PDA

View Full Version : What is everyone's view on Crawford Starrick?



Radman500
10-28-2015, 04:56 AM
right now..what are your guys thoughts on him

Hans684
10-28-2015, 05:54 AM
Cesare/Rodrigo 2.0 but better written as they added Haytham's professionalism and embodiment of the Templar philosophy. He understand why the Templars fight(wanting to change the dancing steps), so he's not completely lost like the Borgia. Evident by his dancing speech but other than that his orders plans does't make sense as they won't improve the world and living of the people(unlike let say Haytham's plans that make far more sense and he lives by the Templar principles). He is after power and simply wants to be at the top while enslaving everyone to work for him. Great speeches but he hardly lives up the the dream world the aims for, he isn't creating a paradise but robbing and oppressing while the peoples lives get ruined so he can have his cup of delicious tea from India. Plus he's just sits on his arce in his office while all his allies gets killed and does nothing, the only time he appears a treat is in the ending but that's thanks to a POE. Compared to someone like Haytham that can fight on his own and does field work while actually leading instead of bossing around, so he's a poor Templar overall.

LoyalACFan
10-28-2015, 05:58 AM
I mean, I'm in Sequence 5 and I've literally only seen his face once (in the opening cutscene where he punches a table) so that in and of itself is kind of a problem.

VestigialLlama4
10-28-2015, 07:02 AM
He's surprisingly interesting. I think Starrick is the first Templar who gives a clear view why he believes and does what he believes, and embodies the Templar perspective in a way that makes sense.

The other Templars all prattle about "Order" till they froth on the mouth like Baptists at a Revival meeting. The earlier games generally resort to dirty tricks to make the Templar viewpoint sensible. They give Haytham a personal life so we can care about him when in essence the guy's a fascist and his plan is the same as Cesare and Rodrigo Borgia. They suddenly make Torres anti-slavery but at the same time they make the guy incompetent and hypocritical. Rogue is essentially one long con job of contrivances. The only one who comes close to Starrick is maybe Prince Ahmet but even he decides to screw over Ezio by hanging Sofia after Ezio honored his bargain.

Starrick on the other hand really sees himself as the Hero and defender of London. He doesn't have a sympathetic sob story unlike Haytham or Shay and he's not hypocritical unlike Torres and Ahmet who claimed that they were enlightened but were basically colonialists and Kings. Starrick doesn't deny he's a capitalist and colonialist. And yet the game makes you see things from his perspective (thanks to the scenes we have with him, without Jacob and Evie, an addition from Tyranny of King Washington DLC where the King had many scenes like that). The Templars are essential for the lifeblood of the city, and the thing about Starrick is that he has no personal beef with the Fryes, he didn't attack their family or anything. They were the ones who came into his life, ruined his organization and killed his cousin, and yet he still doesn't go fully in revenge because Templars are above revenge, dammit. So I respect the guy a lot.

SenseHomunculus
10-28-2015, 03:26 PM
I actually just "met" him for the first time in-game last night. He's chillingly understated and VERY menacing, exactly how I like my villains. :D

cawatrooper9
10-28-2015, 03:45 PM
He didn't blow me away like Haytham or Roberts, but I think I ranked him somewhere in my top 5 antagonists list yesterday, and I'll stand by that.

He's a very solid villain. He's not absent (and relatively innocuous) like Torres and Ahmet, nor is he over the top like the Borgias. As some people have said, his motivations are clear, perhaps more clear than any Templar in a game before him.

I'd also point out that he's shown relatively frequently. I've seen several cutscenes of him- and while these haven't all been through Jacob or Evie's eyes (how did we get ahold of that footage, by the way?) I do feel as if I know him as a character. Far better than Germain, Torres, Ahmet, Cesare, even Rodrigo really.

Side note: Lucy Thorne steals the spotlight, in my opinion, at least as far as Templars go. The fact that the Templars had an "occult" specialist is highly reminiscent of the Nazis, and Thorne's attitude and costume perfectly reflect her affiliation with the occult.
I feel that she was utterly underutilized.

Shahkulu101
10-28-2015, 03:59 PM
I like him a lot. His motivations are clear and he stands behind them strongly. He has an air of respectfulness about him, like he is a complete bastard but at least he's honest and can demonstrate in some way why he does what he does. And he has this chilling calmness and rationale to him that sets him apart from the screaming man-child that is Cesare. He has a moment of genuine, believable grief but never does he develop a searing hatred for the twins. His stone-cold professional manner makes him all the more menacing IMO.

Overall one of the better villains in the series.

Farlander1991
10-28-2015, 04:16 PM
Starrick is awesome. The scene they chose to introduce him in the trailers is memorable, but it's taken absolutely out of context and paints him in an absolutely different way than he actually is in the game.

He's probably my second-favourite main antagonist in the series, on the same level as Al Mualim, but after Roberts, who takes my top main antagonist spot. Roberts is memorable, is weird in a curious way, and his interpretation of the Shadow archetype is really interesting, he's everything Edward hopes and wants to be (and achieve) but can't because Edward's actually not a total bastard.

Speaking of Starrick, though, he's probably the best representation of a Templar that we had, yet. Seriously. He imbodies the philosophy of control for the greater good, and actually proves his words as the players destroy the Templar-controlled ecosystem thus making the life of people more miserable. He is professional, he is calm, and he truly believes in what he does which makes him even more dangerous. And the moment when he plays on piano, they actually made me feel kinda sorry for him. He acted insanely unreasonable when interrupted, but still, the feeling was there.

VestigialLlama4
10-28-2015, 06:36 PM
He's probably my second-favourite main antagonist in the series, on the same level as Al Mualim, but after Roberts, who takes my top main antagonist spot. Roberts is memorable, is weird in a curious way, and his interpretation of the Shadow archetype is really interesting, he's everything Edward hopes and wants to be (and achieve) but can't because Edward's actually not a total bastard.

That's how I feel too.


Speaking of Starrick, though, he's probably the best representation of a Templar that we had, yet. Seriously. He imbodies the philosophy of control for the greater good, and actually proves his words as the players destroy the Templar-controlled ecosystem thus making the life of people more miserable. He is professional, he is calm, and he truly believes in what he does which makes him even more dangerous. And the moment when he plays on piano, they actually made me feel kinda sorry for him. He acted insanely unreasonable when interrupted, but still, the feeling was there.

That song he plays is from an actual Opera, "The Bohemian Girl", it's called "Then You'll Remember Me":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaA4eK3PxsI

Starrick represents a realistic challenge to the Assassins and why the Assassins are at a loose end in the MD. He's the Templar who both talks the talk and walks the walk, proving why the world is so different from the one in the Crusades or Medieval era. In real-life if the Assassins existed and they decided to assassinate, well I don't want to mention names, but certain wealthy corporate overlords or other people who we might think of as Templars, if they did that, it would cause chaos and disruption, similar to what we see in Syndicate. The people who get hurt won't be the truly guilty it would be the ones below them who are disposable to their main interests.

I like the fact that Starrick throughout the game feels he's the hero and technically he acts like the hero. He doesn't do anything to the Fryes, he didn't their family or nothing, and then the Assassins kill his cousin but he decides against taking revenge, so there's a nobility to him. He just exists and does his own thing and basically thinks that the Assassins aren't worth his time and attention, and he keeps chiding the others for giving them more attention than they are worth.

crusader_prophet
10-28-2015, 06:42 PM
Who is Roberts? Which game was he in? I completely forgot.

Are we talking about Robert DeSable?

cawatrooper9
10-28-2015, 06:44 PM
Who is Roberts? Which game was he in? I completely forgot.

The sage in ACIV.

phoenix-force411
10-28-2015, 08:19 PM
Much better than the last. His appearances in the game have been limited like Cesare, but he is more likable than Cesare. I hated Cesare.

VestigialLlama4
10-28-2015, 08:35 PM
Much better than the last. His appearances in the game have been limited like Cesare, but he is more likable than Cesare. I hated Cesare.

More "limited" than Cesare. Starrick has more scenes than Cesare Borgia does. We see him repeatedly interacting with Templars, we see him in private and then at the end. Whereas Cesare has 6 scenes before the finale. Monteriggioni Attack --> Castel Sant'Angelo Creepy Incest Kiss with Lucrezia --> Juan Borgia's Party --> Killing Egidio Troche's Brother --> Murdering Pop.

Starrick appears --> Opening Montage --> Post Elliotson Kill, the "Tea Speech" --> Cutscene with Attaway --> Piano Scene, Lucy Thorne --> Insulting Brudenell --> Reaction after Thorne's Death --> Scene where he slams the Desk --> Finale.

Also we get a real sense of Starrick and different shades of his character, unlike Cesare, because we always see Cesare from Ezio's perspective so we will see him at his worst, not because Ezio is biased but because Ezio will not see him in social situations. Compare that to Project Legacy where Giovanni Borgia grows up under him, or that mini-movie where Leonardo works with him. There you might see Cesare as a scary, manipulative charismatic guy.

Syndicate like Tyranny DLC (made by the same Ubisoft Quebec team and director) uses the technique of giving discrete cutscenes for the villain without the hero.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMjpzaSjd3c

Go to 47:54. As you can see, King Washington like Starrick is holding a cup of tea. King Washington is similar to Starrick in that he genuinely feels he's the hero and he also tempts the hero wondering if he's any better and also cracks the defense. Like that epic speech at the top of the Pyramid, "Tell me when you shake the earth, do you feel you are a slave to the people or their master?", a question Connor doesn't reply. (Go to 58:00).

phoenix-force411
10-28-2015, 09:00 PM
More "limited" than Cesare. Starrick has more scenes than Cesare Borgia does. We see him repeatedly interacting with Templars, we see him in private and then at the end. Whereas Cesare has 6 scenes before the finale. Monteriggioni Attack --> Castel Sant'Angelo Creepy Incest Kiss with Lucrezia --> Juan Borgia's Party --> Killing Egidio Troche's Brother --> Murdering Pop.

Starrick appears --> Opening Montage --> Post Elliotson Kill, the "Tea Speech" --> Cutscene with Attaway --> Piano Scene, Lucy Thorne --> Insulting Brudenell --> Reaction after Thorne's Death --> Scene where he slams the Desk --> Finale.

Also we get a real sense of Starrick and different shades of his character, unlike Cesare, because we always see Cesare from Ezio's perspective so we will see him at his worst, not because Ezio is biased but because Ezio will not see him in social situations. Compare that to Project Legacy where Giovanni Borgia grows up under him, or that mini-movie where Leonardo works with him. There you might see Cesare as a scary, manipulative charismatic guy.

Syndicate like Tyranny DLC (made by the same Ubisoft Quebec team and director) uses the technique of giving discrete cutscenes for the villain without the hero.

Go to 47:54. As you can see, King Washington like Starrick is holding a cup of tea. King Washington is similar to Starrick in that he genuinely feels he's the hero and he also tempts the hero wondering if he's any better and also cracks the defense. Like that epic speech at the top of the Pyramid, "Tell me when you shake the earth, do you feel you are a slave to the people or their master?", a question Connor doesn't reply. (Go to 58:00).

I don't remember much about Project Legacy since that was taken off of FB. I do, however, have watched the short movie because i bought it a few years back. I do find him manipulative, because he did manipulate his sister to the point of making her actually believing that he loved her.

As for TOKW, Connor always gets the difficult questions that I think even Ezio, himself, could not answer so confidently. In the alternate reality, it surfaced their darkest desires. I guess Connor's was power, because of the magical tea powers plus his lust for the apple. However, Connor gained much of my respect when he tossed the apple instead of using it. Ezio's decision to not toss the apple at the beginning of ACB made me lose much respect for his character's lust in its power.

Hans684
10-28-2015, 10:16 PM
Much better than the last. His appearances in the game have been limited like Cesare, but he is more likable than Cesare. I hated Cesare.

He's not that different compared to Cesare in terms of his order and ultimate goal, he's basically Cesare with Haytham's professionalism and dedication to the Templar cause. What separate him from Haytham is that he isn't creating a paradise, simply a world where he's at the top and everyone and their mother working for him. Rodrigo or Cesare on that, he unlike them isn't a man-child nor does he brag about it about the lust for power. A better written Cesare, but then again Cesare isn't much either so that alone says much. He's not a lord protector like someone like Monroe or anyone else from the Colonial Templar. Sure the deaths of his allies has impact but it's no different than AC3 on the matter, Connor unlike Jacob hasn't someone to clean the mess. So it all just gets a bigger mess with more failure that ends up with regret at the end. AC3 does't focus on the consequences of the actions but rather the more philosophical and practical part of both orders but it does the as good as Syndicate, if not better, seeing as the game is one of the grayest. Starrick & Co just repeated old critic against the Assassins with different words.

VestigialLlama4
10-28-2015, 10:24 PM
What separate him from Haytham is that he isn't creating a paradise, simply a world where he's at the top and everyone and their mother working for him.

Haytham is the guy who wants America to be a dictatorship with Charles Lee ruling in power with absolutely no votes for anyone. Haytham hates democracy. He's a fascist.

Starrick isn't a fascist, that's what makes him interesting. He's harnessing capitalism and markets to make a society where the Templars are indispensable. The thing is most games simply rail against capitalism without understanding what it means. Syndicate via Starrick shows what it is.


Starrick & Co just repeated old critic against the Assassins with different words.

He does more than that. He demonstrates it. The Assassins cannot eradicate or destroy the Templars without destroying the system, so in the end they have to restore and uphold the status quo. That means ally with Disraeli and Victoria, which means that the Templars have a steady base to come right back. The Assassins whether they like it or not are working for the Templars since they are too good to do what is truly necessary to destroy them forever.

Hans684
10-28-2015, 11:24 PM
Haytham is the guy who wants America to be a dictatorship with Charles Lee ruling in power with absolutely no votes for anyone. Haytham hates democracy. He's a fascist.

Germain is a fascist, he's an extremist Templar and would look at the World Wars as revolutions. The German Sage and Templar spy from Syndicate makes that point clear as day.
Haytham is a moderate Templar, Dedicated Templar Visionary and liberal authoritarian. He didn't want a war, opposed the British(They where using them, his plan was to get rid of them.) Who do we fight as Haytham and Shay(other than Assassins)? The colonial authority. Sane enemy as the Assassins, the corrupt slaver nations. Opposed slavery, supported natives(specifically Connor's village along with the ones saved by Shay) and aimed for equality. Won't deny he has bad apples like Waldrop or Washington but over he aims and does more good than any Templar have. He lives up it what he says unlike Starrick who preach paradise when he's no different than Cesare(only better written).


Starrick isn't a fascist, that's what makes him interesting.

Because of his professionalism and dedication it's easy to see it that way but he's no different than the Borgia.


He's harnessing capitalism and markets to make a society where the Templars are indispensable.

He sure is and has a strong order but his use if the Templar ideology falls apart when all he wants is to be at the top, the only that can rule humanity, he wants power and it all for himself. Evidence for that is the fact that he didn't want to share the Shroud with Lucy, he was gonna give her compensation for her work. So as it's been staten long before with the Borgia being the Dark Age, then he's no better. After the Dark Age the goal wasn't power at any cost but guidance and influence.


The thing is most games simply rail against capitalism without understanding what it means. Syndicate via Starrick shows what it is.

Because Starrick is a capitalist, however all creeds can be use different ways. From moderate to extreme, Starrickis neither. He's corrupt. As an example I'll use the Assassins Creed. Connor's Brotherhood use it the traditional way, however Achilles and Makendal's brotherhood use it as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power. There is no true way for any creed, it's up to it's followers how they follow it. If not, then we might as well say ISIS follows their creed correctly because why not? It's not like perspective and different uses of ideology matters. If someone oppose it then clearly the most cruel and extremist is the "true" way to follow it.


He does more than that. He demonstrates it. The Assassins cannot eradicate or destroy the Templars without destroying the system, so in the end they have to restore and uphold the status quo.

So do Haytham, however he proves his points and convinces Connor, not enough to become a Templar but enough to say he's right and regret his actions. Unlike Starrick he isn't losing power since he's at both sides, so they always had power regardless of how many British forts that became Patriot forts or how many battles he won. Connor was giving them more power by taking away the British power. It's why they growled stronger, they grew because the Patriots grew. Each kill Connor made has far more impact than anything the Frye twins did. By killing Johnson and preventing the land from being sold(first plan without harming anyone) made him loose his land, as we find out in the end if the game they moved Nothwest(I'll explain that later) and the land was taken by the Patriots and given to fellow from New York. A random guy got the land and they was forced out. By helping the Sons Of Liberty Connor took a revolt and made it to a revolution, the killing of Pitcairn sealed jus peoples fate in stone as the British where losing from then on. By preventing Hickey from killing Washington(a slaughter of natives like Waldrop) the natives that moved northwest got in a war against him during the Northwest Indian War. By killing both Haytham and Charles the colonies still remained a corrupt slaver nation with inequality, slavery and privileged cowards a only caring about themselves. And in case you are eager to argue against the Colonial Templars. Remember this, he ended up regretting it, admitted Haytham's cold words here true and write in his language, "I've made a mistake" under the place where Haytham's picture was. So Connor's work is perverted and forgotten since he was used by the "freedom fighting" Patriots. Slavery still exist, inequality still exist, corrupt leaders still exist etc...


That means ally with Disraeli and Victoria, which means that the Templars have a steady base to come right back. The Assassins whether they like it or not are working for the Templars since they are too good to do what is truly necessary to destroy them forever.

They are letting nations do as they please as long as the Templars isn't involved, Victoria's request to expand her empire with them on her side shows it clear as day. And as long as there are systems and leaders there will always be Templars. And you can't kill a philosophy so it will be reborn with new members as well. The battle is never ending.

Eurostar7
10-29-2015, 01:06 AM
Lucy Thorne was better villain IMO.

When Starrick wanted to do something she nudged him to do something else, so it gave me an impression that she was calling some of the shots. She seems much more loyal and passionate to the Templar Order too. She had a Hitler-ish vibe going on, minus the genocidal tendencies.

Eurostar7
10-29-2015, 01:14 AM
Haytham is the guy who wants America to be a dictatorship with Charles Lee ruling in power with absolutely no votes for anyone. Haytham hates democracy. He's a fascist.

Starrick isn't a fascist, that's what makes him interesting. He's harnessing capitalism and markets to make a society where the Templars are indispensable. The thing is most games simply rail against capitalism without understanding what it means. Syndicate via Starrick shows what it is.

He does more than that. He demonstrates it. The Assassins cannot eradicate or destroy the Templars without destroying the system, so in the end they have to restore and uphold the status quo. That means ally with Disraeli and Victoria, which means that the Templars have a steady base to come right back. The Assassins whether they like it or not are working for the Templars since they are too good to do what is truly necessary to destroy them forever.

Right, Starrick is what the future Abstergo is. Starrick had that mindset, buying companies and making people dependent on them (like Abstergo had Abstergo industries which had cable TV and even pharmaceuticals, then Abstergo Entertainment). Lucy Thorne was the occult, the experimentation and the scientific discoveries. Both of them working together was probably the inception of Abstergo mentality.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 05:54 AM
She had a Hitler-ish vibe going on...

I really don't see anything Hitler-like about her at all, not in personality or anything.


Lucy Thorne was the occult, the experimentation and the scientific discoveries.

Not true, Starrick is the owner of telegraph and communications.


Both of them working together was probably the inception of Abstergo mentality.

Check out Starrick's collar cuff-links, it has the three trapezium Abstergo A on it. Except of course Starrick is maybe a little more practical than Abstergo, Abstergo we mostly see doing stupid stuff like their cornball games, their Animus schenanigans but mostly they're kind of dimwits who blow up an airport because they couldn't use an Apple or that they back out of an expensive satellitle launch, or that despite being ominpresent, they keep getting hacked, infiltrated and subverted by less than a handful of Assassins.

Starrick on the other hand controls the Syrup and Tonic, he controls the telegraph, he controls the bank, the transport. Stuff that is basic. Taking any one pillar out causes chaos. Whereas in Abstergo, killing Vidic doesn't change anything or has any negative consequences. Generally speaking when you are doing conspiracy crap about how these corporations control stuff it's more impressive to do it like Syndicate does, showing that it's part of the infrastructure than that they are involved in Voodoo Science, because the kind of control we see in Syndicate is closer to real-life than Abstergo is.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 06:19 AM
Haytham is a moderate Templar, Dedicated Templar Visionary and liberal authoritarian.

That's actually what fascism technically is. Liberal authoritarianism. Fascism painted itself as moderate initially. It wasn't until the end of World War 2 that people saw it as being extreme.


Opposed slavery,

Haytham did not oppose slavery at all. One of his loyal servants was Lawrence Washington a slaveowner, a high-ranking member of the Templar order and highly regarded after his death. So Haytham doesn't have the same objections to slavery that Governor Torres did with regards to Woodes Rogers. Likewise, in the ten years between Rogue and Connor's arrival, slavery continued unperturbed in the colonies with the Templars doing nothing to stop it, compare that to the Assassins who actually help slaves and form uprisings.


...and aimed for equality.

He aimed for equality so much that most of his organisation was white men (with only one token black guy in Rogue, belatedly added I'm quite sure), with two proud Englishmen (Haytham and Lee) in senior positions with Irish trash like Hickey and Shay butt-kissing them and following their whims. The Templars of AC3 are your essential self-deluding colonialists and the leaders are your Mighty Whitey English dudes. But then some people actually take the words of such folks at face value.


He lives up it what he says unlike Starrick who preach paradise...

That's actually not what Starrick preaches. He talks about how London represents modernity, progress and innovation and he's absolutely right about that. The fact that this modernity comes from exploitation and oppression that is no different from feudal society is the price to be paid. And it actually proves the Templar viewpoint that for society to progress, the many have to rule and direct the few, otherwise there will be chaos. In the context of Victorian London, that was probably true.


Because of his professionalism and dedication it's easy to see it that way but he's no different than the Borgia.

Haytham wanted to convert America into a dictatorship, that's what Cesare Borgia does in Rome. Quit rewriting the games. All the Templars are basically like Borgia.


Each kill Connor made has far more impact than anything the Frye twins did.

It's not the same situation at all, remotely. Connor is actually fighting for something, he's taking up a cause and choosing a side, for better and worse. The Fryes aren't doing that at all. They are basically there for selfish reasons and they are basically your posturing wannabe revolutionaries who back out of actually committing to any cause full time and merely do things in an adolescent fashion.


By killing both Haytham and Charles the colonies still remained a corrupt slaver nation with inequality, slavery and privileged cowards a only caring about themselves.

If you call George Washington a privileged coward one more time...I swear to f--king God. Yes the founding fathers were a bunch of slaveowners and hypocrites, but they are still immeasurably superior morally to a pack of fascists like Haytham's Templars. The point of AC3 isn't that Haytham is right or has a realistic alternative, it's that Connor has to choose to oppose them even if it means he gets nothing in return and no reward, that either which way he goes he'll lose. That's what the game is about.

Farlander1991
10-29-2015, 08:56 AM
Haytham did not oppose slavery at all. One of his loyal servants was Lawrence Washington a slaveowner, a high-ranking member of the Templar order and highly regarded after his death.

Just a little correction, none of the Templars we killed at the beginning of Rogue were Haytham's servants. Haytham himself was a servant before he came to America, and he got there in July 1754, while Shay kills his targets between 1752 and that moment.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 09:01 AM
Just a little correction, none of the Templars we killed at the beginning of Rogue were Haytham's servants. Haytham himself was a servant before he came to America, and he got there in July 1754, while Shay kills his targets between 1752 and that moment.

Okay...but Christopher Gist definitely is a Haytham lackey and he calls Lawrence Washington "good men" so I can take it for granted that he and Haytham share similar views. Haytham in AC3 doesn't say anything against slavery at all. He never says the founding fathers are slaveowners, he says they are privileged property owners who will restrict the vote for themselves. It's only Torres who is explicitly against slavery.

In any case these are niggling little issues and retcons the writers introduce without fully thinking things through. In the context of the New World, the Templars are wealthy, rich folks and part of Colonial Society...there's no way you can be part of that, be anti-slavery and garner any real level of influence.

Farlander1991
10-29-2015, 09:12 AM
Okay...but Christopher Gist definitely is a Haytham lackey and he calls Lawrence Washington "good men" so I can take it for granted that he and Haytham share similar views.

I don't think Haytham ever even asked or talked about Washington with Gist, though of course there's no way to say that for certain. But still, when he gets to Boston, he's fully focused on that squad he created in Boston, the Monroe posse in New York is something he'd make acquaintance with later. We can't be even sure if he met them beyond possible letters/correspondence between him and Monroe before Shay's initiation (Monro was in Americas before Haytham, and he initiated Gist and Weeks into the Order even before the events of the game)

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 09:22 AM
I don't think Haytham ever even asked or talked about Washington with Gist, though of course there's no way to say that for certain. But still, when he gets to Boston, he's fully focused on that squad he created in Boston, the Monroe posse in New York is something he'd make acquaintance with later. We can't be even sure if he met them beyond possible letters/correspondence between him and Monroe before Shay's initiation (Monro was in Americas before Haytham, and he initiated Gist and Weeks into the Order even before the events of the game)

Well from the prologue of AC3, we knew that there were Templars in America before Haytham arrived: William Johnson, Edward Braddock, Jonathan Pitcairn, Thomas Hickey were all members of the Order before Haytham arrived and then initiated Charles Lee. Rogue's War Letters suggested that Lawrence was the grandmaster before Haytham came to fill the vacuum.

In any case, based on what we see in AC3, Haytham organizing the Boston Massacre, William Johnson bullying Iroquois at a peace conference, Thomas Hickey running the underworld in New York (something which Shay was Shocked, Shocked, Shocked that Assassins do, when he was an Irish hoodlum picked off the streets) and other stuff, that he ended up becoming just as bad as the people he disliked. He was as manipulative as Reginald Birch and as indifferent and brutal as Braddock, whether he wanted to be seen that way or not. Haytham tortured soldiers, killed civilians and his grand plan is...Charles Lee, a man without any political acument whatsover, who nobody likes, will be President and Dictator whether people like it or not. That's about as logical and sensible as chasing a magical apple. To be honest, the story of AC3 would make far more sense if Charles Lee was allied to the Assassins and Washington was the Templar candidate, but Ubisoft can't do that because Washington, from a commercial perspective, can't truly be the bad guy. So they had their cake and eat it with the Tyranny DLC too which provides catharsis and resolution to AC3's main plot of whether Connor was right to back Washington or not.

Syndicate's Templars are deeper and more interesting. It's closer to AC1 where attacking Garnier de Naplouse leads to those mentally ill people running around the city, I wish that was there in Syndicate, where Jacob would see all these ill people and sick and dying children around. We only get a gist of it in that Florence Nightingale mission. And in a way a non-revolutionary setting like Syndicate shows the Templars in a way that makes sense because in a Revolutionary setting where you really have to pick sides, it kind of gets vague.

Farlander1991
10-29-2015, 12:08 PM
He was as manipulative as Reginald Birch and as indifferent and brutal as Braddock, whether he wanted to be seen that way or not.

Yeah, that was kinda the point, though, I think. Prologue Haytham and Connor-era Haytham are quite different, the latter one is much more brutal and cynical. He has obviously changed, and I think it would benefit the game to put a bit of focus on that. Maybe put some hints of events that were in Forsaken, don't know. Haytham is just stubborn (and Connor is similar to him in that regards in some ways) and after failing to change anything significant for over a decade just tries to bruteforce the dream any way possible, to the point of beating the **** out of an accomplice who had a change of heart after all that time.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 12:25 PM
Yeah, that was kinda the point, though, I think. Prologue Haytham and Connor-era Haytham are quite different, the latter one is much more brutal and cynical. He has obviously changed, and I think it would benefit the game to put a bit of focus on that. Maybe put some hints of events that were in Forsaken, don't know. Haytham is just stubborn (and Connor is similar to him in that regards in some ways) and after failing to change anything significant for over a decade just tries to bruteforce the dream any way possible, to the point of beating the **** out of an accomplice who had a change of heart after all that time.

Yeah, beating up Church and shouting like a madman. I think for Haytham, the Templar world was the only life left to him. He gave up everything for it, friendship, family, love and finally even his future, in the sense of family. So to him the idea of there can be any other way, or any alternative is inconcievable. He's really hardened I think and his devotion to Charles Lee is part of that. So there's this degree of fanaticism to him at the end, and he becomes really self-destructive but then he has that in common with his old man.

The Kenway family is obviously a reversal of the Auditore, that loving happy family that suffers tragedy but comes out stronger and rebuilds itself at the end. With these guys, every single one is a screwup and comes to a sticky end. All strong, tragic, self-destructive types. It doesn't surprise or disappoint me in the least that Connor apparently comes to sad end, since that's part of being a Kenway: A lot of hard work, striving and suffering and absolutely nothing to show for it. That's true of Edward, Haytham and Jenny, so it should hold for Connor as well. That's why I think the Kenway games, AC3 and Black Flag are better on the whole than the Ezio games, since its darker, grayer and more contemporary. I think you can relate to them in a way you can't relate to Godzio.

Now of course with Syndicate you have another family, the Fryes and they are closer to the Auditore and that's one reason why I don't really find the heroes really interesting.

Farlander1991
10-29-2015, 12:42 PM
I think for Haytham, the Templar world was the only life left to him. He gave up everything for it, friendship, family, love and finally even his future, in the sense of family. So to him the idea of there can be any other way, or any alternative is inconcievable. He's really hardened I think and his devotion to Charles Lee is part of that. So there's this degree of fanaticism to him at the end, and he becomes really self-destructive but then he has that in common with his old man.

Yeah. Though I think Connor gave him some semblance of hope. Not for his cause, or life, but, you know, just in general. Now this is only perceived subtext (of which there's many in AC3, probably too many for its own good), but I always viewed the final confrontation between Haytham and Connor as Haytham's sad and twisted declaration of love.

Haytham knows that at that point, either him or Connor have to die, because both of them have went too far into their own ideologies and point of views to go back. So he challenges his son one last time, physically and in terms of checking Connor's convictions. Ultimately, Haytham's can't kill him, he purposefully gives Connor the chance to. Many view Haytham's final speech and moments before his death as hubris and arrogance, I honestly don't see it that way. We've seen Haytham's efficiency too many times, he wouldn't have just forgotten about the hand with the still working hidden blade he was just holding so Connor wouldn't use it, and then proceed to a slow and painful kill via suffocation rather than a quick efficient one that he usually does. He knew that these would be his final moments (and, while I have not read Forsaken, I've heard that there's some similar notions there). And Haytham's final words, 'I should have killed you long ago', are essentially 'I love you, son'. Very disturbing 'I love you', but still.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 12:56 PM
Yeah. Though I think Connor gave him some semblance of hope. Not for his cause, or life, but, you know, just in general. Now this is only perceived subtext (of which there's many in AC3, probably too many for its own good), but I always viewed the final confrontation between Haytham and Connor as Haytham's sad and twisted declaration of love.

Haytham knows that at that point, either him or Connor have to die, because both of them have went too far into their own ideologies and point of views to go back. So he challenges his son one last time, physically and in terms of checking Connor's convictions. Ultimately, Haytham's can't kill him, he purposefully gives Connor the chance to. Many view Haytham's final speech and moments before his death as hubris and arrogance, I honestly don't see it that way. We've seen Haytham's efficiency too many times, he wouldn't have just forgotten about the hand with the still working hidden blade he was just holding so Connor wouldn't use it, and then proceed to a slow and painful kill via suffocation rather than a quick efficient one that he usually does. He knew that these would be his final moments (and, while I have not read Forsaken, I've heard that there's some similar notions there). And Haytham's final words, 'I should have killed you long ago', are essentially 'I love you, son'. Very disturbing 'I love you', but still.

It's probably a legitimate interpretation. Haytham gave Charles Lee the key to the Temple so it's indicative that he's making a final stand.

I remember that being a pretty dark moment. I never actually thought that Connor would kill Haytham when I played it first. I expected that eventually Haytham will die or get betrayed by Charles Lee since that was how the story seemed to be going for most of the story. It's still gutsy to have the hero kill his Dad in a game, more gutsy than Star Wars certainly.

But anyway, getting back to Starrick. I feel that Haytham is mainly empathetic and convincing because of his personal connections and background. Like ultimately his plan isn't really convincing or smart. Whereas Starrick does have that, even if he doesn't have that personal connection to the hero. That's actually a cool thing Syndicate have done. It's one time where the heroes and villains have almost no personal grudge against each other. Starrick didn't kill the Fryes parents, so there's no revenge there. Nor is he like Black Bart who screwed Edward over. AC1 is similar but there Robert de Sable beat Altair in a fight and there's that personal angle of betrayal from Al Mualim that adds that element of vendetta there.

darksavior1977
10-29-2015, 02:00 PM
Very cartoon villain, doing every cliche' thing a villain does. IN no way believable as a real person, just a 2D plot device. It doesn't help that he has the villain mustache to boot, but zero depth, just a plastic villain template.

He is no Robert De Sable or Al Mualim

Locopells
10-29-2015, 02:08 PM
You do realise the Victorian era is where the whole stereotype of the villain moustache came from right?!

MATTHEW076480
10-29-2015, 03:15 PM
I quite liked him but I felt he could have been in a mission earlier in the game to build up some tension between him and Jacob and Evie for their final meeting, but I thought his cut scenes, particularly the one about tea were very clever and well done.

kosmoscreed
10-29-2015, 03:40 PM
I think he was forgettable, cliche villain, at least he was not as bad as Germain.

Hans684
10-29-2015, 05:01 PM
That's actually what fascism technically is. Liberal authoritarianism. Fascism painted itself as moderate initially. It wasn't until the end of World War 2 that people saw it as being extreme.

Didn't know liberals where fancist, learns something new everyday


Haytham did not oppose slavery at all. One of his loyal servants was Lawrence Washington a slaveowner, a high-ranking member of the Templar order and highly regarded after his death. So Haytham doesn't have the same objections to slavery that Governor Torres did with regards to Woodes Rogers.

"Under our rule all would be equal" Slavery isn't equality, so while he hasn't said it directly he clearly intends to do something about it seeing as it isn't equality. As far as I'm aware Washington's slavery is his own doing, a private matter not related to his Templar work and Haytham hadn't arrived yet. So judging by Haytham's character in the AC3 he'd punish and lecture him for harming innocents, like with Bradock.


Likewise, in the ten years between Rogue and Connor's arrival, slavery continued unperturbed in the colonies with the Templars doing nothing to stop it, compare that to the Assassins who actually help slaves and form uprisings.

He didn't try then but his plans to end the corrupt slaver nation ruled by privileged cowards was destroyed by Connor. Who was manipulated by Juno, Achilles and the Patriots. Juno wanted him to sacrifice his people to guard the Grand Temple, letting Desmond free her In the future and save the world. Then you have Achilles, a fanatical Mentor wanting revenge. Discourageing unity, encourageing to kill them from the begging he saw his potential, especially his father. Saying Connor's struggle is the same struggle as the colonies, the colonies are a bunch of slaughterers and slavers of natives. So that's an obvious lie. Then you have him sending him to the Sons Of "Liberty", who are part of that nation. And by your logic, Connor and the Assassins would be pro-slavery and pro-slaughter of natives by them being his allies. Then the corrupt nation that used him for "freedom".


He aimed for equality so much that most of his organisation was white men (with only one token black guy in Rogue, belatedly added I'm quite sure), with two proud Englishmen (Haytham and Lee) in senior positions with Irish trash like Hickey and Shay butt-kissing them and following their whims. The Templars of AC3 are your essential self-deluding colonialists and the leaders are your Mighty Whitey English dudes. But then some people actually take the words of such folks at face value.

They like any other antagonist tell their goals, you dismissing won't change a thing. Racism also goes both ways, you wouldn't like if someone called Connor a savage.


That's actually not what Starrick preaches.

The end speach about building a paradise, something he isn't seeing as he's is no different than the Borgia because he want to be at the top. He aims for power and sees himself as the only one capable of ruling hamanity. Evident by the fact that he didn't want to share the Shroud with Lucy.


He talks about how London represents modernity, progress and innovation and he's absolutely right about that. The fact that this modernity comes from exploitation and oppression that is no different from feudal society is the price to be paid.

Never said he didn't say that.


And it actually proves the Templar viewpoint that for society to progress, the many have to rule and direct the few, otherwise there will be chaos. In the context of Victorian London, that was probably true.

Something AC3 already had done considering all the chaos that's still going on after "saving" the colonies.


Haytham wanted to convert America into a dictatorship, that's what Cesare Borgia does in Rome.

Cesare is a power hungry man-child and their Order is considered the Dark Age as they did everything for themselves, they wanted power. Not improve humanity and guide it. Cesare is no different that the corrupt nations.

Haytham on the other hand isn't power hungry and does aim to end corrupt slaver nation in the colonies ruled by privileged cowards that only care about themselves.


Quit rewriting the games.

Simply stating canon, wether you like it or not.


All the Templars are basically like Borgia.

If you ingnore almost all canon, then yes.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Templars#Age_of_Reason

Age of Reason:

Templars looked at the Renaissance as a dark time for the Order: while other men progressed humanity's knowledge, the 15th century Templars led by the debauched Borgia did not care for such ideals, using the Order as a platform to gain power and influence. By the 17th century, the Templars began adjusting their philosophy. Instead of making personal bids for powers, the Templars sought to influence rather than control the leaders and intellectuals of the new age.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Templars#Ideals_and_goals

The Templar world view was based upon an inherently pessimistic view of humanity. As opposed to the Assassins, who believed that free will was an inherent quality and right for all humankind, and should be preserved regardless of the cost, the Templars insisted that "freedom" caused chaos and upheaval, and ultimately threatens the fabric of civilization itself. Templars hence believe that order, purpose and direction are key in the construction of a perfect world. More moderate Templars would try to influence humanity to have discipline and restraint, as well as opting for tighter and more centralized governmental control. The most fanatical Templars, however, would aim at nothing less than the total destruction of free will, and absolute control over humanity.

It is easy (and common among Assassins) to mistake the Templar pursuit for control as a pursuit for power. Whilst many Templars were indeed after power, the Order's base ideology itself is about attaining control in order to enable humanity to transcend their animal roots, and become a species perfectly in harmony and in peace. That is why Templars tend to agree with Assassins when it comes to pursuing peace, but detest their pursuit of freedom. On rare occasions when there is peace between the Assassins and the Templars, such as during Francois de la Serre's reign as Grand Master, radical elements on both sides may attempt to resume the conflict. Francois de la Serre and his Assassin counterpart, Honoré Mirabeau, were both murdered by their more radical subordinates for prioritizing peace over ideology.

At various points in history, such as during the 18th century, the Templars opposed the unethical treatment and unnecessary killing of innocents, though their definition of an 'innocent' was less broad than that of the Assassin brotherhood. By the early 18th century the Templars had come to view slavery as an unnecessary and questionable practice; Laureano de Torres y Ayala for one believed that "a body enslaved inspires the mind to revolt. But enslave a man's mind and his body will follow on naturally." So strong was the Templars' distaste for the practice that at least one member, Woodes Rogers, was forced out of the Order for continuing to trade in slaves.

The nature of the Order, which involves the acquisition and the exercise of power, makes the Templars highly susceptible to corruption. Many have used the Templar cause as a shield or stepping-stone to further their own selfish desires, attaining power not for the benefit of mankind as was the decree of the order, but for power's own sake. Others like Thomas Hickey or Juan Borgia, likewise, used the Order's considerable connections, wealth and power to attain wealth and luxury of their own. Dedicated Templar visionaries, who are fully convinced of the Order's righteousness of cause and who lived in service to such an ideal, such as Haytham Kenway and prince Ahmet, are few and far between. During the Italian Renaissance, Templar goals were corrupted by Rodrigo and Cesare Borgia into seeking power and domination at all costs, which is far removed from their original noble motive. Modern Templars view the Borgias as debauched tyrants and consider their reign to be a Dark Age of the Order.


It's not the same situation at all, remotely. Connor is actually fighting for something, he's taking up a cause and choosing a side, for better and worse. The Fryes aren't doing that at all. They are basically there for selfish reasons and they are basically your posturing wannabe revolutionaries who back out of actually committing to any cause full time and merely do things in an adolescent fashion.

But it does't change the point itself, AC3 shown what Syndicate retold about the consequences of an assassination. Syndicate simply has it as a main focus.


If you call George Washington a privileged coward one more time...I swear to f--king God.

I'd suggest you start praying instead. Still is one.


Yes the founding fathers were a bunch of slaveowners and hypocrites, but they are still immeasurably superior morally to a pack of fascists like Haytham's Templars.

They're no different that the Borgia, the Colonial Templars had actual plans to deal with those things unlike them who preached freedom but only to themselves. They let the colonies remain the corrupt slaver nation as they are privileged cowards, their no better than the British.


The point of AC3 isn't that Haytham is right or has a realistic alternative, it's that Connor has to choose to oppose them even if it means he gets nothing in return and no reward, that either which way he goes he'll lose. That's what the game is about.

But it's a factor of the game. As for Connor.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassins#Civilian_casualties

In his time, Connor ensured the abandonment of his tribe's native lands and the onset of the American Revolutionary War by eliminating William Johnson and John Pitcairn in pursuit of freedom, to his eventual regret.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Ratonhnhaké:ton

Thereafter, Connor recovered Haytham's journal and read of his father's tragic childhood and lifetime of betrayal, also discovering that he had saved Connor's life: Haytham was the one who threw a knife at the hangman's noose during Connor's execution, fully severing the rope after Connor's apprentices had fired an arrow and weakened it.

Furthermore, Connor learned Haytham had feigned ignorance of Kaniehtí:io's death as he had assumed Connor would never believe that Washington was responsible. With this newfound knowledge, Connor marked his father off of the target wall beneath the manor with "Sakataterihwáhten", to signify his regret at their falling out, but still remained resolute in his decision to support the Assassin Order.

And this:

"My father left those for me.
Mother, Father, I am sorry. I have failed you both.
I made a promise to protect our people. I thought…I thought if I could stop the templars—if I could keep the Revolution free from their influence—that those I supported would do what was right.
They did—I suppose—do what was right…
What was right for them. Point one, they used him and seems to be aware of it as well.

As for you, Father: I thought I might unite us, that we would forget the past and forge a better future.
In time I believed you could be made to see the world as I did; to understand…but it was just a dream. This too, I should have known.
Were we not meant to live in peace, then? Is that it?
Are we born to argue? To fight?
So many voices, each demanding something else… It has been hard at times, but never harder than today to see all I worked for; perverted, discarded, forgotten! By corrupt slaver nations ruled by privileged cowards.

You would say I have described the whole of history, Father. Are you smiling, then? Hoping I might speak the words you long to hear? To validate you? To say that all along, you were right?
I will not.
Even now, faced as I am with the truth of your cold words, I refuse, because I believe things can still change. I may never succeed—the Assassin's may struggle another thousand years in vain—but we will not stop!

Typical of him that he hopes but despite not wanting to admit Haytham is right but at least he can acknowledged the cold truth in his words.

Compromise. That is what everyone has insisted upon. And so I have learned it. But differently than most, I think…
I realize now that it will take time; that the road ahead is long, and shrouded in darkness. It is a road that will not always take me where I wish to go, and I doubt I will live to see its end. But I will travel down it nonetheless.
For at my side walks hope. In the face of all that insists I turn back, I carry on. This…
This is my compromise."

So if Connor can see it his way and say his cold words are true while regretting killing some of them, then others can as well. I can't find the quote but there is another one where he says he misjudged Haytham and after reading his journal finds he never knew his father as he tough.

Edit: Found it, it's from Forsaken. It's the prologue.

"I never knew him. Not really. I tought I had, but it wasn't until I read his journal that I realized I hadn't really known him at all. And it's too late now. Too late to tell him I misjudged him. Too late to tell him I'm sorry."

darksavior1977
10-29-2015, 10:52 PM
You do realise the Victorian era is where the whole stereotype of the villain moustache came from right?!

I do, but for the main villain to have that as well as all the other cliche' stuff going on it just made it worse. I didn't say it was out of place, I said it accentuated the cliche'. There was nothing that made Starrick seem at all like a real person. He was a caricature plot device, and very close to parody.

danielm316
07-06-2018, 08:14 PM
I liked Crawford Starrick as a villian, he reminded me to Cesare Borgia.
Still, the way he looks it is... unusual, the moustache,reminds me of pierre nodoyuna.

A good villian, an ok game, and a bad ending.

danielm316
07-06-2018, 08:27 PM
I meant **** Dastardly instead of Pierre Nodoyuna