PDA

View Full Version : 24 hour influence in Queen Victory missions (Spoilers)



RA503
11-04-2015, 01:32 AM
Someone more think that ?

The templars just become Terrorists in the end,you have to capture one first,go to prison and torture him to force him to speak about the templars plan,after that you need to stop bombers to detonate,is just awesome,is one of the most fun moments of the game...

they based in 24,007 ?

Alphacos007
11-04-2015, 11:42 AM
Yea, I found that pretty terrible. Unless they are just self-nominated Templars and not official ones, that was awful. They are deliberate terrorists during those missions.

Hans684
11-04-2015, 04:34 PM
It was members that's left of the Maxwell Rox's Blighters, seeing as he's an anarchist, it simply shows the kind of training he gave them. Their nothing but dogs chasing cars, and he let them run wild and free.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2015, 05:37 PM
Roth is no anarchist. Anarchists seek to tear down corrupt and decadent structures with the intention of rebuilding them better than they were before. Roth just like to destroy stuff - he's a psychopath and a nihilist.

cawatrooper9
11-05-2015, 05:49 PM
Roth is no anarchist. Anarchists seek to tear down corrupt and decadent structures with the intention of rebuilding them better than they were before. Roth just like to destroy stuff - he's a psychopath and a nihilist.

True- a bit of a hedonist, as well.

VestigialLlama4
11-05-2015, 05:58 PM
Yea, I found that pretty terrible. Unless they are just self-nominated Templars and not official ones, that was awful. They are deliberate terrorists during those missions.

Is Haytham Kenway an official Templar, because we see him, in a cutscene ordering the Boston Massacre in AC3, so yes terrorism is entirely consistent with Templar goals.

After all forcing people to follow them via fear is a good definition of terrorism and the Templars believe that.

I wish people stop making excuses about good/bad Templars and ignore what the games show us repeatedly.


Roth is no anarchist. Anarchists seek to tear down corrupt and decadent structures with the intention of rebuilding them better than they were before. Roth just like to destroy stuff - he's a psychopath and a nihilist.

We have actual anarchists in the game. Frank Morris who is Karl Marx' anarchist friend who disagrees with Marx on revolutionary approaches. Morris wants to use dynamite to blow up parliament and Marx opposes this.

Roth is your basic jilted lover. Jacob Frye was his ideal apprentice/male lover and Jacob broke his heart.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2015, 06:03 PM
There were lots of misguided people just wanting to blow stuff up in the 19th and early 20th Century who claimed to be anarchists. Frank Morris wants revenge for his son - he's not wanting to blow up parliament based on his anarchist principles. Killing people, since it allows for nothing but destruction, cannot be said to be a truly anarchist action, because it goes against the main anarchist principle of replacing abusive systems of power with mutually beneficial systems of cooperation. Let's be clear - killing a person is about the single most abusive use of power there can be, so it is wholly un-anarchist. Sure, killing can be done by anarchists who also believe in other philosophies that support killing, but it's not anarchic to just blow stuff up and kill people for vengeance, even if it's a professed anarchist who's planting the bombs.

And anarchism is a process - a political method as much as it is a philosophy - it's a way of assessing structures and finding ways to improve or replace them with something that works better. A person who holds to anarchist principles and methods may also hold to philosophies that oppose anarchist principles, in the same way that a buddhist or Jainist whose philosophy is non-violent can also be a soldier. People are complex and sometimes not all that intelligent, so they can often hold internally inconsistent ideals.

Again, the idea behind anarchism is to destroy harmful structures so that you can rebuild them better. Anarchists don't believe in destroying something purely to destroy it - again, that is nihilism, not anarchism.

VestigialLlama4
11-05-2015, 06:30 PM
There were lots of misguided people just wanting to blow stuff up in the 19th and early 20th Century who claimed to be anarchists. Frank Morris wants revenge for his son - he's not wanting to blow up parliament based on his anarchist principles. Killing people, since it allows for nothing but destruction, cannot be said to be a truly anarchist action. Sure, it can be done by anarchists who also believe in other philosophies that support killing, but it's not anarchic to just blow stuff up and kill people for vengeance, even if it's a professed anarchist who's planting the bombs.

And anarchism is a process - a political method as much as it is a philosophy - it's a way of assessing structures and finding ways to improve or replace them with something that works better. A person who holds to anarchist principles and methods may also hold to philosophies that oppose anarchist principles, in the same way that a buddhist or Jainist whose philosophy is non-violent can also be a soldier. People are complex and sometimes not all that intelligent, so they can often hold internally inconsistent ideals.

Again, the idea behind anarchism is to destroy harmful structures so that you can rebuild them better. Anarchists don't believe in destroying something purely to destroy it - again, that is nihilism, not anarchism.

You are right.

Hans684
11-05-2015, 09:04 PM
Terrorism is consistent with both orders. AC is gray after all, despite the few setbacks from cartoon stories made for the children of the fanbase.