that shows each side as a saint. Basically a fan-fiction compared to something like AC3 and other gray games.

phoenix-force411
05-14-2015, 05:48 PM
I think someone said the story needed an extra 1-3 sequences to really explain Shay's motivations.

A couple of scenes where Haytham asks, "Shay, are you doing this because of the Earthquake or because you want to bring order?"

And Shay would say, "I started because of the Earthquake but I really see the Templars are better because [explains reasons]."

Just my .02.

But it would have been cooler to have one of the Assassins actually WANT to use the earthquake machine(s). "WIth this, once we control it, we could destroy the the Templars across the world and end the war!"

That might have been a little TOO supervillainous, though.

He may have been told of the Templar's goals and motivations off-screen which was not the wisest choice. I demand a book on this game.

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2015, 06:02 PM
I think someone said the story needed an extra 1-3 sequences to really explain Shay's motivations.

A couple of scenes where Haytham asks, "Shay, are you doing this because of the Earthquake or because you want to bring order?"

And Shay would say, "I started because of the Earthquake but I really see the Templars are better because [explains reasons]."

Well that's clear enough in the game. In the end, Shay decides that he's going to support Germain and the Revolutionary Templars (presumably because Francois de la Serre refused to allow him access to Charles Dorian and Shay was too much "irish trash" for that old snob to allow in Versailles) and "Start a revolution of our own". So he's decided that, murdering lots of people to oppose the Assassins is totally okay by him. How convenient it is that this is not part of the game we play.



But it would have been cooler to have one of the Assassins actually WANT to use the earthquake machine(s). "WIth this, once we control it, we could destroy the the Templars across the world and end the war!"

That might have been a little TOO supervillainous, though.

Its already plainly supervillainous as it is. For me the earthquake plot all-by-itself discredits ROGUE from any serious discussion of merit. Its a plainly jump-the-shark moment and the wise thing for future AC is to forget the Box and move on.

Charles_Phipps
05-14-2015, 06:09 PM
Well that's clear enough in the game. In the end, Shay decides that he's going to support Germain and the Revolutionary Templars (presumably because Francois de la Serre refused to allow him access to Charles Dorian and Shay was too much "irish trash" for that old snob to allow in Versailles) and "Start a revolution of our own". So he's decided that, murdering lots of people to oppose the Assassins is totally okay by him. How convenient it is that this is not part of the game we play.

That's part of what bothered me about Unity because the Revolution begins and ends with the terror. If Shay Cormac really is responsible for the French Revolution, he's one of the single greatest heroes who ever lived. Forget about purging the Colonial Assassins, if Shay Cormac is responsible for the French Revolution, he OUTLAWED SLAVERY.

Ended mass starvation

Granted people legal protections.

Countless GOOD things.

But that doesn't fit with the 5th grade elementary school view of history Unity has. You know, where King Louis is a poor innocent who wasn't going to attack his own nation.


Its already plainly supervillainous as it is. For me the earthquake plot all-by-itself discredits ROGUE from any serious discussion of merit. Its a plainly jump-the-shark moment and the wise thing for future AC is to forget the Box and move on.

Eh,

In real-life, the United States government has been working on plans for things like combating climate change and other world changing sciences. I have no problem with the idea the Precursors are simply more advanced at their technology than we are regarding control of the planet. Why do they have earthquake machines?

Who knows, maybe they were using them to build islands to colonize or as weapons.

Fatal-Feit
05-16-2015, 03:00 AM
I'm confused. AC3 and AC4 had the Assassins portrayed as not just good but saintly.

Saintly? How?

The beginning of AC3 started us off as a Templar, demonstrating how their philosophy, how they operated, and protected people, including natives. The first 3 sequences of AC3 was arguably much better than the entirety of Rogue. Connor's actions were relentlessly mocked and criticized. Every white room only proved to show how righteous the Templars were. i.e William Johnson wanted to protect natives by owning their land. AC3 was the first game to truly antagonize the Assassins after AC1.

W/ BF, not as much, but it still did the job better than Rogue. In the early sequences, when disguised as Duncan Walpole, we were given another glimpse into what it was like to be a Templar. Their philosophy, plans, and goal of peace/etc. Edward didn't approach the Assassins like they were saints, he abused their Creed and for the majority of game, they were treated like weirdos. And rightly so. We also see other pirates such as Benjamin Hornigold siding w/ the Templars and for justifiable reasons.

I have to completely, x200%, disagree with you. AC3 and BF not only shown the Assassins in a different light, but redeemed the Templars as well. And A LOT better than Rogue, I may add.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 03:13 AM
The Templars were portrayed better but the Assassins were portrayed as freedom fighters and heroes.

At most, it just emphasizes the two sides really shouldn't be fighting.

Just my .02.

Fatal-Feit
05-16-2015, 04:40 AM
The Templars were portrayed better but the Assassins were portrayed as freedom fighters and heroes.

Freedom fighters. Yeah. Heroes? Not anymore than the Templars.

The Assassins has the edge of the narrative being from both their perspective and success, but that's about it. When you delve deep into the stories, the Assassins were no better than the Templars, IMO. It becomes which side you believe was right. In Rogue, there is only one right side, and that was the Templars, Assassin advocate or not.


At most, it just emphasizes the two sides really shouldn't be fighting.

Yeah, they both desire peace, but unfortunate their difference in ideology and philosophy does not allow them to co-exist w/o some form of 3rd party moderation.

VestigialLlama4
05-16-2015, 05:34 AM
Connor's actions were relentlessly mocked and criticized. Every white room only proved to show how righteous the Templars were. i.e William Johnson wanted to protect natives by owning their land. AC3 was the first game to truly antagonize the Assassins after AC1.

That is totally false. The white room in AC3 didn't show how righteous the Templars are at all. The point of those White Room conversations is to humanize the Templars not justify them. In AC3 only Jonathan Pitcairn's death comes from confusion and genuine good intentions and Pitcairn was the only decent Templar in AC3. Thomas Hickey and Church are proud scumbags. Nicholas Biddle is a confused moron. William Johnson was the guy who was going to murder Iroquois at a peace conference and strong-arm and bully them, those tribal elders point out that he's a two-faced liar as well who kept forcing them into compromised treaties that screwed them over.

Haytham the Great's grand plan for America was Charles Lee for Dictator, that plan makes him dumber than Rodrigo Borgia.


W/ BF, not as much, but it still did the job better than Rogue. In the early sequences, when disguised as Duncan Walpole, we were given another glimpse into what it was like to be a Templar. Their philosophy, plans, and goal of peace/etc. Edward didn't approach the Assassins like they were saints, he abused their Creed and for the majority of game, they were treated like weirdos. And rightly so. We also see other pirates such as Benjamin Hornigold siding w/ the Templars and for justifiable reasons.

I have to completely, x200%, disagree with you. AC3 and BF not only shown the Assassins in a different light, but redeemed the Templars as well. And A LOT better than Rogue, I may add.

The point is the series can never really redeem the Templars, they can't do it without rebooting the franchise or do a full game where the Assassins don't fight Templars or any other faction.

Assassin's Creed the Franchise is about the Assassins, its not about the Templars at all. They are simply bad guys. If you want playable Templars or a full Templar game you have to play the bad guy, the player has to do something really bad. You have to be totally honest about the Templars and what they represent and not simply that "among themselves, the Templars are nice guys", you can't pretend that Borgia and the AC1 Templars were corrupt or not "true Templars". In AC3, we don't see Haytham doing something really bad because the whole sequence was an extended plot twist to trick you into thinking he was an Assassin and then say he's a Templar. It's an elaborate plot twist and it works by showing Templars at their best behavior. We have to know what Shay thinks about the "bad Templars" or have Haytham send him to purge bad Templars, for the good Templar fantasy to work. A real Templar game should have "White Phosphorus/No Russian" moments.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 05:45 AM
That is totally false. The white room in AC3 didn't show how righteous the Templars are at all. The point of those White Room conversations is to humanize the Templars not justify them. In AC3 only Jonathan Pitcairn's death comes from confusion and genuine good intentions and Pitcairn was the only decent Templar in AC3. Thomas Hickey and Church are proud scumbags. Nicholas Biddle is a confused moron. William Johnson was the guy who was going to murder Iroquois at a peace conference and strong-arm and bully them, those tribal elders point out that he's a two-faced liar as well who kept forcing them into compromised treaties that screwed them over.

To be fair, William Johnson suspected the situation was about to come to a complete head. Which....as history shows...it did. He only had the Templar's support to prevent First Nations removal as long as they got the Temple territory in return.

So he needed to get that treaty signed.

It was a tragic misunderstanding, personal failings aside. Also, William Johnson WAS a racist condescending jerkwad but he was 100% right about how things were goiing to get nasty before they got better.


Haytham the Great's grand plan for America was Charles Lee for Dictator, that plan makes him dumber than Rodrigo Borgia.


Not if Haytham planned to rule through Charles Lee. IMHO, Charles Lee was chosen by Haytham because he was completely pliable.


The point is the series can never really redeem the Templars, they can't do it without rebooting the franchise or do a full game where the Assassins don't fight Templars or any other faction.


Yeah, they can. They could just make Juno and the First Civilization folk the bad guys or have them team up against someone worse. Templars and Assassins vs. The Confederacy for example.


Assassin's Creed the Franchise is about the Assassins, its not about the Templars at all.

That's like saying the Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship and not Sauron.


They are simply bad guys. If you want playable Templars or a full Templar game you have to play the bad guy, the player has to do something really bad.

So, the Templars are one-dimensional evil?

I've played Call of Duty but that doesn't mean that I have to be a bad buy because there's bad Americans.


You have to be totally honest about the Templars and what they represent and not simply that "among themselves, the Templars are nice guys", you can't pretend that Borgia and the AC1 Templars were corrupt or not "true Templars". In AC3, we don't see Haytham doing something really bad because the whole sequence was an extended plot twist to trick you into thinking he was an Assassin and then say he's a Templar. It's an elaborate plot twist and it works by showing Templars at their best behavior. We have to know what Shay thinks about the "bad Templars" or have Haytham send him to purge bad Templars, for the good Templar fantasy to work. A real Templar game should have "White Phosphorus/No Russian" moments.

The Templars are a faction. A political faction, nothing more.

Just like the Assassins.

There will be good, evil, and in-between for both.

VestigialLlama4
05-16-2015, 06:50 AM
Yeah, they can. They could just make Juno and the First Civilization folk the bad guys or have them team up against someone worse. Templars and Assassins vs. The Confederacy for example.

They had a chance to do that with UNITY, the promotion and the title implied that the Templars and Assassins would team up against the aristocracy, and it would serve as a metaphor for the complicated factional problems of that event. They made it worse than AC2 in terms of moral complexity. So now, good-guy Templars is even more out of the question.


That's like saying the Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship and not Sauron.

Actually yes, Tolkien wasn't all that interested in the villains, he was more interested in the heroes and what they do. AC1 is about Altair and the Assassins, whether they are as bad as the people against them. The moment at the end where Altair and Malik decide that they are going to stand against their Mentor and that they didn't sign up to fight Templars to put someone equally bad in power, is one of the flat-out heroic moments in the entire series. To make the Templars good, there has to be Templars doing something comparable, they have to be shown to have standards.

If Rogue ended with Shay getting the box and then deliberately (i.e. not convenient accident) destroying it and the manuscript, that would be something similar. Or if Christopher Gist talks about how nice Lawrence the Slaveowner and Wardrop the Ethnic Cleanser was, Shay should ask about the bad things they do. That has to be part of the game and his story. He can't simply be, "I'm with Templars because the Assassins don't know what they are doing and I did a crappy job of explaining it." That's not good. If there are good Templars they have to explain how they handle the bad Templars like Thomas Hickey (who was there on the table when Shay was initiated, somehow Hickey outranks Shay...think about that) who's a Templar because he's in it for the booze and girls.

I get that the writers want to complicate the story. The point is they have to find a way to do it that makes sense and doesn't insult our intelligence.

Like Darby McDevitt in Black Flag introduced the concept of Templars being potentially abolitionist. The problem is that it doesn't jive all that well with the world-building. There is no way the Templars can amass a fortune or influence in the New World in the 17th to 18th Centuries without being involved in the slave trade and using slave labor on plantations. Governor Torres as Governor of Cuba despite being opposed to slavery is still the governor of a colony built on and continues to thrive on slave labor and the slave trade. If the Templars are this nebulous powerful organization and they oppose slavery, how is it slavery never ended till the 1800s? So the idea of Templars being anti-Slavery makes zero sense. In FORSAKEN, there's a line that says Haytham owned property and a farm in Virginia, a heavily slaveowner state. So if Haytham was abolitionist, he would be considered oddball, trouble and the like. Real abolitionists took beatings you know.

The metaphor of Assassins=Good Stuff of History, Templars=Dodgy and Evil Stuff of History, is simplistic and black and white I agree but its more satisfying than token posturings without deep thought and consequence. Playing as a Templar can be potentially an interesting and dark story, in that you will get your hands dirty do questionable stuff and then go to your mini-Homestead and fortress and say, "It was worth it, all the blood I spilt." ROGUE needed that.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 07:07 AM
They had a chance to do that with UNITY, the promotion and the title implied that the Templars and Assassins would team up against the aristocracy, and it would serve as a metaphor for the complicated factional problems of that event. They made it worse than AC2 in terms of moral complexity. So now, good-guy Templars is even more out of the question.

I don't see it, each group of Templars is distinct and independent of each other. We also had three "good" Templars in this game to contrast the "evil" Revolutionaries.


Like Darby McDevitt in Black Flag introduced the concept of Templars being potentially abolitionist. The problem is that it doesn't jive all that well with the world-building. There is no way the Templars can amass a fortune or influence in the New World in the 17th to 18th Centuries without being involved in the slave trade and using slave labor on plantations. Governor Torres as Governor of Cuba despite being opposed to slavery is still the governor of a colony built on and continues to thrive on slave labor and the slave trade. If the Templars are this nebulous powerful organization and they oppose slavery, how is it slavery never ended till the 1800s? So the idea of Templars being anti-Slavery makes zero sense. In FORSAKEN, there's a line that says Haytham owned property and a farm in Virginia, a heavily slaveowner state. So if Haytham was abolitionist, he would be considered oddball, trouble and the like. Real abolitionists took beatings you know.

The thing is, the Templars are also composed of multiple ethnicities and sexes with no sign of any racism or sexism. This is every bit as impossible as being anti-slavery given how deeply racism and sexism are imbedded into the culture of human society at the time.

It's part of the context of both the Assassins and the Templars that not only are both organizations completely egalitarian but that they have been in continuous existence with their belief systems largely unchanged for 20,000 years.

My response to that?

Just go with it dude.

It's all ridiculous anyway.

Even so, the Templars being abolitionist doesn't mean they're not "Templar" about it. By Templar about it, I mean that the Templars are going to be manipulative, conniving, liars who have a heavy dose of ruthlessness and hypocrisy. The Templars are anti-slavery but disapprove of it rather than actively oppose it. After all, Brother Washington is a Templar and he's a slave owner.
I prefer to think that the Templars have, at least, SOME ideals they cling to and some standards rather than just being completely self-interested *******es. They shouldn't be a "heroic" faction but they should have heroic members.

I think that makes it more fun.

Hans684
05-28-2015, 05:14 AM
The Templars are anti-slavery but disapprove of it rather than actively oppose it.

Maximilien Robespierre, despite being an Extremist Templar(someone who understands the the Templar goals but go to far archive it). He ended did end slavery for a time, until Napoleon took control and threw away most of the accomplishments by the revolution.


I prefer to think that the Templars have, at least, SOME ideals they cling to and some standards rather than just being completely self-interested *******es.

They do have standards, like tyranny. That is a death sentence(because it's weak minded) according to their ideology, so any Templar doing it has broken one of their rules.


They shouldn't be a "heroic" faction but they should have heroic members.

Both orders should and shouldn't, it should be grayer.

VestigialLlama4
05-28-2015, 05:19 AM
Maximilien Robespierre, despite being an Extremist Templar(someone who understands the the Templar goals but go to far archive it). He ended did end slavery for a time, until Napoleon took control and threw away most of the accomplishments by the revolution.

This inconvenient fact only comes in AC INITIATES and not in UNITY, so as they say, "it doesn't count".

Hans684
05-28-2015, 05:36 AM
This inconvenient fact only comes in AC INITIATES and not in UNITY, so as they say, "it doesn't count".

Yet it's canon, dismissing lore because "it does't count" does't change that it is canon. That canon is from the canon Letters From The Dead staring Eseosa.

VestigialLlama4
05-28-2015, 05:38 AM
Yet it's canon, dismissing lore because "it does't count" does't change that it is canon. That canon is from the canon Letters From The Dead staring Eseosa.

Hey I agree with you, but for the vast majority of people who play UNITY and never touch INITIATES, it doesn't count. That's the plain brutal truth.

Only if UNITY had featured that in the game itself would that matter.

Hans684
05-28-2015, 02:56 PM
Hey I agree with you, but for the vast majority of people who play UNITY and never touch INITIATES, it doesn't count. That's the plain brutal truth.

The truth is that it's canon regardless of how many that knows about it.


Only if UNITY had featured that in the game itself would that matter.

It matter as long as it's canon, non-canon stuff like the MD character Jonathan Hawk does't count until we get a canon version of him. He only counts in his AC universe.

VestigialLlama4
05-28-2015, 03:18 PM
The truth is that it's canon regardless of how many that knows about it.

All people will remember when they play UNITY is that Robespierre is that creepy, twitchy guy who gives boring speeches and squeals like a coward when cornered. Nobody, not even here at these forums, remembers Eseosa's Codex in INITIATES, its worth asking developers about it but that's all.


It matter as long as it's canon, non-canon stuff like the MD character Jonathan Hawk does't count until we get a canon version of him. He only counts in his AC universe.

The only thing that's truly canon are the games themselves, the MD of the games and the Historical part of that. And if for some reason ubisoft decides that expanded works like Bowden novels, iNitiates and Brahman and the Chain are non-canon, they can do it.

Hans684
05-28-2015, 03:42 PM
All people will remember when they play UNITY is that Robespierre is that creepy, twitchy guy who gives boring speeches and squeals like a coward when cornered. Nobody, not even here at these forums, remembers Eseosa's Codex in INITIATES, its worth asking developers about it but that's all.

Does't change the point, it's still canon.


The only thing that's truly canon are the games themselves, the MD of the games and the Historical part of that.

Everything is canon unless Ubisoft says otherwise.


And if for some reason ubisoft decides that expanded works like Bowden novels, iNitiates and Brahman and the Chain are non-canon, they can do it.

They can but that's a big "what if" scenario, AC is their flagship.