PDA

View Full Version : So basically Connor is fighting for democracy ???



avk111
05-16-2015, 12:32 PM
Good day Nation,

Been a while since im here,

Anyway I was going through my personal notes on AC3 and I realized why it was hard to understand the plot, because after much investigation on the net I could'nt find solid proof as to why was Connor persisting on having Washington instead of Lee , when it was Lee who has caused the damage to his village.

Its pretty simple, democracy.

Connor is fighting for the right of his people to be able to choose their destinies and be able to choose who leads the county, while Templars were pushing towrds a monarch a state ruled by an authority chosen and forced upon the people.

It gives a very insightfull prespective on the main character i.e. Connor and his fight for his people and loved ones.

Hans684
05-16-2015, 02:33 PM
Anyway I was going through my personal notes on AC3 and I realized why it was hard to understand the plot, because after much investigation on the net I could'nt find solid proof as to why was Connor persisting on having Washington instead of Lee , when it was Lee who has caused the damage to his village.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it was Washington that massacred his village and attempted to do it again(but Connor stopped it).


Connor is fighting for the right of his people to be able to choose their destinies and be able to choose who leads the county.

Connor's freedom fighting ended with them loosing the land, get driven away and slavery become a bigger issue. So a corrupt country where not everyone is free.


While Templars were pushing towrds a monarch a state ruled by an authority chosen and forced upon the people.

Haytham wanted to unite the country, everyone would be equal. Sounds better than the result Connor made. A country where natives is pushed around and slavery increases.


It gives a very insightfull prespective on the main character i.e. Connor and his fight for his people and loved ones.

Him fighting made him loose his people, they where driven away by the "free" nation. If William Johnson had been the land owner, then they wouldn't be pushed away, that's the protection he talked about. They did turn on the natives after the war and that lead to the Nothwest Indian War.

ze_topazio
05-16-2015, 03:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiuZnPJeCmg

SixKeys
05-16-2015, 03:28 PM
Haytham wanted to unite the country, everyone would be equal. Sounds better than the result Connor made. A country where natives is pushed around and slavery increases.

Him fighting made him loose his people, they where driven away by the "free" nation. If William Johnson had been the land owner, then they wouldn't be pushed away, that's the protection he talked about. They did turn on the natives after the war and that lead to the Nothwest Indian War.

William Johnson was the one who threatened to kill the natives who accused him of false promises. The Templars' overall goal is order through control, you really think they would have treated the natives better if they wanted to control the continent?

Hans684
05-16-2015, 04:00 PM
William Johnson was the one who threatened to kill the natives who accused him of false promises.

After Connor messed up ever peaceful method he used to become land owner(something Connor himself is at the Homestead) and Connor's father is the Grand Master so he could easily step in make a deal since both want to have peace between the orders.


The Templars' overall goal is order through control, you really think they would have treated the natives better if they wanted to control the continent?

The Templar goal is peace. Things like tyranny and injustice is weak minded(according to their ideology). So any Templar that aims for that is breaking a rule of their ideology. And yes the result would be better. The natives wouldn't be thrown around by the government, the country would have equality and it would be united. People working together for a better future instead of a corrupt government with slavery, injustice and politicians aiming to fill their pockets.

The only land they would dig up is the Grand Temple but Connor can tell them his visions from Juno so the world can be saved by Desmond.

SixKeys
05-16-2015, 04:43 PM
The Templar goal is peace. Things like tyranny and injustice is weak minded(according to their ideology). So any Templar that aims for that is breaking a rule of their ideology. And yes the result would be better. The natives wouldn't be thrown around by the government, the country would have equality and it would be united. People working together for a better future instead of a corrupt government with slavery, injustice and politicians aiming to fill their pockets.

The only land they would dig up is the Grand Temple but Connor can tell them his visions from Juno so the world can be saved by Desmond.

The Templars backed the British precisely because they wanted order restored in the Empire. Restoring that order meant waging war. That's completely contradictory to their supposed goal of peace. Even if the British had kept their control over the North American colonies, more and more white people would eventually cross over. The natives probably wouldn't have been happy about that, so again war would have been inevitable (between whites and natives). Since the Templars were always on the side of the British (not to mention mainly white), they would most likely side with the white people in such a war. So either way, the natives get a crappy deal.

PaGuy919
05-16-2015, 05:05 PM
Actually Connor was fighting for a republic. The "founding fathers" were adamant that democracy didn't work.

Altair1789
05-16-2015, 05:41 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble but it was Washington that massacred his village and attempted to do it again(but Connor stopped it).



Connor's freedom fighting ended with them loosing the land, get driven away and slavery become a bigger issue. So a corrupt country where not everyone is free.



Haytham wanted to unite the country, everyone would be equal. Sounds better than the result Connor made. A country where natives is pushed around and slavery increases.



Him fighting made him loose his people, they where driven away by the "free" nation. If William Johnson had been the land owner, then they wouldn't be pushed away, that's the protection he talked about. They did turn on the natives after the war and that lead to the Nothwest Indian War.



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

These 2 posts are very true

VestigialLlama4
05-16-2015, 05:42 PM
Connor: "All people should be equal, and not in turns."

That's as democratic as the Assassins can get.

That's the real place Connor comes from ultimately. Call it naive and idealistic, but he is sincere and what he voices is a fundamental truth. In AC3, Connor supports the American Revolution because he agrees that the Patriots have a right to form their nation against England, and he is right, the American Revolution was justified against England. He just doesn't see why everyone can't get along. The real test to Connor comes when he realizes that he's essentially fighting for something that doesn't exist. He's fighting for a principle that nobody really practises, neither the Templars and neither the Patriots, so that's up to him to embody and make happen as and when.

That's what the homestead is all about, its the only victory that he'll ever have. The Homestead is the American Dream turned to gameplay. Where people are given land, protection and community and freedom to do what they want.


Haytham wanted to unite the country, everyone would be equal.

The only people equal in Haytham the Great's world is himself and his man-crush Charles Lee. AC3's Charles Lee (as opposed to historical Charles Lee) is despised by everyone not-Haytham.


Sounds better than the result Connor made. A country where natives is pushed around and slavery increases.

And what was the reality before the American Revolution? You know the ten-twelve years between AC3 Prologue and AC3 Sequence 4 that includes Rogue. Was this a golden age where slavery didn't exist or a time where Native Americans and whites braided each other's hair? You know the period when Haytham was in power and unopposed by pesky Assassins to supposedly bring out the New World Order?

If Haytham truly wanted to bring equality he had his chance, he had a golden opportunity and free proving ground. He f--ked it all up. You know the Seven Years War in which the Templars backed the British in ROGUE, was pretty bad for the Natives as a whole since the French were slightly better than the English, and without the French presence, the Natives had nobody else to create alliances with to protect their lands. After the Seven Years War, you had Pontiac's Rebellion where the English sold small pox blankets to tribes, you know biological warfare. What were the Templars doing at this time? Obviously nothing. During the William Johnson mission, one of the elders mentions the Treaty of Stanwix which Johnson forced them to sign, so they have no reason to believe him.

Charles_Phipps
05-16-2015, 06:41 PM
Eh, the Templars were working to good ends via vile means.

Connor was working with good ends to an end result which ended up vile.

Neither of them were perfect.

Also, any Templar successes depend on the largess of the Templars which isn't necessarily a good thing. Under Charles Lee, Haytham would be secret puppet master of the United States and it's possible that the Apple of Eden or other objects of power would have corrupted him as it did Washington.

Mr.Black24
05-16-2015, 07:26 PM
Connor: "All people should be equal, and not in turns."

That's as democratic as the Assassins can get.

That's the real place Connor comes from ultimately. Call it naive and idealistic, but he is sincere and what he voices is a fundamental truth. In AC3, Connor supports the American Revolution because he agrees that the Patriots have a right to form their nation against England, and he is right, the American Revolution was justified against England. He just doesn't see why everyone can't get along. The real test to Connor comes when he realizes that he's essentially fighting for something that doesn't exist. He's fighting for a principle that nobody really practises, neither the Templars and neither the Patriots, so that's up to him to embody and make happen as and when.

That's what the homestead is all about, its the only victory that he'll ever have. The Homestead is the American Dream turned to gameplay. Where people are given land, protection and community and freedom to do what they want.



The only people equal in Haytham the Great's world is himself and his man-crush Charles Lee. AC3's Charles Lee (as opposed to historical Charles Lee) is despised by everyone not-Haytham.



And what was the reality before the American Revolution? You know the ten-twelve years between AC3 Prologue and AC3 Sequence 4 that includes Rogue. Was this a golden age where slavery didn't exist or a time where Native Americans and whites braided each other's hair? You know the period when Haytham was in power and unopposed by pesky Assassins to supposedly bring out the New World Order?

If Haytham truly wanted to bring equality he had his chance, he had a golden opportunity and free proving ground. He f--ked it all up. You know the Seven Years War in which the Templars backed the British in ROGUE, was pretty bad for the Natives as a whole since the French were slightly better than the English, and without the French presence, the Natives had nobody else to create alliances with to protect their lands. After the Seven Years War, you had Pontiac's Rebellion where the English sold small pox blankets to tribes, you know biological warfare. What were the Templars doing at this time? Obviously nothing. During the William Johnson mission, one of the elders mentions the Treaty of Stanwix which Johnson forced them to sign, so they have no reason to believe him.
THIS^^^^^^

Connor had expressed that, unlike the Templars, he would go on fighting for the slaves and the displaced Natives, something that hasn't been tackled by the Templars at all. If anything, in Rogue, all you hear is "Those miscreants! Those rabble rousers!" And calling people like Wardrop and Washington good people, despite killing natives and keeping slaves.

What Connor did was pure, results were unpredictably bad, as he said so himself, believing that if he help the new nation, the nation in turn would help him which never was unfortunately. Templars on the other hand, had time and resources to fix these problems. Not much as been spoken about it, not only once!

Hans684
05-16-2015, 08:30 PM
The Templars backed the British precisely because they wanted order restored in the Empire. Restoring that order meant waging war.

They never wanted war to begin with, Connor helped resisting forced like Sons Of Liberty and turned it from a revolt to a war of independence.


That's completely contradictory to their supposed goal of peace.

Expect they never wanted a war.


Even if the British had kept their control over the North American colonies, more and more white people would eventually cross over. The natives probably wouldn't have been happy about that, so again war would have been inevitable (between whites and natives).

Not if they had control, they would be equals.


Since the Templars were always on the side of the British (not to mention mainly white), they would most likely side with the white people in such a war.

The Templars side with those who have control, so they can replace them. Skin color wouldn't matter. If the natives was winning they would side with them.


So either way, the natives get a crappy deal.

Not really, equality isn't a crappy deal.


And what was the reality before the American Revolution? You know the ten-twelve years between AC3 Prologue and AC3 Sequence 4 that includes Rogue. Was this a golden age where slavery didn't exist or a time where Native Americans and whites braided each other's hair? You know the period when Haytham was in power and unopposed by pesky Assassins to supposedly bring out the New World Order?

The Assassins being taken card if wouldn't mean they are in control, they would still need to replace the current government.


If Haytham truly wanted to bring equality he had his chance, he had a golden opportunity and free proving ground. He f--ked it all up. You know the Seven Years War in which the Templars backed the British in ROGUE, was pretty bad for the Natives as a whole since the French were slightly better than the English, and without the French presence, the Natives had nobody else to create alliances with to protect their lands.

Partly true but the colonies was mostly controlled by the British, that's why they are on their side. Being on the loosing side would mean they'd loose everything and have to start from scratch. The Templars change side when power changes side, one can't have control without power. They would accomplish nothing without power.


After the Seven Years War, you had Pontiac's Rebellion where the English sold small pox blankets to tribes, you know biological warfare. What were the Templars doing at this time? Obviously nothing.

Do we have any lore on the case?


During the William Johnson mission, one of the elders mentions the Treaty of Stanwix which Johnson forced them to sign, so they have no reason to believe him.

If course they would, they don't know his side. It's natural. Still doesn't change my point. He wanted to protect them even if they want it or not, so his last resort was killing(that could have been avoided if Connor didn't stop his previous attempts). His first methods was peaceful, Connor's reaction to his peaceful methods was murder and mayhem.

VestigialLlama4
05-17-2015, 03:26 AM
The Assassins being taken card if wouldn't mean they are in control, they would still need to replace the current government.

Look when Ezio defeated the Borgia, in a mere five years he brought the Renaissance to Rome, established contacts with Erasmus and others and ushered a Golden Age in Europe. He did that when he didn't have Templars to stop him anymore. Haytham has no excuses whatsoever, if he ever really intended to be a force for progress he had his chance and did nothing.


Do we have any lore on the case?

We have history. The fact is these are historical fiction games. It is like history until otherwise. The realities of society in that time and place means that the Templars can't be the super-visionary all-be-equal-under-the-benign-rule of Haytham the Great. That cannot be sustained on pure logic, based on what the stories imply.

The Templars simply cannot amass any fortune or influence in the New World in the centuries before the Revolution if they opposed slavery and the slave trade, or were against the expansion and suppression of Native American tribes. If they took those positions, the ruling elite of the New World will simply call them that century's equivalent of "hippies" or "SJW" or whatever and they would not deign to so much as listen to Haytham or any of his words. In order for Templars to influence and manipulate world history and movements from above, by influencing the leaders, they have to adopt the prejudices and social constructs of that time and society.


Of course they would, they don't know his side. It's natural.

So why didn't William Johnson explain his side to them. Tell them, "hey fellas I am part of the Templars, we are an organization of right-thinking white people with good intentions hoping to build a New World Order where all will be equal in the hands of the few" or you know how about make one of the Iroquois elders a Templar and bring him into the inner council. Those are things the Templars could have done but did not do, they had no more Assassins to deal with to get Iroquois influence. So that's why I cannot take them seriously.

Look, I am not against "gray stories" nor do I see the Assassins as "good", its just that I think people need to accept the Templars we see in the game and not make those guys into fantasy versions or wishful projection. I like rooting for bad guys in old gangster movies myself and I root for the Joker in The Dark Knight over boring dumb Batman. But that doesn't mean I stop thinking they are bad guys or think Joker is a sympathetic put-upon misunderstood dude.

The Templars in AC3 that I like are John Pitcairn because he was a genuinely good person, a wonderful general who cared for his soldiers. With him, you can sense that it was all a big miscommunication and Connor assassinating him was tragic, because Connor, based on what he had seen knew what had to be done but you also learn that it could have been avoided if things didn't happen the way they did. I also like Thomas Hickey precisely because he was a bad guy. Ideally ROGUE should have given us a Hickey-like dude for a protagonist. He doesn't care for Assassins/Templars world domination, he simply uses it to get what he wants and then he dies satisfied that at least he got what he wanted unlike true believers like Connor and Haytham.

Hans684
05-17-2015, 08:22 AM
Look when Ezio defeated the Borgia, in a mere five years he brought the Renaissance to Rome, established contacts with Erasmus and others and ushered a Golden Age in Europe.

True.


He did that when he didn't have Templars to stop him anymore. Haytham has no excuses whatsoever, if he ever really intended to be a force for progress he had his chance and did nothing.

Question is: Why he didn't do anything? Something must have come up.


We have history. The fact is these are historical fiction games. It is like history until otherwise.

Exactly, and with no lore on the case it's speculation.


The realities of society in that time and place means that the Templars can't be the super-visionary all-be-equal-under-the-benign-rule of Haytham the Great. That cannot be sustained on pure logic, based on what the stories imply.

I'm just saying what would happen if everything he did was successful.


The Templars simply cannot amass any fortune or influence in the New World in the centuries before the Revolution if they opposed slavery and the slave trade, or were against the expansion and suppression of Native American tribes.

If they had control and was successful in uniting the New World it could happen.


If they took those positions, the ruling elite of the New World will simply call them that century's equivalent of "hippies" or "SJW" or whatever and they would not deign to so much as listen to Haytham or any of his words.

It's a good enough reason to overthrow the country then since it's corrupt and with slavery.


In order for Templars to influence and manipulate world history and movements from above, by influencing the leaders, they have to adopt the prejudices and social constructs of that time and society.

True but they intend to replace the ruling elite.


So why didn't William Johnson explain his side to them. Tell them, "hey fellas I am part of the Templars, we are an organization of right-thinking white people with good intentions hoping to build a New World Order where all will be equal in the hands of the few"

By outright saying that he would have broken the promises from his initiation to the Templars, their Oath demands that their work is kept secret.


Or you know how about make one of the Iroquois elders a Templar and bring him into the inner council. Those are things the Templars could have done but did not do, they had no more Assassins to deal with to get Iroquois influence.

You're right about this, that would have been a far better way of doing it.


So that's why I cannot take them seriously.

Whatever flouts your boat.


Look, I am not against "gray stories" nor do I see the Assassins as "good", its just that I think people need to accept the Templars we see in the game and not make those guys into fantasy versions or wishful projection.

Thing is that I'm not creating any fantasy versions or have wishful projections. Being in denial won't change that, it's all in the lore and games. I could tell the sources for all of it but that would require a thread of it's own. It would explain it better than a simple reply can.


I like rooting for bad guys in old gangster movies myself

I do too, favorite gangster movies is The Godfather.


And I root for the Joker in The Dark Knight over boring dumb Batman.

Partly agree but Joker is simply entertaining, don't root for him like. Batman is boring because he's to perfect.


But that doesn't mean I stop thinking they are bad guys or think Joker is a sympathetic put-upon misunderstood dude.

Sorry to disappoint you but the Templar case isn't like that.


The Templars in AC3 that I like are John Pitcairn because he was a genuinely good person, a wonderful general who cared for his soldiers. With him, you can sense that it was all a big miscommunication and Connor assassinating him was tragic, because Connor, based on what he had seen knew what had to be done but you also learn that it could have been avoided if things didn't happen the way they did.

That assassination also set the future of his people in stone. Tragic indeed.


I also like Thomas Hickey precisely because he was a bad guy.

Nothing bad with wanting to enjoy life. Corrupt, yes. He did what he was pic for. But he wasn't an ambitious guy compared to Rodrigo who wanted power. He's a gray guy.


Ideally ROGUE should have given us a Hickey-like dude for a protagonist.

We had someone like that in Black Flag, twice in a row wouldn't be as fun.


He doesn't care for Assassins/Templars world domination, he simply uses it to get what he wants and then he dies satisfied that at least he got what he wanted unlike true believers like Connor and Haytham.

"True belivers", is this the moment I'm hypocritically going to say "No True Scotsman"? I won't but your right, both Haytham and Connor are two characters that follow their ideology more than most.

avk111
05-17-2015, 08:31 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble but it was Washington that massacred his village and attempted to do it again(but Connor stopped it).



Connor's freedom fighting ended with them loosing the land, get driven away and slavery become a bigger issue. So a corrupt country where not everyone is free.



Haytham wanted to unite the country, everyone would be equal. Sounds better than the result Connor made. A country where natives is pushed around and slavery increases.



Him fighting made him loose his people, they where driven away by the "free" nation. If William Johnson had been the land owner, then they wouldn't be pushed away, that's the protection he talked about. They did turn on the natives after the war and that lead to the Nothwest Indian War.

Apologies ,

my hindrance was on the fact that Connor insisted on Washington leading the nation instead of Lee, while he was aware that Washington who was causing all the violent action towards his main goal i.e. his tribe.

Most argue that its due to his naieve characteristic being, but I would say it would have been the right thing to do on a long run.

Democracy is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#cite_note-1)

Connor never wanted to personally support Washington after finding out his role towards indigneous tribes , however he still supported the system i.e. Democratic / Republic nation built on on the decision making of its people.

Sadly, he didnt realise that in a democratic nation , its the majority that rules the minority (critique of democracy) thus minority have little say in the issue.

Still though, he supported the system and compromised on the current political situation hoping that change will happen slowly and though it may take a "thousand year / in accordance to his epilogue" giving people the right to choose for themselves is always a better goal.

Hans684
05-17-2015, 08:45 AM
Apologies,

No worries


my hindrance was on the fact that Connor insisted on Washington leading the nation instead of Lee, while he was aware that Washington who was causing all the violent action towards his main goal i.e. his tribe.
Most argue that its due to his naieve characteristic being, but I would say it would have been the right thing to do on a long run.

Fair enough.


Democracy is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#cite_note-1)

But the people didn't choose Washington.

Haytham: "The people chose nothing. It was done by a group of privileged cowards seeking only to enrich themselves. They convened in private and made a decision that would benefit THEM."


Connor never wanted to personally support Washington after finding out his role towards indigneous tribes , however he still supported the system i.e. Democratic / Republic nation built on on the decision making of its people.

Fair enough.


Sadly, he didnt realise that in a democratic nation , its the majority that rules the minority (critique of democracy) thus minority have little say in the issue.

And with those corrupt people leading the country it just got worse.


Still though, he supported the system and compromised on the current political situation hoping that change will happen slowly and though it may take a "thousand year / in accordance to his epilogue" giving people the right to choose for themselves is always a better goal.

Except had Haytham been successful the country would be united and all would be equal. So fighting for equality wouldn't be needed since all would be it under his rule. It's a better goal.

UBOSOFT-Gamer
05-17-2015, 02:58 PM
He is fighting for Coca Cola and McDonalds, lol-

Mr.Black24
05-17-2015, 09:23 PM
Except had Haytham been successful the country would be united and all would be equal. So fighting for equality wouldn't be needed since all would be it under his rule. It's a better goal. Lets think about this for a moment, how can we be sure that he'd succeed in this? Especially after his death, if he succeeded, how can it be guaranteed that the next Grand Master wouldn't use the power for his own purposes?

Stop acting as if Connor was the biggest sack of bricks in the world. What Connor did was pure, results were unpredictably bad, as he said so himself in his speech, believing that if he help the new nation, the nation in turn would help him which never was unfortunately. How could he had known that the new nation would turn his back on him? We do, since we live in the modern day now that shows us how bad the natives were played back then. As real history shows, Native Americans have a thing for honesty, and firmly believe in allies and treaties. So imagine the shock and loss they felt when it turns out the treaties they signed and the people they trusted were just all false and took the land right from under them.

Same with Connor, how could he have known that they would discard him? If you even ever paid attention, he even expressed distraught that the equality he thought he was helping the Patriots gain, equality for all, was just only for male white folks, and not natives or african americans like himself. But even then, he stilled believed that things can still change, and even he doesn't succeed, there will be others who will continue doing the good work.

Plus, Haytham had to die anyway, since if he were still to stand, he would have found the Precursor site, and broken through centuries earlier before it was Desmond's time to do so.

Hans684
05-17-2015, 10:36 PM
Lets think about this for a moment, how can we be sure that he'd succeed in this?

Because if every plan had been successful they would have everything needed to acomplish it.


Especially after his death, if he succeeded, how can it be guaranteed that the next Grand Master wouldn't use the power for his own purposes?

Because if his plans was a success then the peace he made with Connor(that Connor broke btw) would still stand. Connor could just as easily stepped in and been both a Grand Master and Mentor. So both orders united, the country united and everyone equal.


Stop acting as if Connor was the biggest sack of bricks in the world.

I'm not, it's called critic. Him being an Asssassin, native and humble does't prevent it.


What Connor did was pure, results were unpredictably bad, as he said so himself in his speech, believing that if he help the new nation, the nation in turn would help him which never was unfortunately.

He is pure, his actions just made a bad result. It's part of his character and story.


How could he had known that the new nation would turn his back on him?

William Johnson knew, warned him in his dying words but none would listen.


We do, since we live in the modern day now that shows us how bad the natives were played back then.

William Johnson does't live in the modern day. He knew because he was part of the society that turned on them, he wanted to prevent that. To protect them, even if they wanted it or not. His last resort(killing) is bad I agree but had his peaceful attempts been a success the government would gave to go trought him and the Templars to push the natives away.


As real history shows, Native Americans have a thing for honesty, and firmly believe in allies and treaties.So imagine the shock and loss they felt when it turns out the treaties they signed and the people they trusted were just all false and took the land right from under them.

Fair point but who took the land? The same corrupt government that pushed them away.


Same with Connor, how could he have known that they would discard him?

William Johnson told him.


If you even ever paid attention, he even expressed distraught that the equality he thought he was helping the Patriots gain, equality for all, was just only for male white folks, and not natives or african americans like himself.

Haytham could have given him that.


But even then, he stilled believed that things can still change, and even he doesn't succeed, there will be others who will continue doing the good work.

It could have been succed far sooner if Haytham was successful.


Plus, Haytham had to die anyway, since if he were still to stand, he would have found the Precursor site, and broken through centuries earlier before it was Desmond's time to do so.

Not if Connor told about Juno and the visions she showed him.

avk111
05-18-2015, 03:01 PM
Lets think about this for a moment, how can we be sure that he'd succeed in this? Especially after his death, if he succeeded, how can it be guaranteed that the next Grand Master wouldn't use the power for his own purposes?

Stop acting as if Connor was the biggest sack of bricks in the world. What Connor did was pure, results were unpredictably bad, as he said so himself in his speech, believing that if he help the new nation, the nation in turn would help him which never was unfortunately. How could he had known that the new nation would turn his back on him? We do, since we live in the modern day now that shows us how bad the natives were played back then. As real history shows, Native Americans have a thing for honesty, and firmly believe in allies and treaties. So imagine the shock and loss they felt when it turns out the treaties they signed and the people they trusted were just all false and took the land right from under them.

Same with Connor, how could he have known that they would discard him? If you even ever paid attention, he even expressed distraught that the equality he thought he was helping the Patriots gain, equality for all, was just only for male white folks, and not natives or african americans like himself. But even then, he stilled believed that things can still change, and even he doesn't succeed, there will be others who will continue doing the good work.

Plus, Haytham had to die anyway, since if he were still to stand, he would have found the Precursor site, and broken through centuries earlier before it was Desmond's time to do so.

So basically its safe to say that due to his upbringing as a native American , he wholeheartedly thought that the Patriots were going to include his people in their nation ? and even after finding the opposite he still "hoped" they would change ? I can see now the criticism he gets ... personally I would have sufficed with Templars leading the nation than the Patriots. This is like you finding out that the friend you have has murdered your mother, and you still "hope" he would not murder your sister again. It sounds off in terms of practicality