PDA

View Full Version : Homicidal Ezio (contains major ACR spoilers)



Eregost
12-03-2011, 08:33 AM
Let me start off by saying I absolutely love this series and hope to see it flourish for many years to come. It has a lot of potential and occupies a unique niche. Having said that, I had problems with Revelation's story which I will discuss in this thread and the 'Revelations?' thread.

In Revelations Ezio makes a lot of morally questionable decisions and certainly ends up hurting or killing a lot of innocents on his quest for wisdom, which isn't very wise of him. Indeed his total disregard for the lives of those the Order is supposed to protect makes him as bad as the Templar characters we encounter. The only times we see Ezio helping people is when he wants something from them in return.

Allow me to cite a few examples.

> In Sequence 3 Memory 1, Ezio helps a man out of jail. He accepts the prisoner's story without proof, that he is simply stole some fruit, and then proceeds to help him escape. I'm surprised the other guys in the cell didn't react to this at all. It was foolish of Ezio to do this as the man could be lying, and even if the man is really just a thief, he deserves punishment for his crime. In freeing this guy, why doesn't Ezio go around and free all the many people who in his eyes made a mistake that doesn't deserve punishment? Ezio is creating anarchy and showing a total disregard for the justice system.

> In Sequence 4 Memory 1, Ezio beats up innocent ministrels and dumps them in haybarrels and steals their clothes. He couldn't have bought the outfits?

> Again in Sequence 4 Memory 3, Ezio shows a disregard for the law and takes Sophia's delivery before it has been checked by the port officials. In doing so he would have to knock out if not kill guards. These guards have done nothing wrong and do not deserve this. It is murder/assault/theft.

> In Sequence 5 Memory 3, we see Ezio rile up the crowd in order to use them to break into the arsenal. He was willing to sacrifice lives to get to his goal of investigating the meeting between Tarik and Manuel. A few die outside the gates and then in Memory 4 Ezio runs off into the Arsenal and leaves the civilians to fend for themselves. Doubtless many would have died and the rest would be wounded. Peasants carrying pitchforks don't stand much of a chance against Jannisarys trained in combat from childhood. Granted you could argue that the civies that joined the riot knew the risk they were taking, but Ezio was the one who initiated it and he did so not because of the injustice we see the Jannisarys inflict but he used this as a convenient excuse to allow him to break in for his own goal.

> In Sequence 5 Memory 4, Ezio steals Sophia's painting from the merchant that owns it (you need to steal it to get 100% synch which means that's how Ezio did it). The merchant did not know it was stolen and he paid money to acquire it. The right thing to do would be to take the thief to the merchant, have him admit his crime and give the money back to the merchant, then take the painting. By stealing it, the thief has the merchant's money. Again Ezio did not care about justice, he only wanted to impress Sophia.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 2, Ezio shows a serious lack of judgement and assassinates an innocent man because Ezio thinks he is a Templar. Ezio did not attempt to talk to Tarik before he struck the killing blow. For example in AC1, Altair has to extensively research his targets and know the injustices they cause before he kills them. Here Ezio did not bother to do this properly and so made a serious mistake costing another innocent's life.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 4, Ezio lets an old crooked merchant tire himself and waste his time for no gain because Ezio did not want to wait an hour to impress Sophia with tulips.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 8, Ezio sets fire to many ships waiting in the harbour in order to reach Cappadocia ASAP. Lots of innocents on those ships died and there were a lot of merchant vessels in the water as well as the military ships so Ezio killed or ruined many livelihoods. He could have taken a ship from another nearby town and avoided this massacre and destruction.

> In Sequence 7 Memory 4, Ezio blows up the gunpowder in Cappadocia and as a result kills many innocents yet again, if not from the fire then from the smoke, and again those who survive would have had their livelihoods ruined. He destroyed the gunpowder just to stop the Templars from having it, not to save lives that could have been lost if the Templars possessed it otherwise he would not have been so reckless.

> In the pickpocket assassin recruitment quest, Ezio sets out to outsteal the pickpocket because he thinks by doing so he can get her to join the assassins. This is hypocritical given that the Order does not allow one to hurt innocents and Ezio steals from people just for the sake of showing off he has better pickpocketing skills than the pickpocket.

So how is Ezio a good guy again? He is the grand master and should be setting a good example, for the other assassins will attempt to emulate him and it is also important to have the people on your side as well.

If I was an ordinary Joe in the AC universe, I would not see the Assassins being any better than the Templars given that actions speak louder than words and these actions appear to show a disregard for the life of anyone outside the Order. It would just appear to be two factions that have a personal feud, one supporting order and the other supporting anarchy and recklessness.

I believe the reason for these actions is because Ubisoft wanted to create big flashy 'epic' set piece moments. However as a result of this the story has suffered, and most of us I'm sure believe that the story is AC's biggest asset. In future titles I hope Ubisoft's writers are more careful.

I'd like to hear the communities opinions on this so comment and discuss. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 08:42 AM
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.

Riften
12-03-2011, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.
If you felt no connection to Ezio or Altair, I suggest leaving the series.

Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 08:55 AM
I also want to add that Ezio's wrongdoings are made all the more worse when the memories of Altair we experience in this title have him always trying to avoid the death of innocents as much as possible. Ezio experiences these memories and yet learns nothing from them and goes and does the opposite. Ezio didn't get wiser, Ezio got dumber.

Crouching.Tiger
12-03-2011, 08:56 AM
Remember "We work in the dark to serve the light". That's how Assassins tell themselves they are doing the right thing. That would make little difference to the public of course. I can't believe the people of Capadoccia would accept that Ezio "did what he had to do", as he probably would claim. This is not ignored in the game, Altaïr has worries about it, as you can read in the codex.
And also remember, the things that Assassins do openly, under their real name, amounts to terrorism. Blowing up buildings, killing important people whom the public don't know are corrupt or Templar-affiliated. The Assassins' connections to rulers like Lorenzo Medici or prince Suleiman, and all the political implications, are probably not well-known in-universe, just as Templars stay hidden.
So I'd say they work as a scapegoat to the public.

EDIT: I also think Ezio's violent behaviour is escalated throughout Revelations. He looks visibly upset when he sees the cavern filled with smoke, though, as well as when he has killed Tarik.
The abuse of minstrels can be explained by Ezio really not liking their kind of music, and is finally given an excuse to release thirty years of anger. I agree that's kind of a jerk move, as well as other examples you have listed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Overall, I think being exposed to, and especially inflicting, horrible violence and pain through his whole life has made him more than a little sociopathic.

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
So how is Ezio a good guy again?
Ezio most definitely isn't a good guy. The assassins, including Ezio, are one side of a war. Nobody said the assassin's were good guys. If the game was set on the side of Templars, you'd think they're good, right?

The thing is, Fregost, these points are valid if the person in question was meant to be 'good'. But, he isn't. He kills in cold blood daily, and orders people to be killed in cold blood.

Remember: Ezio will do what he came to do, at any cost. He will only follow three rules; the creed.

Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
I. STAY YOUR BLADE FROM THE FLESH OF AN INNOCENT.
II. HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT.
III. NEVER COMPROMISE THE BROTHERHOOD.

Although a lot of the points you mentioned have been cruel, unthoughtful and mean he has never compromised the creed.

Before you argue, there are only two arguable points where he did break a rule, which was the one regarding civilian's lives. Let me address them. The mission in which he started the riot. Hatred, anger. All the civilians involved in the riot had these feelings. All Ezio did was give them an opportunity to vent this rage; he did not influence, he did not convince, he simply gave them a chance. Almost certainly many civilians turned down the offer; it just wasn't of course shown.

The second one would of course be the explosion and 'gassing' of the civilians in Cappacodia. Well, even though it seems obvious now, in the 16th century Ezio would not be aware of what would have happened. He did not know that an explosion causes fire, fire causes smoke, smoke will remain in an enclosed space and large amounts of smoke will suffocate and damage. He could not have known that, in that time period. You mention that it must have ruined a lot of those people's lives, well, that isn't against the creed.

As I said at the beginning, Ezio has never breached the creed. He has never killed civilians intentionally. Nobody said he was a kind man, nobody said he was on the good side.

He is an assassin, he gets the job done, within the boundaries of the creed.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Riften:
Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it.

But the Creed isn't about fighting the Templars at all cost. Ezio is breaking the Creed, the very ideals that hold the Assassins together and is supposed to be what they stand for, by his actions in ACR.

Riften
12-03-2011, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Riften:
Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it.

But the Creed isn't about fighting the Templars at all cost. Ezio is breaking the Creed, the very ideals that hold the Assassins together and is supposed to be what they stand for, by his actions in ACR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read Isaacs post.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 09:04 AM
Isaac, while Ezio never goes out to purposefully kill an innocent, he also doesn't seem to care if they end up as collateral damage and will happy use them to get what he wants. To me this is against the first rule and the third. The first shouldn't be taken as literal, if it's literal then it's ok to club them to death? The third because in his killing and ruining of lives, he is compromising the Brotherhood by making people hate them. The Assassins appear to have a pretty open presence in Constantinople, what with all the dens and gang brawls in the streets with the Templars. So if the public is angry at them, they can get attacked.

RzaRecta357
12-03-2011, 09:04 AM
See and this is why brotherhood really ruins it.

He goes from an assassin kid that would do anything to a robinhood then back to an assassin.


The people that complain and felt nothing as they said are the ones that love his robinhood story. He isn't Robinhood. Assassin's ARE NOT GOOD GUYS.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Riften:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.
If you felt no connection to Ezio or Altair, I suggest leaving the series.

Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh don't worry buddy I have. And just to add Altair has been one of my favourite video game characters ever. I was expecting to tear up or even cry at the end of Revelations, but nooooooooo.

You don't create a character, and then change his face or his voice.

Ezio - He isn't even Ezio. Has the face of a monkey.
Altair - Different face and voice. Have no connection to his AC1 appearance.
Desmond - Totally different guy. I'm constantly asking myself if he is actually Desmond.

Been a fan from the very beginning, I'm surprised at how easy it was to leave.

I'm only here on the forums to see if people shared my views.

Oh well, it isn't my loss anyway. I'm saving money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And all this "Asssassin's were never good guys" is just BS. They have always been presented as good guys, even by the game and by the creators.

Your sudden change in saying that just goes to show how messed up the storyline is.

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Isaac, while Ezio never goes out to purposefully kill an innocent, he also doesn't seem to care if they end up as collateral damage and will happy use them to get what he wants. To me this is against the first rule and the third. The third because in his killing and ruining of lives, he is compromising the Brotherhood by making people hate them. The Assassins appear to have a pretty open presence in Constantinople, what with all the dens and gang brawls in the streets with the Templars. So if the public is angry at them, they can get attacked.
Hm.. I see your point, but I do not believe he is compromising the brotherhood. What you've mention is very indirect, and it doesn't really work like that. The assassins do not care about civilians, and couldn't care less if the civilians hated them horribly. It would only effect them if the civilians were to find out secrets from the assassins and tell the templars.

Again, the assassin's aren't kind. They quite frankly shouldn't have to care if they ruin civilian's lives, only if they end them.

Riften
12-03-2011, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Riften:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.
If you felt no connection to Ezio or Altair, I suggest leaving the series.

Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh don't worry buddy I have.

Been a fan from the very beginning, I'm surprised at how easy it was to leave.

I'm only here on the forums to see if people shared my views.

Oh well, it isn't my loss anyway. I'm saving money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And all this "Asssassin's were never good guys" is just BS. They have always been presented as good guys, even by the game and by the creators.

Your sudden change in saying that just goes to show how messed up the storyline is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My sudden change? Sorry bud but I never seen the Assassins as good guys, I bet you see the Templars as the bad guys huh?

Ugh...so black and white.

EDIT:So you are on a forum of a game series you don't like...to share your views and opinions?

*Sigh*

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Riften:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Riften:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.
If you felt no connection to Ezio or Altair, I suggest leaving the series.

Also, last time I checked, the assassins were never really "Good"

At least for me anyway. From what I've seen, if the Templars are doing something/want something, the assassins will stop it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh don't worry buddy I have.

Been a fan from the very beginning, I'm surprised at how easy it was to leave.

I'm only here on the forums to see if people shared my views.

Oh well, it isn't my loss anyway. I'm saving money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And all this "Asssassin's were never good guys" is just BS. They have always been presented as good guys, even by the game and by the creators.

Your sudden change in saying that just goes to show how messed up the storyline is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My sudden change? Sorry bud but I never seen the Assassins as good guys, I bet you see the Templars as the bad guys huh?

Ugh...so black and white. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually see the templars as more good guys than bad now thanks to Revelations.

Which... shouldn't happen, right?

EDIT: Yes. Are you going to stop me? LOL

At least I'm not a troll. I'm only here to see if people share my opinions too. Relax dude >_>

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 09:16 AM
Again, there's no good guys or bad guys. Sorry for having to use this as an example, but:
WWII. Germany thought they were good guys, thought the english were bad guys. English thought they were good guys, thought Germany was the bad guys.

RzaRecta357
12-03-2011, 09:18 AM
Dude. They murder people. They have always never claimed to be good. It's all a grey thing. If they had to press a button that murdered 10000 innocents to stop the templars from getting a P.O.E then they would do it in a heartbeat I'm sure.

Again, Brotherhood sucked because it made him into a Robinhood and made the Assassin's seem like a mary band of men.

They murder, they steal and rob to further their gains.

Hell, in AC2...The main Assassin's are a soldier whose probably killed tons of innocents, a thief who is the most notorious thief around and the leader of the *****s. The biggest *****.

Honestly, you see them as good guys?

ace3001
12-03-2011, 09:19 AM
"The life of an Assassin is pain. You suffer it. You inflict it. You watch it happen with the hope that you can help it disappear in time. Terrible irony." - Ezio tells Shao Jun in Embers.

The main thing about the Assassins is that they fight for what they consider the greater good. The whole killing innocent people thing is pretty much loaded. After all, all the guards that Altair and Ezio (and even Desmond and Lucy at the end of AC2) kill in the games are just doing their job.

While you bring up valid points, the fact remains that the Assassins have never really cared much about collateral damage. They are not your usual textbook "good guys". They're pretty much grey matter, so to speak.

The only difference between Templars and Assassins are that Templars want all control to themselves. ie. They're pretty much control freaks. But other than that, both Assassins and Templars have one goal. Achieve peace, no matter the cost. The Assassins are just ready to take a back seat once that happens, whereas the Templars want to retain absolute control.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 09:19 AM
But they go on about upholding freedom and liberty. These things can't happen if at any moment your life could be ended or ruined by an assassin's reckless actions. This will only drive more people to the Templar school of thought as the Templars promise stability and security.

albertwesker22
12-03-2011, 09:20 AM
The assassins do not care about civilians, and couldn't care less if the civilians hated them horribly. It would only effect them if the civilians were to find out secrets from the assassins and tell the templars.

Again, the assassin's aren't kind. They quite frankly shouldn't have to care if they ruin civilian's lives, only if they end them.

That is complete crap. The Assassins do care about Civilians. Have you even watched Embers? Ezio says that the Assassins have a love of people and cultures.

When Shao Jun asks about the order, Ezio says just that. I can understand why Ezio did what he did in ACR. But saying that the Assassins don't care about civilians is rubbish.

RzaRecta357
12-03-2011, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
But they go on about upholding freedom and liberty. These things can't happen if at any moment your life could be ended or ruined by an assassin's reckless actions. This will only drive more people to the Templar school of thought as the Templars promise stability and security.


Yeah and they'll do that by stopping the templars at any cost.

When they say that. They mean to be in direct conflict with the templars. Whom want the same goal but will use mind control and power to obtain it.

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 09:31 AM
As Rza mentioned, the defeat of the templars comes FAST before the well being of civilians. I did not mean they do not care, because it is human to do so, but I'm saying that the Creed has nothing against not caring. It says that the defeat of the templars comes before everything, except the survival of the brotherhood.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 09:38 AM
No the Creed does not mention the Templars. And there is more to the assassins than just the 3 rules in the creed and 'nothing is true, everything is permitted'. They are supposed to strive for freedom and liberty. They are doing a bad job of it by getting people killed. This will mean a decrease in freedom and liberties to prevent further killings. So they are only helping to further the Templar cause. It's like if terrorists bombed a train carrying an official they oppose, killing all the innocents inside and then say they did it to uphold freedom. Would you feel the assassins promote freedom when they don't care if you die as long as they get back at the Templars. That doesn't make them freedom fighters, that makes them anarchists and sociopaths.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
No the Creed does not mention the Templars.

Indeed.

dxsxhxcx
12-03-2011, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Isaac500:
As Rza mentioned, the defeat of the templars comes FAST before the well being of civilians. I did not mean they do not care, because it is human to do so, but I'm saying that the Creed has nothing against not caring. It says that the defeat of the templars comes before everything, except the survival of the brotherhood.

they care about people because otherwise they wouldn't have the first tenet, that tenet is there to avoid collateral damage, rzarecta is wrong when he says that the assassins would kill 10000 innocents if this means stop the templars, because the first tenet says just the contrary, Altair is almost killed because he killed ONE innocent person in the beginning of AC1, I have no doubt that if Al Mualim wasn't a traitor he would've killed Altair after that, he spared his life because he had use for him since he was the most skilled assassin during that time...

Eregost
12-03-2011, 09:44 AM
Editted my last post, please read before replying.

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 09:48 AM
Fair enough. You're right.

Lurker178
12-03-2011, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Isaac500:

The second one would of course be the explosion and 'gassing' of the civilians in Cappacodia. Well, even though it seems obvious now, in the 16th century Ezio would not be aware of what would have happened. He did not know that an explosion causes fire, fire causes smoke, smoke will remain in an enclosed space and large amounts of smoke will suffocate and damage. He could not have known that, in that time period. You mention that it must have ruined a lot of those people's lives, well, that isn't against the creed.


Isaac, from all the times he's used bombs, he would know these things. Hell, anyone who's ever used gunpowder would know it's affects. Point is, even back then, people KNEW these things. People knew that explosions = fire just like people do now. People knew that fire, especially fire coming from gunpowder, creates smoke. Ezio should have very well known this, especially considering the fact that he's blown up dozens of Borgia/Templar towers before. Each time Ezio blows up a tower, you can see the smoke billowing from it.

And Ezio doesn't have enough common sense to know that smoke will remain in an enclosed place?

Eregost
12-03-2011, 09:53 AM
Not to mention that given Ezio's contact with the Apple and famous minds of the era, he should be smarter than the average Joe in the period.

Lurker178
12-03-2011, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Not to mention that given Ezio's contact with the Apple and famous minds of the era, he should be smarter than the average Joe in the period.

Let's not forget that he's a noble and knows how to read and write. One can infer that he would have probably read a book somewhere about the Siege of Constantinople or the Battle of Chastillon, which are both famous battles that included the use of gunpowder.

LordWolv
12-03-2011, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Lurker178:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Isaac500:

The second one would of course be the explosion and 'gassing' of the civilians in Cappacodia. Well, even though it seems obvious now, in the 16th century Ezio would not be aware of what would have happened. He did not know that an explosion causes fire, fire causes smoke, smoke will remain in an enclosed space and large amounts of smoke will suffocate and damage. He could not have known that, in that time period. You mention that it must have ruined a lot of those people's lives, well, that isn't against the creed.


Isaac, from all the times he's used bombs, he would know these things. Hell, anyone who's ever used gunpowder would know it's affects. Point is, even back then, people KNEW these things. People knew that explosions = fire just like people do now. People knew that fire, especially fire coming from gunpowder, creates smoke. Ezio should have very well known this, especially considering the fact that he's blown up dozens of Borgia/Templar towers before. Each time Ezio blows up a tower, you can see the smoke billowing from it.

And Ezio doesn't have enough common sense to know that smoke will remain in an enclosed place? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But would he have known that smoke can damage the body via inhaling?

gharlazufarc
12-03-2011, 10:08 AM
Regarding to memory 1 sequence 4 you could get Sophia's delivery WITHOUT knocking/killing anyone.

About his morality well do you still remember his speech in AC2 when the crowd are going to burn Savonarola alive?
Ezio said no one should die in such pain so he stabbed Savonarola's throat.
But in ACR the assassins use greek fire (in den defense) even Ezio himself sets fire to the ships in the harbour.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by gharlazufarc:
Regarding to memory 1 sequence 4 you could get Sophia's delivery WITHOUT knocking/killing anyone.

About his morality well do you still remember his speech in AC2 when the crowd are going to burn Savonarola alive?
Ezio said no one should die in such pain so he stabbed Savonarola's throat.
But in ACR the assassins use greek fire (in den defense) even Ezio himself sets fire to the ships in the harbour.

Excellent point. I really don't see how anyone can defend Ezio's actions, he is a hypocrite.

GAF117
12-03-2011, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:

> In Sequence 7 Memory 4, Ezio blows up the gunpowder in Cappadocia and as a result kills many innocents yet again, if not from the fire then from the smoke, and again those who survive would have had their livelihoods ruined. He destroyed the gunpowder just to stop the Templars from having it, not to save lives that could have been lost if the Templars possessed it otherwise he would not have been so reckless.



You guys do know that Cappadocia was a templar outpost and that barely anyone there was an innocent, even the ones marked as civilians, right?

Eregost
12-03-2011, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by leage:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:

> In Sequence 7 Memory 4, Ezio blows up the gunpowder in Cappadocia and as a result kills many innocents yet again, if not from the fire then from the smoke, and again those who survive would have had their livelihoods ruined. He destroyed the gunpowder just to stop the Templars from having it, not to save lives that could have been lost if the Templars possessed it otherwise he would not have been so reckless.



You guys do know that Cappadocia was a templar outpost and that barely anyone there was an innocent, even the ones marked as civilians, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if that was the case, being a Templar does not mean you automatically deserve a painful death.

However I don't believe they were all Templars otherwise Ezio would never have got in so easily.

GAF117
12-03-2011, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leage:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:

> In Sequence 7 Memory 4, Ezio blows up the gunpowder in Cappadocia and as a result kills many innocents yet again, if not from the fire then from the smoke, and again those who survive would have had their livelihoods ruined. He destroyed the gunpowder just to stop the Templars from having it, not to save lives that could have been lost if the Templars possessed it otherwise he would not have been so reckless.



You guys do know that Cappadocia was a templar outpost and that barely anyone there was an innocent, even the ones marked as civilians, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if that was the case, being a Templar does not mean you automatically deserve a painful death. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either way, seeing that the point of the explosion was mainly to lure Manuel out of his hideout, either Ezio didn't care if the Templars inside Cappadocia died or maybe we couldn't foresee that consequences that came out off the explosion would be that devastating, seeing has he is not perfect.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Isaac500:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lurker178:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Isaac500:

The second one would of course be the explosion and 'gassing' of the civilians in Cappacodia. Well, even though it seems obvious now, in the 16th century Ezio would not be aware of what would have happened. He did not know that an explosion causes fire, fire causes smoke, smoke will remain in an enclosed space and large amounts of smoke will suffocate and damage. He could not have known that, in that time period. You mention that it must have ruined a lot of those people's lives, well, that isn't against the creed.


Isaac, from all the times he's used bombs, he would know these things. Hell, anyone who's ever used gunpowder would know it's affects. Point is, even back then, people KNEW these things. People knew that explosions = fire just like people do now. People knew that fire, especially fire coming from gunpowder, creates smoke. Ezio should have very well known this, especially considering the fact that he's blown up dozens of Borgia/Templar towers before. Each time Ezio blows up a tower, you can see the smoke billowing from it.

And Ezio doesn't have enough common sense to know that smoke will remain in an enclosed place? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But would he have known that smoke can damage the body via inhaling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like to believe so. I mean when he throws a smoke bomb, the victims choke, so he should have at least a little amount of knowledge in that.

Plus he was using bombs at the time, and he used Greek Fire to set the entire ships in flames just before he blew up the gunpowder in Cappodocia.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Isaac500:
But would he have known that smoke can damage the body via inhaling?
He would have. However, I sincerely doubt he could've known beforehand that an explosion of that size would cause such a build up of smoke inside a cavern that size.

The laws of physics describing such a thing didn't exist by then. In fact, nobody had even properly worked anything out regarding thermodynamics. Ezio probably facepalmed himself afterwards, but especially considering how he himself suffered quite much from the smoke inhalation, I sincerely doubt he foresaw even the slightest problem.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Riften:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Hey bro, there's a topic here, although I love the detail you have put into this.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...1069024/m/4521014569 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/4521014569)

And I agree. They ruined Ezio's character for me. I felt nothing for <span class="ev_code_WHITE">his death</span> because of it. I just felt no connection to him.

Nor to Desmond. Nor to Altair.

How the Hell can I relate to them if they change their character so much?

Total disappointment.
If you felt no connection to Ezio or Altair, I suggest leaving the series.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^ that ^ sums up what I was going to say.

To the OP,
The Creed of the Assassins isn't that they're Godly - they murder people to attain their goals.
They're basically fighting for humanities freedom from enslavement, not the moral compass of the globe to shift to Judeo Christianity or anything.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 11:21 AM
What does Christianity have to do with this? Morals don't come from religion. And the point is Ezio is breaking the creed on numerous occassions as pointed out in this thread and countless others. He is hypocrital and selfish in ACR. He breaks all three rules.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
What does Christianity have to do with this? Morals don't come from religion. And the point is Ezio is breaking the creed on numerous occassions as pointed out in this thread and countless others. He is hypocrital and selfish in ACR. He breaks all three rules.
No he doesn't. You should reread the tenets and replay the game.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
What does Christianity have to do with this? Morals don't come from religion. And the point is Ezio is breaking the creed on numerous occassions as pointed out in this thread and countless others. He is hypocrital and selfish in ACR. He breaks all three rules.
No he doesn't. You should reread the tenets and replay the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right back at you.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
What does Christianity have to do with this? Morals don't come from religion. And the point is Ezio is breaking the creed on numerous occassions as pointed out in this thread and countless others. He is hypocrital and selfish in ACR. He breaks all three rules.
No he doesn't. You should reread the tenets and replay the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right back at you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He never (intentionally) killed innocents, he never broke his cover and he never compromised the brotherhood.

Dagio12
12-03-2011, 11:34 AM
As far as cappodocia goes, like leage said, it was a templar outpost, almost everyone there was affiliated with the Templars or enslaved to them. Destroying the gun powder was something Ezio believed was very important to do, as this could prevent something much larger in the end and help back the Templars up a few steps. At the end of the day, there is a war going on, both sides are going to do bad and good things to help advance THERE cause because they believe they are doing it for the right reasons. Cappodocia was underground, however if you look up, you can clearly see the sun shining through leading me to believe that the smoke, although harmful, would eventually rise out and not sit there and kill everyone. It never even showed any civilians dying. If anything if drew them out of the caves and away from the Templar city. It may have been harmful to there health, but I dont think Ezio DIDNT care about them and didnt care if they died.

The Sofia ship quest... well, when I played that mission, I didnt kill any guards I went in and out undetected.

The riot - This one is on the fence with me, however, I do believe that Ezio only showed the people that they didnt have to sit around, that they could stand up for what they believed. He never forced anyone to go into combat, just start rioting to cause a distraction. It was the people choice to use that riot to engage in combat. The guards themselves could have easily just tried to calm the citizens down instead of running out and just fighting them. At that point, Ezio tried to defend the citizens as best he could and only suffered minor casualties. It could have gone smoother, but things dont always go that way.

blowing up the ships - In order for him to escape Constantinople at this stage in the game, he needed to destroy the ships. He had basically a fleet of Templars that would have chased and killed him down had he not. He used the greek fire to burn the ships, not set people on fire (the guards are more then capable of jumping ship into the water). Had he not done so, he could have had a fleet of ships after him, which is something he couldnt afford to bargain with.


Some of the points made in OP are fair, but most are up to interpretation IMO. The Assassins are not really "good, robinhood" type characters ( not to say that they are bad guys, just defenders of a greater purpose), and will do what needs to be done for the greater good and for the freedom of mankind, which really only makes them a little better then Templars... but they are not saints. The story in Revelations and most of the dialog by Ezio point him out to care about the people and the citizens a lot more then some of the missions at face value do, but drastic times call for drastic measures sometimes.

Another thing about Revelations IMO, was that some of these thoughts were suppose to be conjured. You ( and even Ezio) are suppose to question what you are doing, and struggle with the fact that sometimes people get hurt and some die that shouldnt. Thats what makes this war so crazy, and what makes Ezio so human sometimes. Situation dont always have an easy way out, or a perfect plan where nobody gets hurt ( that only happens in the movies... lol). This struggle.. and these decisions and consequences are kind of what makes this story and some of these characters more believable to me.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 11:37 AM
He does acts that he knows will kill innocents and he does them intentionally.

The assassins operate openly, they have gangbrawls in the streets, they openly launch an invasion of the armoury. I fail to see how this is hiding.

He was handed over the Masyaf keys to the Templars for a love interest. This is compromising the Brotherhood. His selfish reckless acts lead to a lot of innocent people getting hurt or killed and the public if given the ammunition can turn on the assassins or side with the Templars.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
What does Christianity have to do with this? Morals don't come from religion. And the point is Ezio is breaking the creed on numerous occassions as pointed out in this thread and countless others. He is hypocrital and selfish in ACR. He breaks all three rules.

Christianity has nothing to do with this (and I don't want to debate on the 2nd point of where morals are derived from).
I was using it as an example of what the Assassins Order is not - what we don't have to expect from Ezio or any other Assassin.

I used it only to make a point on morality.

This was stated by Ezio earlier:
"To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization.
To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

So while the goals of the Order are what they are, bad things can and do result from their actions /mistakes, etc. and they have to live with whatever they are.

PS. you do realize this is just a game, don't you?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Eregost
12-03-2011, 11:40 AM
SF2themax, Ezio could have left Constantinople by land and got a ship from the nearest town as I pointed out in the OP.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 11:42 AM
Oh how look, the "It's just a game" comeback.

Funny how those who are for Ezio's actions use that comeback.

lol

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
SF2themax, Ezio could have left Constantinople by land and got a ship from the nearest town as I pointed out in the OP.

He needed to get rid of the arsenal, not just leave it there for more templars to swarm in and retrieve it.
He obviously felt he needed to keep it out of everyone's hands.
For all he knew, everyone COULD escape and he may not have known the damage it would cause.

I dont' recall seeing everyone dead? Just fleeing unless someone else caught that?

Back in the 50's- 60's people commonly smoked cigarettes without knowing all the damage they caused too.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Oh how look, the "It's just a game" comeback.

Funny how those who are for Ezio's actions use that comeback.

lol

Why laugh? You're obviously an AC hater from the posts I've seen around here lately, you're on here continually making negative posts to show your disdain of it. We get it.

But you have no room to laugh at others.

His post was sounding more like he was all personally hurt and infuriated at a fictitious character or flaw in the GAME series.

Just thought the point should be made that this IS just a game.
If you don't enjoy it and hate the characters, Fine. Move on to whatever you like best and enjoy it.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Oh how look, the "It's just a game" comeback.

Funny how those who are for Ezio's actions use that comeback.

lol

Why laugh? You're obviously an AC hater from the posts I've seen around here lately, you're on here continually making negative posts to show your disdain of it. We get it.

So you have no room to laugh at others.

His post was sounding more like he was all personally hurt and infuriated at a fictitious character or flaw in the GAME series.

Just thought the point should be made that this IS just a game.
If you don't enjoy it and hate the characters, Fine. Move on to whatever you like best and enjoy it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gharlazufarc
12-03-2011, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
No he doesn't. You should reread the tenets and replay the game.

Yes, he did break the tenets, mostly the "hiding in plain sight" one. A recent example, Ezio ordered Yusuf to protect Sofia, a more personal request that doesn't support the Assassin's cause, which result in Yusuf's death, thus compromising the brotherhood.

But I think by the time Altair become The Mentor the Assassins are no longer bound to the tenets.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Oh how look, the "It's just a game" comeback.

Funny how those who are for Ezio's actions use that comeback.

lol

Why laugh? You're obviously an AC hater from the posts I've seen around here lately, you're on here continually making negative posts to show your disdain of it. We get it.

But you have no room to laugh at others.

His post was sounding more like he was all personally hurt and infuriated at a fictitious character or flaw in the GAME series.

Just thought the point should be made that this IS just a game.
If you don't enjoy it and hate the characters, Fine. Move on to whatever you like best and enjoy it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AC hater? LOL

Read my posts. I said I've been a fan since the VERY BEGINNING. I've brought all their main titles.

What? Can't a fan be disappointed in a series he used to call his favourite series?

Stop assuming, I've mentioned no characters I've hated, and I've not even mentioned I hate AC. I'm just really disappointed, and I have the right to be.

And I wasn't laughing at you. That's just mean.

The lol was just to be a bit less serious.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
He does acts that he knows will kill innocents and he does them intentionally.

The assassins operate openly, they have gangbrawls in the streets, they openly launch an invasion of the armoury. I fail to see how this is hiding.

He was handed over the Masyaf keys to the Templars for a love interest. This is compromising the Brotherhood. His selfish reckless acts lead to a lot of innocent people getting hurt or killed and the public if given the ammunition can turn on the assassins or side with the Templars.
Operating openly is precisely what the second tenet demands. They're not supposed to just hide, they're supposed to "Hide in plain sight". That means that they should be in the open, without anyone suspecting just what their intentions are. By acting like they were simply some kind of "gang" in Constantinople, they prevented people from suspecting their true motives, which in turn has them abide the third tenet as well.

He handed over the keys to protect an innocent. That's in line with the first tenet. It doesn't compromise the brotherhood either, as giving Ahmed the keys did no harm to the brotherhood itself.

Most of these "selfish reckless acts" you're talking about were things he either mostly stimulated, not caused and certainly not forced, or things that he, with his knowledge of physics, could not have foreseen the consequences of.

PhiIs1618033
12-03-2011, 12:07 PM
You people should really re-play AC1 and pay close attention to the story.
Also, read the novel Alamut.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:10 PM
So it's ok to get Yusuf killed and give the keys to the Templars (Ezio did not know if he would be able to get them back) to save 1 life but then it's also ok to ruin/kill 100s of lives to accomplish a goal? These arguments are as hypocritical as Ezio.

Also even if miraculously no one died in Cappadocia, they would have had their property destroyed/damaged, and could well end up with serious lung health issues leading to pain/death in the future. One theory is that this is what causes Ezio to die.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:11 PM
As I recall missions, most of what the assassinations done in plain sight were mainly bcuz the guards were attacking you first and you couldn't avoid the open fight.
Any other time you use the hidden blade or poison & walk away undetected.

Anything on a rooftop while in the open, is still hidden bcuz people aren't up there or noticing who's up there.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
So it's ok to get Yusuf killed and give the keys to the Templars (Ezio did not know if he would be able to get them back) to save 1 life but then it's also ok to ruin/kill 100s of lives to accomplish a goal? These arguments are as hypocritical as Ezio.

Now it's Ezio's fault for Yusuf? Yusuf had been busy there for a long time, long before Ezio showed up, you think they didn't know who he was until then?

Sorry but you're arguments really fail here.
This is a war and casualties happen on both sides. The Templars were obviously casing Sofia's shop & knew who was around there - including her, how is that Ezio's fault while he carries on his mission to get the keys before the Templars do?

Not hypocritical at all.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
So it's ok to get Yusuf killed and give the keys to the Templars (Ezio did not know if he would be able to get them back) to save 1 life but then it's also ok to ruin/kill 100s of lives to accomplish a goal? These arguments are as hypocritical as Ezio.
He didn't get Yusuf killed. Yusuf acted on Ezio's request to protect Sofia. Ezio didn't even know that she would actually come under attack, nor does ordering, let alone requesting, a friend to protect her after which this friend gets killed break any tenet of the creed (as sending assassins on missions that carry a risk of getting killed which goes for y'know, Assassin missions in general, seeing as they're murderers and all that, is normal).

Yusuf was killed in the line of duty by Templars.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
Now it's Ezio's fault for Yusuf? Yusuf had been busy there for a long time, long before Ezio showed up, you think they didn't know who he was until then?

Sorry but you're arguments really fail here.
This is a war and casualties happen on both sides. The Templars were obviously casing Sofia's shop & knew who was around there - including her, how is that Ezio's fault while he carries on his mission to get the keys before the Templars do?

Not hypocritical at all.

No, it's Ezio's fault because Ezio asked Yusuf to protect Sophia and he wouldn't have got killed if he wasn't there. This was a personal request due to Ezio's relationship with Sophia. Yusuf could have been doing something more productive to further the Assassins' influence. As a result, Yusuf dies and this is a compromisation of the Brotherhood.

You cannot defend Ezio protecting Sophia and then say it's ok for him to use civilians and get them caught up as collateral damage.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
Now it's Ezio's fault for Yusuf? Yusuf had been busy there for a long time, long before Ezio showed up, you think they didn't know who he was until then?

Sorry but you're arguments really fail here.
This is a war and casualties happen on both sides. The Templars were obviously casing Sofia's shop & knew who was around there - including her, how is that Ezio's fault while he carries on his mission to get the keys before the Templars do?

Not hypocritical at all.

No, it's Ezio's fault because Ezio asked Yusuf to protect Sophia and he wouldn't have got killed if he wasn't there. This was a personal request due to Ezio's relationship with Sophia. Yusuf could have been doing something more productive to further the Assassin's influence. As a result, Yusuf dies and this is a compromisation of the Brotherhood.

You cannot defend Ezio protecting Sophia and then say it's ok for him to use civilians and get them caught up as collateral damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In that case it's also Ezio's fault that any assassin in the Italian order died while he was Il Mentore and it's Williams fault that Lucy is dead.

That's not how it works smartass. Those people died doing their duty. Being an assassin means following orders that could potentially get you killed. They're not going to be sent on missions where there's no possibility of dying. They're Assassins for Christ's sake, not bartenders.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:23 PM
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. Yusuf didn't die in the line of duty. He died protecting someone Ezio has a relationship with because he accepted a personal selfish request. This is different from sending someone out to do a task for the Brotherhood. This was just for Ezio's own selfish reasons.

Why is Yusuf protecting Sophia instead of say all the civies that get caught up as collateral due to Ezio's actions? Why is Sophia worth more than anyone else? Because Ezio likes her.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
Now it's Ezio's fault for Yusuf? Yusuf had been busy there for a long time, long before Ezio showed up, you think they didn't know who he was until then?

Sorry but you're arguments really fail here.
This is a war and casualties happen on both sides. The Templars were obviously casing Sofia's shop & knew who was around there - including her, how is that Ezio's fault while he carries on his mission to get the keys before the Templars do?

Not hypocritical at all.

No, it's Ezio's fault because Ezio asked Yusuf to protect Sophia and he wouldn't have got killed if he wasn't there. This was a personal request due to Ezio's relationship with Sophia. Yusuf could have been doing something more productive to further the Assassins' influence. As a result, Yusuf dies and this is a compromisation of the Brotherhood.

You cannot defend Ezio protecting Sophia and then say it's ok for him to use civilians and get them caught up as collateral damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They protect All kinds of civilians on a daily basis as a normal activity!!

According to you, any Leader of any group or military is responsible for "killing" their people if they give them a mission to protect anyone or anything.

No, it means Yusuf failed when the bad guys got the upper hand on him in some way.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. Yusuf didn't die in the line of duty. He died protecting someone Ezio has a relationship with because he accepted a personal selfish request. This is different from sending someone out to do a task for the Brotherhood. This was just for Ezio's own selfish reasons.

She was an innocent civilian first and foremost.
She was also helping the Assassin Order without even realizing it - she NEEDED protection.

Yusuf failed unfortunately and lost his life.
Ezio would be a killer if he didn't put any Assassins in charge of protecting her -
it's the other way around.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. Yusuf didn't die in the line of duty. He died protecting someone Ezio has a relationship with because he accepted a personal selfish request. This is different from sending someone out to do a task for the Brotherhood. This was just for Ezio's own selfish reasons.

Why is Yusuf protecting Sophia instead of say all the civies that get caught up as collateral due to Ezio's actions? Why is Sophia worth more than anyone else? Because Ezio likes her.
So it's evil now to ask a friend to protect someone you care about?

Besides, Ezio didn't know Sofia was going to be in so much danger a Master Assassin wouldn't be able to handle it. Yusuf was protecting her because he was being a good friend. As you said Ezio didn't order him to do it, he asked him and he accepted out of friendship.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:33 PM
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.

winterelf86
12-03-2011, 12:34 PM
OMG!!! There's such a thing as antiheroes? Who woulda thunk it. I think its already been said but Ezio isn't a good guy....Assassin's Creed isn't a black and white type of game. The Assassins aren't sweet, butterfly loving people with unicorns and rainbows around them. If you don't like it then this isn't the game or story for you.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.
What in god's name are you talking about? Last time I checked Yusuf =/= the brotherhood. Yusuf was protecting a civilian from Templars at Ezio's request. That's dying doing your duty in my book.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by winterelf86:
OMG!!! There's such a thing as antiheroes? Who woulda thunk it. I think its already been said but Ezio isn't a good guy....Assassin's Creed isn't a black and white type of game. The Assassins aren't sweet, butterfly loving people with unicorns and rainbows around them. If you don't like it then this isn't the game or story for you.

What I don't like about it is that it goes against what the order teaches. The assassins should follow what they preach.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.
What in god's name are you talking about? Last time I checked Yusuf =/= the brotherhood. Yusuf was protecting a civilian from Templars at Ezio's request. That's dying doing your duty in my book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yusuf could have been doing a more productive activity and protecting more people than just Sophia. Sophia took precedence not because of the Brotherhood's task, but because of her romantic relationship with Ezio.

gharlazufarc
12-03-2011, 12:40 PM
The sad thing is Yusuf's death doesn't change anything because he failed to protect Sofia. When I saw his body at Sofia's shop I became so angry because they killed my favorite character and yet Ezio showed little grievance to him.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.
What in god's name are you talking about? Last time I checked Yusuf =/= the brotherhood. Yusuf was protecting a civilian from Templars at Ezio's request. That's dying doing your duty in my book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now just doing their jobs is compromising them & everyone around them - therefore, they're all evil hypocrites lol

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.
What in god's name are you talking about? Last time I checked Yusuf =/= the brotherhood. Yusuf was protecting a civilian from Templars at Ezio's request. That's dying doing your duty in my book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yusuf could have been doing a more productive activity and protecting more people than just Sophia. Sophia took precedence not because of the Brotherhood's task, but because of her romantic relationship with Ezio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, he wouldn't. Thanks to Ezio all the dens were under Assassin control by then and their order had gained at least another 7 master assassins. Yusuf could easily leave his leadership tasks to them.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:43 PM
She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.

I guess with you it's all an Either/Or proposition; it can't be BOTH.

She's both a civie (who was helping their cause) AND a love interest -
2 good reasons to assign protection for her.

And since when is assigning protection for ANY innocent (love interest or not) evil or hypocritical? Assigning protection is a loving, caring thing to do. Period

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
It compromised the Brotherhood. Since Altair's reforms, you're allowed to have relationships but they shouldn't get in the way of your duty.

ProdiGurl stop talking about how Sophia was an innocent civie when you don't mind all the civies Ezio gets killed/hurt.

She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.
What in god's name are you talking about? Last time I checked Yusuf =/= the brotherhood. Yusuf was protecting a civilian from Templars at Ezio's request. That's dying doing your duty in my book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yusuf could have been doing a more productive activity and protecting more people than just Sophia. Sophia took precedence not because of the Brotherhood's task, but because of her romantic relationship with Ezio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, he wouldn't. Thanks to Ezio all the dens were under Assassin control by then and their order had gained at least another 7 master assassins. Yusuf could easily leave his leadership tasks to them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this. There was absolutely NOTHING more productive Yusuf could have been doing? This explanation might work for you but I cannot accept that and see it as a compromise.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.

I guess with you it's all an Either/Or proposition; it can't be BOTH.

She's both a civie (who was helping their cause) AND a love interest -
2 good reasons to assign protection for her.

And since when is assigning protection for ANY innocent (love interest or not) evil or hypocritical? Assigning protection is a loving, caring thing to do. Period </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh.

It's hypocritical because he only assigned protection to her because she is his love interest, nothing to do with her being a civie. Otherwise he would also be sure to protect civies during his missions but he doesn't and gets a lot of them hurt/killed.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
How do you know this. There was absolutely NOTHING more productive Yusuf could have been doing? This explanation might work for you but I cannot accept that and see it as a compromise.
You do realize that Ezio didn't actually ask that Yusuf himself had to protect Sofia, right? Just that he make sure she was safe, which could easily have meant him sending some of his guys to protect her. In fact, originally he might've actually done that. He might only have come after receiving a message that she was in danger.

And as I said, the city was mostly under Assassin control by then. Yusuf would've had relatively little to do.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.

I guess with you it's all an Either/Or proposition; it can't be BOTH.

She's both a civie (who was helping their cause) AND a love interest -
2 good reasons to assign protection for her.

And since when is assigning protection for ANY innocent (love interest or not) evil or hypocritical? Assigning protection is a loving, caring thing to do. Period </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh.

It's hypocritical because he only assigned protection to her because she is his love interest, nothing to do with her being a civie. Otherwise he would also be sure to protect civies during his missions but he doesn't and gets a lot of them hurt/killed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SHE WAS ALSO THE ONLY ONE HELPING HIM GET THE BOOKS - ERGO, THE ALTAIR KEYS HE NEEDED.
That woman was helping their cause tremendously and therefore, she was strategic to their mission & cause.

She is NOT just a love interest. She is not just a civie.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">She was his love interest first and foremost. That's why he protected her, not cause she is an innocent civie.

I guess with you it's all an Either/Or proposition; it can't be BOTH.

She's both a civie (who was helping their cause) AND a love interest -
2 good reasons to assign protection for her.

And since when is assigning protection for ANY innocent (love interest or not) evil or hypocritical? Assigning protection is a loving, caring thing to do. Period </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh.

It's hypocritical because he only assigned protection to her because she is his love interest, nothing to do with her being a civie. Otherwise he would also be sure to protect civies during his missions but he doesn't and gets a lot of them hurt/killed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SHE WAS ALSO THE ONLY ONE HELPING HIM GET THE BOOKS - ERGO, THE ALTAIR KEYS HE NEEDED.
That woman was helping their cause tremendously and therefore, she was strategic to their mission & cause.

She is NOT just a love interest. She is not just a civie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He had all the keys at this stage. She was no longer needed.

And so you accept that Ezio doesn't follow the original tenants since he gets innocents killed as long as he can complete his mission?

gharlazufarc
12-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
SHE WAS ALSO THE ONLY ONE HELPING HIM GET THE BOOKS - ERGO, THE ALTAIR KEYS HE NEEDED.
That woman was helping their cause tremendously and therefore, she was strategic to their mission & cause.

She is NOT just a love interest. She is not just a civie.

She no longer have any use to the Assassins because Ezio had obtained the final key.

-edit-
wow my post was beaten http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

LightRey
12-03-2011, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
He had all the keys at this stage. She was no longer needed.

And so you accept that Ezio doesn't follow the original tenants since he gets innocents killed?
-___-
No, you're not getting it. If an Assassin knows an innocent individual is potentially in danger of being killed, by Templars no less, it's basically his duty to protect that person.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by gharlazufarc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
SHE WAS ALSO THE ONLY ONE HELPING HIM GET THE BOOKS - ERGO, THE ALTAIR KEYS HE NEEDED.
That woman was helping their cause tremendously and therefore, she was strategic to their mission & cause.

She is NOT just a love interest. She is not just a civie.

She no longer have any use to the Assassins because Ezio had obtained the final key. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She still provided the strategic intel. that got them what they needed.
She therefore needed protection.

What part of this is so confusing? And even IF it were only that she was a love interest, what's so evil or hypocritical about a protection detail for her?
If Yusuf didn't get killed, I'm sure nobody would whine about it at all?

As it was, Ezio was Right, she DID need the protection - nobody expected Yusuf wouldn't succeed or whoever he would have delegated protection duty to.

Ezio was right and he did the right thing.
Crap happens - and it did.

I consider this argument grasping at straws

Eregost
12-03-2011, 01:02 PM
You know what the really sad thing is. The very first kill made in the series, a Templar guard with his back turned to you was criticised in the game because that guard din't need to be killed to achieve the objective. It could have made things harder but that's how the creed works.

And now it's ok to kill bucketloads of civies as long as you accomplish the objective. So instead of looking for the solution that presents the least amount of casualties, it is now a case of looking for the easiest way to complete a mission regardless of casualties.

This is completely against what this series stood for.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
You know what the really sad thing is. The very first kill made in the series, a Templar guard with his back turned to you was critised in the game because that guard din't need to be killed to achieve the objective. It could have made things harder but that's how the creed works.

And now it's ok to kill bucketloads of civies as long as you accomplish the objective. So instead of looking for the solution that presents the least amount of casualties, it is now a case of looking for the easiest way to complete a mission regardless of casualties.

This is completely against what this series stood for.
Eh, no. You're completely wrong there. The first kill, which was the actual kill Altaïr was criticized for, was an old man in the Temple. He was no guard. In fact, he probably wasn't even a Templar, just some guy who was in the way. That was the innocent Altaïr killed.

It's not ok to kill bucketloads of civilians as long as you accomplish your objectives. If you hadn't noticed, killing civilians still causes desynch, which is a very strong indication that at no point in ACR did Ezio intend to kill civilians or get them killed.

The riot was a choice made by the civilians that took part in it. Ezio didn't force them, he just gave them an opportunity and they took it.

The fire in Cappadocia had consequences Ezio, with his knowledge of physics, could not have foreseen.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 01:15 PM
Ezio could have attempted to enter the arsenal through other means. He didn't even look for another way, he took the easiest, fastest way he could see which he knew would get people killed and wounded.

In Cappadocia I don't buy that Ezio was too stupid to realise an explosion of that magnitude would result in a lot of smoke which would be trapped in the enclosed space and people can't breath in smoke. And again he took the easiest solution he could see without stopping to consider casualties or an alternative.

Can we also consider the other points raised in the OP instead of just these two. For example the stealing game Ezio had with the pickpocket. Justify this.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Ezio could have attempted to enter the arsenal through other means. He didn't even look for another way, he took the easiest, fastest way he could see which he knew would get people killed and wounded.

In Cappadocia I don't buy that Ezio was too stupid to realise an explosion of that magnitude would result in a lot of smoke which would be trapped in the enclosed space and people can't breath in smoke. And again he took the easiest solution he could see without stopping to consider casualties or an alternative.

Can we also consider the other points raised in the OP instead of just these two. For example the stealing game Ezio had with the pickpocket. Justify this.
Actually, he was pretty clear on the matter that it was the only way that would get him in there quickly enough. As you might've noticed while playing the game, the gate really is the only way to get in and since he had to spy on Manuel and Tarik, he had to get in there fast.

You're really ignorant if you think that. During those days there wasn't such a thing as a "fire department" that went by schools to inform little children about fire safety. Not to mention that the laws of thermodynamics were unknown. Nobody in the world would have known whether such a cavern would have enough ventilation to vent all that smoke.

Eh, pickpocketing is part of what the Assassins do. They just don't steal from the poor.

I'm not saying Ezio was a "good guy". He obviously wasn't. He was an Assassin, which means he was a murderer. However, that doesn't mean that he went against the creed.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 01:39 PM
Ezio could have attempted to enter the arsenal through other means

Yep and Ezio could just sit inconspicuously on a bench in his hoodie the entire game just silently whipping poison darts at passing guards too -
it makes for a REAL snore-fest of a game.

Like I said, this is a GAME - that shouldn't be forgotten here.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 01:43 PM
For example the stealing game Ezio had with the pickpocket. Justify this.

He's in a rich part of town and they do steal - they just want you to put your thieving skills to better use and he was using that lesson to recruit someone to the cause.
It's called a GAME -

Secondly, Ezio has a 'donation' button on the secondary weapon wheel and I use it alot.
If you feel guilty, whip a bunch of money in the streets.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh and ps. he goes around making their lives alot better by opening up the local shops & businesses for them - that costs him alot more money than they lost in that contest.

masterfenix2009
12-03-2011, 03:39 PM
1: Ezio took that risk because Ezio believed that man. The man obviously wanted redemption for what he did. Ezio saw that as a good thing for the creed.

2: Ezio was on a time constraint and needed to get in there fast. May I ask why you think knocking out minstrels is an evil thing? It is not like he murdered them. They still have their money, jobs, their LIVES.

3: Ummm....the assassins have ALWAYS disregarded the law. You know because they are ASSASSINS. Once again, knocking a guard out really isn't bad at all. You don't even have to knock the guards out. There are bombs you can use to distract them. That is what I did anyway.

4: That riot is a good thing. It empowered the people. It showed that they didn't have to put up with injustice. I doubt the guards will do anything abusive for a long time.

5: Are you sure the merchant would have just give it back?

6: Ezio investigated Tarik well enough to make a valid opinion. If Tarik wasn't so secretive and informed his superiors, he would have survived.

7: Yes, he is so evil for making someone work for an hour. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

8:Those were Byzantine ships. He killed Byzantines.

9:Ezio wouldn't realize the effect of gunpowder on an enclosed area.

10: He only stole a small amount of money and only people who could afford being stolen.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 03:42 PM
lol no those were not Byzantine ships. The military vessels were Ottoman and there would be a lot of civilian, diplomatic and trading vessels too. You can't pull the Templars card for this one.

It's too late in the day for me to form counter arguments to the other points, but thanks for addressing them all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LightRey
12-03-2011, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
lol no those were not Byzantine ships. The military vessels were Ottoman and there would be a lot of civilian, diplomatic and trading vessels too. You can't pull the Templars card for this one.

It's too late in the day for me to form counter arguments to the other points, but thanks for addressing them all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Eh, no you're wrong. First of all all the ships that were burned down were ships that were attacking Ezio. Second, if you'd paid a little more attention, you'd have seen that they were manned by Byzantines.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 03:50 PM
Ere, just admit it, you're jealous of Ezio.
lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Eregost
12-03-2011, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
lol no those were not Byzantine ships. The military vessels were Ottoman and there would be a lot of civilian, diplomatic and trading vessels too. You can't pull the Templars card for this one.

It's too late in the day for me to form counter arguments to the other points, but thanks for addressing them all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Eh, no you're wrong. First of all all the ships that were burned down were ships that were attacking Ezio. Second, if you'd paid a little more attention, you'd have seen that they were manned by Byzantines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? The ones Ezio boards have Ottomans on them. Having Constantinople overflowing with more Byzantines than Ottomans was pushing my suspension of belief to breaking point already but now the Ottomans tolerate the Byzantines having military vessels in their port? Where do the Byzantines find the money and resources to finance ships in the first place. Furthermore it was the Ottomans who are looking for Ezio and blockaded the port for that reason so surely they would be the ones manning the ships.

There were more ships burnt than just the ones attacking. Ezio jumps on the remains of smaller vessels.

Assassin_M
12-03-2011, 04:04 PM
THIS AGAIN ??

Ezio was not a saint, he is not perfect, and he is not a good guy.
He is the better Evil, for god`s sake he is an ASSASSIN, Remember Shaun`s conversation with Desmond in AC II about the Assassins being good guys ?
They are not good guys, Ezio is not a good guy, Altair wasnt a good guy.
yes, Ezio was a hypocrite, yes he was a mass Murderer and yes he was Homicidal.
and you know what ? I like it, Protagonists dont have to be goodie goodie Guys.
The way i see it, Ubisoft did a splendid job in delivering a complicated protagonist..

Eregost
12-03-2011, 04:08 PM
I'm not saying they need to be goodie two shoes. Show me where I have said that. I'm saying the game and mostly the fanbase should stop viewing them as such. I have no problem with your views as you accept that Ezio is a hypocrite, mass murderer and homicidal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif However I think Ubisoft could have portrayed this in a better way such as showing us the consequences of Ezio's reckless or morally dark actions.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
lol no those were not Byzantine ships. The military vessels were Ottoman and there would be a lot of civilian, diplomatic and trading vessels too. You can't pull the Templars card for this one.

It's too late in the day for me to form counter arguments to the other points, but thanks for addressing them all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Eh, no you're wrong. First of all all the ships that were burned down were ships that were attacking Ezio. Second, if you'd paid a little more attention, you'd have seen that they were manned by Byzantines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? The ones Ezio boards have Ottomans on them. Having Constantinople overflowing with more Byzantines than Ottomans was pushing my suspension of belief to breaking point already but now the Ottomans tolerate the Byzantines having military vessels in their port? Where do the Byzantines find the money and resources to finance ships in the first place. Furthermore it was the Ottomans who are looking for Ezio and blockaded the port for that reason so surely they would be the ones manning the ships.

There were more ships burnt than just the ones attacking. Ezio jumps on the remains of smaller vessels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only in the gameplay trailer are they Ottoman. In the game it can clearly be seen they're Byzantine when you're on the last ship. There you see Byzantines trying to douse the fires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then that is stupid. Very very stupid. It makes no sense at any level.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Well then that is stupid. Very very stupid. It makes no sense at any level.
I'm sorry I was mistaken. I'm not sure how I got the idea.

However, it wouldn't have mattered. Guards or soldiers, no matter their affiliation, are no innocents.

Eregost
12-03-2011, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
Well then that is stupid. Very very stupid. It makes no sense at any level.
I'm sorry I was mistaken. I'm not sure how I got the idea.

However, it wouldn't have mattered. Guards or soldiers, no matter their affiliation, are no innocents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol no. That is not true. And it wasn't just soilders docked in that port.

LightRey
12-03-2011, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
Well then that is stupid. Very very stupid. It makes no sense at any level.
I'm sorry I was mistaken. I'm not sure how I got the idea.

However, it wouldn't have mattered. Guards or soldiers, no matter their affiliation, are no innocents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol no. That is not true. And it wasn't just soilders docked in that port. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it is. As soldies follow orders unquestioningly, when they attack an assassin said assassin is allowed to kill them.
Besides, he didn't burn down the entire port. He burned down the ships that attacked him only, obviously. Had he burned down the whole port he'd have burned down his own ship.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2011, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
THIS AGAIN ??

Ezio was not a saint, he is not perfect, and he is not a good guy.
He is the better Evil, for god`s sake he is an ASSASSIN, Remember Shaun`s conversation with Desmond in AC II about the Assassins being good guys ?
They are not good guys, Ezio is not a good guy, Altair wasnt a good guy.
yes, Ezio was a hypocrite, yes he was a mass Murderer and yes he was Homicidal.
and you know what ? I like it, Protagonists dont have to be goodie goodie Guys.
The way i see it, Ubisoft did a splendid job in delivering a complicated protagonist..

I certainly don't view him as a 'good' guy, but I don't find him hypocritical -
My impression of the AC series is that they adlib things when they come up & try to stick to the creed as best as possible, wherever possible, but they view things on the scale of a 'greater good'.

The full creed they recite in AC2 & ACB is clear that they don't bind themselves w/ religious/moral constraints, so they can very easily choose a greater good and it may be a gray area where the creed is concerned. And I'd think they could try to make amends somehow to fix it later or help?

All in all, this is just a game and I don't demand that Ubi sacrifice great gameplay for some measely constraints the Protagonist has to keep to.
I like some variation and excitement & that to me would trump some rules.
But I just don't find that these arguments warrant Ezio as some horrible assassin model & a lame character.

NineteenHealer
12-03-2011, 10:32 PM
"We Work In The Dark To Serve The Light, We Are An Assassins" this means that the assassins do bad deeds to prevent evil deeds.

It's like killing Hitler to prevent millions of people to die

LightRey
12-04-2011, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by NineteenHealer:
"We Work In The Dark To Serve The Light, We Are An Assassins" this means that the assassins do bad deeds to prevent evil deeds.

It's like killing Hitler to prevent millions of people to die
Exactly.

SupremeCaptain
12-04-2011, 08:12 AM
Okay, I'll go back in time, blow up Hitler's house, kill him and his family and be praised an hero.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All because that's how it works, doesn't mean it's ****ing right! JEEZ!

LightRey
12-04-2011, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Okay, I'll go back in time, blow up Hitler's house, kill him and his family and be praised an hero.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All because that's how it works, doesn't mean it's [censored] right! JEEZ!
Nope it doesn't, but the Assassins aren't "good guys". They do what they feel needs to be done. If they have to commit crimes to prevent worse and/or more crimes, so be it.

AdmiralPerry
12-04-2011, 07:04 PM
About the whole Arsenal thing... Did you not try finding an alternate route yourself before or after that mission? I did, because I was trying to get to that viewpoint, not knowing at the time that it was off limits because I wasn't far enough in the story. I tried everything to find an alternate way in. There is no alternative. The only way in or out of Constantinople's Arsenal is through the gates, unless you're on a ship, of course. The walls cannot be scaled and I'm pretty certain a parachute won't carry you far enough.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2011, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by AdmiralPerry:
About the whole Arsenal thing... Did you not try finding an alternate route yourself before or after that mission? I did, because I was trying to get to that viewpoint, not knowing at the time that it was off limits because I wasn't far enough in the story. I tried everything to find an alternate way in. There is no alternative. The only way in or out of Constantinople's Arsenal is through the gates, unless you're on a ship, of course. The walls cannot be scaled and I'm pretty certain a parachute won't carry you far enough.

I just did the Arsenal memory again, Yusuf is very clear that Ezio needs to protect the people they're inciting. Ezio also acknowledges what he's doing & thinks it needs to be done that way.
So that's the intent there for protection to them. I also called in my Assassins.

Look, any Military leader knows soldiers will most likely die when they go into conflict - you just do all you can to save & spare as many as possible.

The people had a choice to uprise or not. They chose, Ezio fought to protect them, risking his life & his Assassins too. (He's just a little better at it & isn't using pitchforks & sticks).

Inorganic9_2
12-05-2011, 03:26 AM
I never liked the assassination contracts, because they seemed to always have Ezio killing people just for the sake of it. That is why I like to play with as few kills as possible. Kill my target and then get out of there (plus, running is a lot more fun when there aren't any agiles about!).

That the Sofia memory where you need to steal the parchment. I thought that was a bit out of order. I tried to come up with ways to take out the guards non-lethally (I do think Assassins should have some moves for this tbh) or evade them, but I couldn't do it without being detected.

However, I think things like that are put into the game merely to appease the "I want to kill everything" players (sadly).

LightRey
12-05-2011, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AdmiralPerry:
About the whole Arsenal thing... Did you not try finding an alternate route yourself before or after that mission? I did, because I was trying to get to that viewpoint, not knowing at the time that it was off limits because I wasn't far enough in the story. I tried everything to find an alternate way in. There is no alternative. The only way in or out of Constantinople's Arsenal is through the gates, unless you're on a ship, of course. The walls cannot be scaled and I'm pretty certain a parachute won't carry you far enough.

I just did the Arsenal memory again, Yusuf is very clear that Ezio needs to protect the people they're inciting. Ezio also acknowledges what he's doing & thinks it needs to be done that way.
So that's the intent there for protection to them. I also called in my Assassins.

Look, any Military leader knows soldiers will most likely die when they go into conflict - you just do all you can to save & spare as many as possible.

The people had a choice to uprise or not. They chose, Ezio fought to protect them, risking his life & his Assassins too. (He's just a little better at it & isn't using pitchforks & sticks). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly.

Inorganic9_2
12-05-2011, 03:32 AM
Regarding the Arsenal, too, Yusuf stays behind. Who's to say he doesn't defend the people while Ezio follows Manuel?

Exodus1833
12-05-2011, 03:53 AM
Thinking about the way the Assassins act in this game, reminds me of a myth from the second World War.
Winston Churchill knew about the bombing of Coventry, through the deciphering of the german Enigma crypting tool.
But instead of evacuating the town, he kept quiet so that the Germans wouldn't know about the deciphering.
This way he killed thousands for a faster ending of the war, hoping to rescue more lives this way.
It's only a myth, but it's a good example for how difficult it is to make the right decisions.
Looking at it that way, i think the developers of Assassins Creed made a good job in the characterization of Ezio.
You can't always make a perfect decision, where everything will be good in the end(as long as it's not a Disney film^^).
Ezio knows the world will end if they are not able to find the Temples the Apple showed them.
With that in mind, it's no wonder that Ezio gets a little hardcore now and then, to collect as much information as possible for the next generations.
And for the protection of Sophia, well he is still a loving man who wasn't able to protect his first love. so it's understandable that he wants to protect her.

Hope my english is comprehensible

ProdiGurl
12-05-2011, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
I never liked the assassination contracts, because they seemed to always have Ezio killing people just for the sake of it. That is why I like to play with as few kills as possible. Kill my target and then get out of there (plus, running is a lot more fun when there aren't any agiles about!).

That the Sofia memory where you need to steal the parchment. I thought that was a bit out of order. I tried to come up with ways to take out the guards non-lethally (I do think Assassins should have some moves for this tbh) or evade them, but I couldn't do it without being detected.

However, I think things like that are put into the game merely to appease the "I want to kill everything" players (sadly).

I love FPS, but that does get old - esp. after I found the AC series where it offers more than just mass slaughter. I truly appreciate it too.

However, come on, you don't WANT to or Like killing anybody? You don't get into fighting of any kind?
Sorry but I find that utterly boring in a literal war btwn people who want freedom vs. those who want to bleed you dry & enslave you.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Exodus1833:
Thinking about the way the Assassins act in this game, reminds me of a myth from the second World War.
Winston Churchill knew about the bombing of Coventry, through the deciphering of the german Enigma crypting tool.
But instead of evacuating the town, he kept quiet so that the Germans wouldn't know about the deciphering.
This way he killed thousands for a faster ending of the war, hoping to rescue more lives this way.
It's only a myth, but it's a good example for how difficult it is to make the right decisions.
Looking at it that way, i think the developers of Assassins Creed made a good job in the characterization of Ezio.
You can't always make a perfect decision, where everything will be good in the end(as long as it's not a Disney film^^).
Ezio knows the world will end if they are not able to find the Temples the Apple showed them.
With that in mind, it's no wonder that Ezio gets a little hardcore now and then, to collect as much information as possible for the next generations.
And for the protection of Sophia, well he is still a loving man who wasn't able to protect his first love. so it's understandable that he wants to protect her.

Hope my english is comprehensible
I very much agree with this. I also liked the fact that it wasn't a Disney-like happy ending. It would still take 8 years before Selim, who as can be seen in the game was hungry for war, died after which Süleyman succeeded him.

EzioAssassin51
12-05-2011, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Eregost:
> In Sequence 6 Memory 2, Ezio shows a serious lack of judgement and assassinates an innocent man because Ezio thinks he is a Templar. Ezio did not attempt to talk to Tarik before he struck the killing blow. For example in AC1, Altair has to extensively research his targets and know the injustices they cause before he kills them. Here Ezio did not bother to do this properly and so made a serious mistake costing another innocent's life.

Ezio had a lot of reason to believe this though and he even had the second opinion of Sulimen (sp?). They were both suspicious of him and had evidence to be suspicious. Plus, Altair often got all confused and all 'hmm... maybe this guy was good after all/wasn't massively evil' after killing them and they speak to him

LightRey
12-05-2011, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
> In Sequence 6 Memory 2, Ezio shows a serious lack of judgement and assassinates an innocent man because Ezio thinks he is a Templar. Ezio did not attempt to talk to Tarik before he struck the killing blow. For example in AC1, Altair has to extensively research his targets and know the injustices they cause before he kills them. Here Ezio did not bother to do this properly and so made a serious mistake costing another innocent's life.

Ezio had a lot of reason to believe this though and he even had the second opinion of Sulimen (sp?). They were both suspicious of him and had evidence to be suspicious. Plus, Altair often got all confused and all 'hmm... maybe this guy was good after all/wasn't massively evil' after killing them and they speak to him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed and the correct spelling is Süleyman. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RzaRecta357
12-05-2011, 08:20 AM
Süleyman


He was awesome. But I have to ask. Was he gay or secretly gay?

What's up with the handsome line? Just learning Italian? :P

LightRey
12-05-2011, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Süleyman


He was awesome. But I have to ask. Was he gay or secretly gay?

What's up with the handsome line? Just learning Italian? :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, no I really don't think so. Where'd you get that from?

rupok2
12-05-2011, 09:01 AM
I laugh at this topic. Do you guys not get that this is what Assassins creed is about? No one ever said the assassins were good guys and no one said the templars were the bad guys. Both have done things for the "greater good", peace is the ultimate goal for both assassins and templars but the means by which they hope to achieve it is different.


Assassins fight the templars and do what they must. So what if a few hundred people die in the process? Do you not see that when the templars take control they kill thousands of innocents? Their way of peace is absolute control so that the worlds people cannot do the things that cause chaos. While the assassins hope to achieve peace by believing in the people, to encourage education, to encourage investments, business, to encourage fair practices on society and stop the unfair. That is what the creeds ultimate goal is.


Did you guys not see the irony before this topic? They KILL humans in order to achieve peace. It is the ultimate irony. They inflict pain on others so that the rest do not feel the pain later.

This series was made so we could analyze and question the morals of both sides. IMO they are both dead ends, you cannot create a total utopea cause as long as humans exists there will always be bad apples in society. The templar vision sucks as well, you cannot force people into peace, thats just peace by fear, it contradicts the definition of peace.

ProdiGurl
12-05-2011, 09:19 AM
If anyone's gay, it's got to be Desmond or Shaun.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


This series was made so we could analyze and question the morals of both sides. IMO they are both dead ends, you cannot create a total utopea cause as long as humans exists there will always be bad apples in society.

Yep

albertwesker22
12-05-2011, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Süleyman


He was awesome. But I have to ask. Was he gay or secretly gay?

What's up with the handsome line? Just learning Italian? :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, no I really don't think so. Where'd you get that from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he got that from the fact that he calls Ezio his handsome minstrel. That doesn't scream gay though. Afterall Ezio is handsome.

InfectedNation
12-05-2011, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
That is why I like to play with as few kills as possible.

That the Sofia memory where you need to steal the parchment. I thought that was a bit out of order. I tried to come up with ways to take out the guards non-lethally (I do think Assassins should have some moves for this tbh) or evade them, but I couldn't do it without being detected.

I managed to complete the mission without even touching a guard: Climb onto the roofs on the right, wait for both guards on the ship to start walking towards the stairs (facing away from you), zipline down to the ship (slow down when you're close)
Next, hide in front of the doors to the cabin below deck (next to the bottom of the main mast), as the guards walk back down the stairs, climb up quickly to the top deck as soon as they have passed you.
Use eagle sense to identify, grab package and dive into the sea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

If all else fails, use poison darts + punch to knock them out silently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luckyto
12-05-2011, 12:34 PM
BOOOOOOO on the people who are trying to say that the Assassin's are not "good guys." "To serve the light." That doesn't make them guilt-free; but the Creed is very clear about killing civilians. Not only that, the whole point of the assassination to only do the least amount of evil (by killing someone powerful who is guilty of crimes against humanity) to save the many innocents; never to sacrifice innocents in the name of good.

Trying to spin this any other way is just completely neglecting the prior story points. Ubisoft just made some questionable choices for the sake of big action scenes, hold them accountable.

That said, to the OP, I think you are being a bit overly critical. The fire in Cappadocia is worthy of a long ethical discussion, but the other points are just trivial and nitpicky.

In a way, I see your point of view: Ezio's character seems desensitized to all the violence. He is almost too detached, and his struggle with the Templars still feels more like a personal hatred of them rather than a evolution to the wisdom that Altair possessed. The events at Cappadocia are, admittedly, disturbing.

Still, this has more to do with the writers taking the testosterone, bravado and Hollywood Action Hero past the point of social acceptability.

Assassin's Creed has always been about shades of grey and deep ethical questions. This makes it interesting, and more intellectual than your average game. But I do think the writers are getting carried away.


This series was made so we could analyze and question the morals of both sides. IMO they are both dead ends, you cannot create a total utopea cause as long as humans exists there will always be bad apples in society. The templar vision sucks as well, you cannot force people into peace, thats just peace by fear, it contradicts the definition of peace.

Well said.


Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Okay, I'll go back in time, blow up Hitler's house, kill him and his family and be praised an hero.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All because that's how it works, doesn't mean it's ****ing right! JEEZ!

That's the cornerstone ethical and philosophical question in all the Assassin's Creed games, especially the first.

Is it right to kill one to save many?

xx-pyro
12-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
BOOOOOOO on the people who are trying to say that the Assassin's are not "good guys." "To serve the light." That doesn't make them guilt-free; but the Creed is very clear about killing civilians. Not only that, the whole point of the assassination to only do the least amount of evil (by killing someone powerful who is guilty of crimes against humanity) to save the many innocents; never to sacrifice innocents in the name of good.

Trying to spin this any other way is just completely neglecting the prior story points. Ubisoft just made some questionable choices for the sake of big action scenes, hold them accountable.

That said, to the OP, I think you are being a bit overly critical. The fire in Cappadocia is worthy of a long ethical discussion, but the other points are just trivial and nitpicky.

In a way, I see your point of view: Ezio's character seems desensitized to all the violence. He is almost too detached, and his struggle with the Templars still feels more like a personal hatred of them rather than a evolution to the wisdom that Altair possessed. The events at Cappadocia are, admittedly, disturbing.

Still, this has more to do with the writers taking the testosterone, bravado and Hollywood Action Hero past the point of social acceptability.

Assassin's Creed has always been about shades of grey and deep ethical questions. This makes it interesting, and more intellectual than your average game. But I do think the writers are getting carried away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This series was made so we could analyze and question the morals of both sides. IMO they are both dead ends, you cannot create a total utopea cause as long as humans exists there will always be bad apples in society. The templar vision sucks as well, you cannot force people into peace, thats just peace by fear, it contradicts the definition of peace.

Well said.


Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Okay, I'll go back in time, blow up Hitler's house, kill him and his family and be praised an hero.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All because that's how it works, doesn't mean it's ****ing right! JEEZ!

That's the cornerstone ethical and philosophical question in all the Assassin's Creed games, especially the first.

Is it right to kill one to save many? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So by your logic I can decide on my own that someone is unworthy of life and take it from them- and that is morally acceptable because that person didn't follow MY morals? The Assassin's aren't evil, but they aren't good either. They just are. The Templars are just as evil and just as good as the Assassin's, the only reason most people side with the Assassin's is a) we play as them and b) they represent an idea that is the foundation of western society (which doesn't necessarily make it true).

SolidSage
12-05-2011, 01:50 PM
C'mon guys, I know you all want to chat about something but lets not get carried away. We're starting to take this all a bit too seriously with the need for historical accuracy and realism.

Creed is about playing a bad azz dude that free runs like a champ and can bust up a ton of trained soldiers on his lonesome. It's a party yo, cracking heads, jacking fools and takingin some nice scenery while doing it.
I appreciate the level of detail and the attempt at paralelling history but if they really wanted to conform to an airtight historical and realistic standard there would have to be crap in the streets, diseased people left and right, broken legs every time you attempted an aerial, and oh yeah, Ezio would die from blood loss after his first couple of fights.
Talk about trying to make it a boring game. "yeah, you've got to walk around the city, follow this dude for a week,staying hidden, then either put some poison in his drink and bog off or employ some ****** to do him in after satisfying him. Then go back to hq and start again". ....I don't want to play that game, I want to chuck axe's in peoples faces and then beat up their freinds who are foolish enough to not run away! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

And as far as those people in the Cappadocia caves, "my bad". There, all better see?

albertwesker22
12-05-2011, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by xx-pyro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luckyto:
BOOOOOOO on the people who are trying to say that the Assassin's are not "good guys." "To serve the light." That doesn't make them guilt-free; but the Creed is very clear about killing civilians. Not only that, the whole point of the assassination to only do the least amount of evil (by killing someone powerful who is guilty of crimes against humanity) to save the many innocents; never to sacrifice innocents in the name of good.

Trying to spin this any other way is just completely neglecting the prior story points. Ubisoft just made some questionable choices for the sake of big action scenes, hold them accountable.

That said, to the OP, I think you are being a bit overly critical. The fire in Cappadocia is worthy of a long ethical discussion, but the other points are just trivial and nitpicky.

In a way, I see your point of view: Ezio's character seems desensitized to all the violence. He is almost too detached, and his struggle with the Templars still feels more like a personal hatred of them rather than a evolution to the wisdom that Altair possessed. The events at Cappadocia are, admittedly, disturbing.

Still, this has more to do with the writers taking the testosterone, bravado and Hollywood Action Hero past the point of social acceptability.

Assassin's Creed has always been about shades of grey and deep ethical questions. This makes it interesting, and more intellectual than your average game. But I do think the writers are getting carried away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This series was made so we could analyze and question the morals of both sides. IMO they are both dead ends, you cannot create a total utopea cause as long as humans exists there will always be bad apples in society. The templar vision sucks as well, you cannot force people into peace, thats just peace by fear, it contradicts the definition of peace.

Well said.


Originally posted by SupremeCaptain:
Okay, I'll go back in time, blow up Hitler's house, kill him and his family and be praised an hero.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All because that's how it works, doesn't mean it's ****ing right! JEEZ!

That's the cornerstone ethical and philosophical question in all the Assassin's Creed games, especially the first.

Is it right to kill one to save many? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So by your logic I can decide on my own that someone is unworthy of life and take it from them- and that is morally acceptable because that person didn't follow MY morals? The Assassin's aren't evil, but they aren't good either. They just are. The Templars are just as evil and just as good as the Assassin's, the only reason most people side with the Assassin's is a) we play as them and b) they represent an idea that is the foundation of western society (which doesn't necessarily make it true). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Assassins don't kill people for fun. Something which Rodrigo and Cesare seemed to like.

SolidSage
12-05-2011, 02:03 PM
@Wesker
No. But I do. You too probably.

luckyto
12-05-2011, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
@Wesker
No. But I do. You too probably.

Haha... too right. Poor Guard #57.


So by your logic I can decide on my own that someone is unworthy of life and take it from them- and that is morally acceptable because that person didn't follow MY morals?

That's the fundamental ethical question which the original Assassin's Creed game revolved on, the entire FOCUS OF THE STORY... and its sequels just built on that. Altair killed for fun in Sequence One, because he could, because it was easier; and then he was stripped of his rank because of it. Then he struggles through the ENTIRE GAME with this moral and philosophical question: Is it right to kill one cruel and evil man to save many? Even if that man's goals and yours (peace) are the same?

That's canon. Every single assassination and lecture from Al Mualim centers around that very question.

And the discovery is the Creed. "Everything is permitted" allows for killing a cruel man. We are always taught that this is wrong, but to an Assassin, it is not. And they do so, "to serve the light." But never by "killing civilians."

That's the story that has been told. It's the canon. Whether or not this approach is morally justifiable to each and every player? I think that is for them to decide, and for us to discuss on these forums. What is right? Who knows. I think many people would argue that blowing up Hitler would in his rise to power would have been a right and just action. Others would say no.

But for Assassins and the AC Universe, the answer is already revealed in the existing canon. Killing Hitler would be the right thing to do. In fact, for the Assassins, anyone who would deny the people freedom of choice through power has warranted their own death. They fight for Freedom, and in the story's terms, they are justified in killing cruel men to preserve it.

E-Zekiel
12-05-2011, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Let me start off by saying I absolutely love this series and hope to see it flourish for many years to come. It has a lot of potential and occupies a unique niche. Having said that, I had problems with Revelation's story which I will discuss in this thread and the 'Revelations?' thread.

In Revelations Ezio makes a lot of morally questionable decisions and certainly ends up hurting or killing a lot of innocents on his quest for wisdom, which isn't very wise of him. Indeed his total disregard for the lives of those the Order is supposed to protect makes him as bad as the Templar characters we encounter. The only times we see Ezio helping people is when he wants something from them in return.

Allow me to cite a few examples.

> In Sequence 3 Memory 1, Ezio helps a man out of jail. He accepts the prisoner's story without proof, that he is simply stole some fruit, and then proceeds to help him escape. I'm surprised the other guys in the cell didn't react to this at all. It was foolish of Ezio to do this as the man could be lying, and even if the man is really just a thief, he deserves punishment for his crime. In freeing this guy, why doesn't Ezio go around and free all the many people who in his eyes made a mistake that doesn't deserve punishment? Ezio is creating anarchy and showing a total disregard for the justice system.

While I agree he had no proof...but no offense, being imprisoned for stealing food is over the top and in itself unjust. A fine, maybe. Forced to work, maybe. Imprisoned, no.

> In Sequence 4 Memory 1, Ezio beats up innocent ministrels and dumps them in haybarrels and steals their clothes. He couldn't have bought the outfits?

I guess, but this occurred to me as improvisation. As such, they'd not have the time to go back to the city and buy clothes. And...come on. Getting beat up for the greater good is better than getting KILLED for the greater good. In the grand scheme of things this was kind of a petty thing to come down on.

> Again in Sequence 4 Memory 3, Ezio shows a disregard for the law and takes Sophia's delivery before it has been checked by the port officials. In doing so he would have to knock out if not kill guards. These guards have done nothing wrong and do not deserve this. It is murder/assault/theft.

I had to knock out one, count 'em, one guard to do this mission. For the one he loves, who has guards either being asses to her, or assisting their boss in being an *** to her...he can deal, imo.

> In Sequence 5 Memory 3, we see Ezio rile up the crowd in order to use them to break into the arsenal. He was willing to sacrifice lives to get to his goal of investigating the meeting between Tarik and Manuel. A few die outside the gates and then in Memory 4 Ezio runs off into the Arsenal and leaves the civilians to fend for themselves. Doubtless many would have died and the rest would be wounded. Peasants carrying pitchforks don't stand much of a chance against Jannisarys trained in combat from childhood. Granted you could argue that the civies that joined the riot knew the risk they were taking, but Ezio was the one who initiated it and he did so not because of the injustice we see the Jannisarys inflict but he used this as a convenient excuse to allow him to break in for his own goal.

If people are discontent (they were), they need to realize they cannot just be quiet and grumble to themselves. They have to voice themselves and take action. That said, I think he could have handled this differently, yeah. I usually use assassins in this to keep as many people alive as possible. And the gun and crossbow.

> In Sequence 5 Memory 4, Ezio steals Sophia's painting from the merchant that owns it (you need to steal it to get 100% synch which means that's how Ezio did it). The merchant did not know it was stolen and he paid money to acquire it. The right thing to do would be to take the thief to the merchant, have him admit his crime and give the money back to the merchant, then take the painting. By stealing it, the thief has the merchant's money. Again Ezio did not care about justice, he only wanted to impress Sophia.

You should know better than to pick this one out, in light of your reasons for the others. You're not allowed to own stolen goods. With that said...tbh, you're a templar. Love > material gain, imo.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 2, Ezio shows a serious lack of judgement and assassinates an innocent man because Ezio thinks he is a Templar. Ezio did not attempt to talk to Tarik before he struck the killing blow. For example in AC1, Altair has to extensively research his targets and know the injustices they cause before he kills them. Here Ezio did not bother to do this properly and so made a serious mistake costing another innocent's life.

This one I do agree on. One could fault Salim, however. But it was ultimately Ezio that had the choice of killing him or not. But to me, this was one of only a few mistakes - not as many as you listed.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 4, Ezio lets an old crooked merchant tire himself and waste his time for no gain because Ezio did not want to wait an hour to impress Sophia with tulips.

o_O I followed the merchant. He didn't do anything nor care about the tulips. He just joined some people BSing in the area, and left a short time after. Old? Come on. Ezio is older. That guy wasn't old. This is really an asinine thing to complain about. OH MY GOD, HE WENT TO PICK THE TULIPS HIMSELF??? THAT BASTARD.

> In Sequence 6 Memory 8, Ezio sets fire to many ships waiting in the harbour in order to reach Cappadocia ASAP. Lots of innocents on those ships died and there were a lot of merchant vessels in the water as well as the military ships so Ezio killed or ruined many livelihoods. He could have taken a ship from another nearby town and avoided this massacre and destruction.

Being that the chain was raised, it is highly unlikely that innocents were on the ships. The only "active" ships were the military ones firing at you. And those were the only ones I saw burned.

> In Sequence 7 Memory 4, Ezio blows up the gunpowder in Cappadocia and as a result kills many innocents yet again, if not from the fire then from the smoke, and again those who survive would have had their livelihoods ruined. He destroyed the gunpowder just to stop the Templars from having it, not to save lives that could have been lost if the Templars possessed it otherwise he would not have been so reckless.

I think this was one of the legitimate mistakes as opposed to an immoral choice. I think he underestimated the effects it would have, only thinking it would either destroy or partially destroy their little Templar outpost thing they had in the corner. But at the same time...think of it this way. Had he not destroyed it? A war would have been started/escalated using this very same gunpowder. Mainly Templars/Templar allies died as a result of this, with likely minimal civilian deaths (it was a very large cave, most would have time to get out..a few would die, granted, but still). So, a bunch of Templars/Templar allies, versus starting/escalating a war. I think this is the lesser of two evils.

> In the pickpocket assassin recruitment quest, Ezio sets out to outsteal the pickpocket because he thinks by doing so he can get her to join the assassins. This is hypocritical given that the Order does not allow one to hurt innocents and Ezio steals from people just for the sake of showing off he has better pickpocketing skills than the pickpocket.


You realize Ezio invests that money BACK into the city, do you not? He gives it back to the people. He doesn't just keep it.

So how is Ezio a good guy again? He is the grand master and should be setting a good example, for the other assassins will attempt to emulate him and it is also important to have the people on your side as well.

If I was an ordinary Joe in the AC universe, I would not see the Assassins being any better than the Templars given that actions speak louder than words and these actions appear to show a disregard for the life of anyone outside the Order. It would just appear to be two factions that have a personal feud, one supporting order and the other supporting anarchy and recklessness.

I believe the reason for these actions is because Ubisoft wanted to create big flashy 'epic' set piece moments. However as a result of this the story has suffered, and most of us I'm sure believe that the story is AC's biggest asset. In future titles I hope Ubisoft's writers are more careful.

I'd like to hear the communities opinions on this so comment and discuss. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

randomxf109
12-05-2011, 02:39 PM
Last I remember, Ezio has never been careful at all. Since AC2 he's been reckless and driven by passion, and that's what had players grow to love him. But that was a teenage Ezio. As he grows up in Brotherhood, we see someone looking to liberate Rome, but not for the good of mankind but to finish what he started in AC2; avenging the death of his family. That one was a direct sequel, however this one is not; he is much older and should be much wiser, but he just isn't. That's called continuity. He has one mission and one only. He does not fight to protect the people of Istanbul, but to protect himself, the Masyaf keys, and Sofia. That's the Ezio we've seen since AC2. Driven by passion.

To say that doing these "evil" acts is a change in character is obviously not true.

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:

Even if that was the case, being a Templar does not mean you automatically deserve a painful death.

However I don't believe they were all Templars otherwise Ezio would never have got in so easily.

A painful death? No, but being a Templar, by the Assassin's understanding, means opposing everything they fight for. One does not get to be a Templar, who fights for power and control, and then get a reprieve from death.

That's one reason why I'm so opposed to Ezio deciding not to execute Rodrigo at the end of AC2.

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 05:46 PM
With regard to the Third Tenent, I think we need to reconsider what it means to "Compromise the Brotherhood". This goes beyond merely sending an Assassin to his death, or accidentally getting a comrade killed in the line of duty. These things, while negative, happen and cannot always be avoided.

Compromising the Brotherhood, at its core, indicates that the Assassin has, in some capacity, compromised either the survival of the Order itself or posed great risk to its members for selfish purposes or out of foolishness. Abbas' father giving into torture resulted in the death of Altair's father, for example. I'd also consider Ezio willingly handing over the keys to Selim to be another, if we consider the belief that Altair's library possessed a great many secrets, which Templars and Assassins both were attempting to access.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:

Even if that was the case, being a Templar does not mean you automatically deserve a painful death.

However I don't believe they were all Templars otherwise Ezio would never have got in so easily.

A painful death? No, but being a Templar, by the Assassin's understanding, means opposing everything they fight for. One does not get to be a Templar, who fights for power and control, and then get a reprieve from death.

That's one reason why I'm so opposed to Ezio deciding not to execute Rodrigo at the end of AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You clearly didn't understand Ezio's lesson to Macchiavelli and the rest of the brotherhood in ACB. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

SolidSage
12-05-2011, 05:57 PM
Er, Il Divo, Altair's missus was a Templar, she got a reprieve from death. Granted she jumped ship but still.

Yeah, I like that in spite of the Creed, our heroes are their own men. Altair was callous and cruel at the get go, funny he was enlightened by the guy who betrayed his order.
Ezio was driven by passion, I agree, impetuous and spontaneous. I disagree that he hadn't changed in ACR tho, I feel he was much wiser, and while still pursuing his own ideals, much less of a plonker. Still not being careful in regards to the well being of others but thats how I've always played them anyway, RECKLESS! I play like they are human snow (people) ploughs.

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:

You clearly didn't understand Ezio's lesson to Macchiavelli and the rest of the brotherhood in ACB. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I understood it, I just thought it was entirely non-sensical in the context of everything Ezio had done up until that point in AC2.

The goal of the creed was to teach Ezio that killing Rodrigo for revenge was wrong, but not that he should not kill him, one reason why Machiavelli was so surprised at his survival at the start of Brotherhood. As Shaun put it, the man had become the most powerful person in Italia.The Assassins have killed any number of lesser figures for much less and Ezio certainly does even in Brotherhood. It's not clear why he thinks there is any advantage to leaving Rodrigo alive, given the man's resources and role in the current conflict.

ProdiGurl
12-05-2011, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
C'mon guys, I know you all want to chat about something but lets not get carried away. We're starting to take this all a bit too seriously with the need for historical accuracy and realism.

Creed is about playing a bad azz dude that free runs like a champ and can bust up a ton of trained soldiers on his lonesome. It's a party yo, cracking heads, jacking fools and takingin some nice scenery while doing it.
I appreciate the level of detail and the attempt at paralelling history but if they really wanted to conform to an airtight historical and realistic standard there would have to be crap in the streets, diseased people left and right, broken legs every time you attempted an aerial, and oh yeah, Ezio would die from blood loss after his first couple of fights.
Talk about trying to make it a boring game. "yeah, you've got to walk around the city, follow this dude for a week,staying hidden, then either put some poison in his drink and bog off or employ some ****** to do him in after satisfying him. Then go back to hq and start again". ....I don't want to play that game, I want to chuck axe's in peoples faces and then beat up their freinds who are foolish enough to not run away! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

And as far as those people in the Cappadocia caves, "my bad". There, all better see?

lol my sentiments exactly.
I try not to overthink a video game & I'm not a fan to just sit on a bench flinging poison darts inconspicuously at guards backs all day.

AC pretty much keeps to the guidelines they set for the Assassin's Order, but they know we need more than a few darts to keep us happy

LightRey
12-05-2011, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

You clearly didn't understand Ezio's lesson to Macchiavelli and the rest of the brotherhood in ACB. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I understood it, I just thought it was entirely non-sensical in the context of everything Ezio had done up until that point in AC2.

The goal of the creed was to teach Ezio that killing Rodrigo for revenge was wrong, but not that he should not kill him, one reason why Machiavelli was so surprised at his survival at the start of Brotherhood. As Shaun put it, the man had become the most powerful person in Italia.The Assassins have killed any number of lesser figures for much less and Ezio certainly does even in Brotherhood. It's not clear why he thinks there is any advantage to leaving Rodrigo alive, given the man's resources and role in the current conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And as Ezio put it: "killing one man won't change anything".

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:

And as Ezio put it: "killing one man won't change anything".

And as Machiavelli put it: "I'm inclined to disagree".

At the least, it would have forestalled the Templars and given the Asssassins greater time to regroup. Ezio does not conclude AC2 thinking that he needs Rome to rise up against the Borgia; he concludes it believing that all his battles have been fought and won. And Cesare himself reveals how Rodrigo had told him everything that transpired. Ezio even concedes that if given the chance he'll execute both of them before infiltrating the Castello. If killing them wouldn't change anything, why bring it up in the first place?

Edit: It would also create the possibility of a non-Templar being elected Pope, which would greatly aid the Assassins' struggles.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

And as Ezio put it: "killing one man won't change anything".

And as Machiavelli put it: "I'm inclined to disagree".

At the least, it would have forestalled the Templars and given the Asssassins greater time to regroup. Ezio does not conclude AC2 thinking that he needs Rome to rise up against the Borgia; he concludes it believing that all his battles have been fought and won. And Cesare himself reveals how Rodrigo had told him everything that transpired. Ezio even concedes that if given the chance he'll execute both of them before infiltrating the Castello. If killing them wouldn't change anything, why bring it up in the first place?

Edit: It would also create the possibility of a non-Templar being elected Pope, which would greatly aid the Assassins' struggles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And Ezio clearly proved him wrong.

Up till now the only Templar that was confirmed to be a pope was Rodrigo and his successors were strongly opposed to the Borgias. The Catholic Church wasn't some organization part of the Templar order. They had very little control over it both before and after Rodrigo's death.

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:

And Ezio clearly proved him wrong.

Up till now the only Templar that was confirmed to be a pope was Rodrigo and his successors were strongly opposed to the Borgias. The Catholic Church wasn't some organization part of the Templar order. They had very little control over it both before and after Rodrigo's death.

I disagree. Monterrigioni is destroyed and Mario is killed, in large part because of Ezio's naivety in thinking the fight is concluded. Ezio ultimately proved Machiavelli right, in that he does ultimately seek out both Cesare's and Rodrigo's deaths, upon his second return to the Castello.

They were indicated to be leaders of the Templar order and there was absolutely no justifiable motive to keep Rodrigo alive, on the understanding that he was leading the Templars and that he maintained the head office of the Vatican, both extremely powerful political positions. No good could have come from that arrangement for the Assassin Order.

That's why Ezio's claim that "killing one man won't change anything" is so off; the very Order he is a part of relies on that as a guiding principle. That itself is what assassination as a political weapon has always been about. Effectively, cut off the head and the body will die.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

And Ezio clearly proved him wrong.

Up till now the only Templar that was confirmed to be a pope was Rodrigo and his successors were strongly opposed to the Borgias. The Catholic Church wasn't some organization part of the Templar order. They had very little control over it both before and after Rodrigo's death.

I disagree. Monterrigioni is destroyed and Mario is killed, in large part because of Ezio's naivety in thinking the fight is concluded. Ezio ultimately proved Machiavelli right, in that he does ultimately seek out both Cesare's and Rodrigo's deaths, upon his second return to the Castello.

They were indicated to be leaders of the Templar order and there was absolutely no justifiable motive to keep Rodrigo alive, on the understanding that he was leading the Templars and that he maintained the head office of the Vatican, both extremely powerful political positions. No good could have come from that arrangement for the Assassin Order.

That's why Ezio's claim that "killing one man won't change anything" is so off; the very Order he is a part of relies on that as a guiding principle. That itself is what assassination as a political weapon has always been about. Effectively, cut off the head and the body will die. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Killing Rodrigo wouldn't have stopped Cesare from attacking Monterrigioni. In fact, killing Rodrigo would simply have enraged the guy more and he'd likely have been more careful regarding leaving Rome to his "generals".

At no point has killing the grandmaster of the Templar Order had a major effect on their influence and ability to rebuild. Robert was replaced within a few months and even killing his successor had little impact on the Templar power, eventually allowing them even to retake Cyprus in Altaïr's absence.

Ezio made clear that simply cutting down the lynchpin would have no significant effect. If Ezio had killed Rodrigo, Cesare would have used the influence he had to have either himself or one of his pawns elected pope. However, by strengthening the Assassins' position in Rome while at the same time weakening the Templars' position by stopping any messages of their activities from reaching Cesare and taking down both the appointed Borgia leaders in the city and Cesare's "generals", who were basically in control of Rome in Cesare's absence, Cesare had no significant influence left in the end. The Borgia's had rapidly lost their sway over the Vatican, even over the cardinals they had bribed/appointed themselves and thanks to the help of the Assassins the people had become much more vocal about their discontent regarding the Borgia. When Cesare had killed Rodrigo, the only one who, despite his refusal to cooperate further, was the only chance along with possibly the apple for him to salvage what was left, he was basically defeated already.

As Machiavelli points out in his famous book, Il Principe (The Prince), Cesare's over reliance on the pope was his greatest mistake and ultimately caused his downfall. This is basically Machiavelli admitting Ezio was right (in the context of ACB of course).

Eregost
12-05-2011, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
C'mon guys, I know you all want to chat about something but lets not get carried away. We're starting to take this all a bit too seriously with the need for historical accuracy and realism.

Creed is about playing a bad azz dude that free runs like a champ and can bust up a ton of trained soldiers on his lonesome. It's a party yo, cracking heads, jacking fools and takingin some nice scenery while doing it.
I appreciate the level of detail and the attempt at paralelling history but if they really wanted to conform to an airtight historical and realistic standard there would have to be crap in the streets, diseased people left and right, broken legs every time you attempted an aerial, and oh yeah, Ezio would die from blood loss after his first couple of fights.
Talk about trying to make it a boring game. "yeah, you've got to walk around the city, follow this dude for a week,staying hidden, then either put some poison in his drink and bog off or employ some ****** to do him in after satisfying him. Then go back to hq and start again". ....I don't want to play that game, I want to chuck axe's in peoples faces and then beat up their freinds who are foolish enough to not run away! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

And as far as those people in the Cappadocia caves, "my bad". There, all better see?

This has nothing to do with this thread. I'm not asking for historical realism.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
C'mon guys, I know you all want to chat about something but lets not get carried away. We're starting to take this all a bit too seriously with the need for historical accuracy and realism.

Creed is about playing a bad azz dude that free runs like a champ and can bust up a ton of trained soldiers on his lonesome. It's a party yo, cracking heads, jacking fools and takingin some nice scenery while doing it.
I appreciate the level of detail and the attempt at paralelling history but if they really wanted to conform to an airtight historical and realistic standard there would have to be crap in the streets, diseased people left and right, broken legs every time you attempted an aerial, and oh yeah, Ezio would die from blood loss after his first couple of fights.
Talk about trying to make it a boring game. "yeah, you've got to walk around the city, follow this dude for a week,staying hidden, then either put some poison in his drink and bog off or employ some ****** to do him in after satisfying him. Then go back to hq and start again". ....I don't want to play that game, I want to chuck axe's in peoples faces and then beat up their freinds who are foolish enough to not run away! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

And as far as those people in the Cappadocia caves, "my bad". There, all better see?

This has nothing to do with this thread. GTFO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, technically it does and calm down.

Eregost
12-05-2011, 07:06 PM
No it doesn't.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
No it doesn't.
As he not only remarks on some of the specific points made in the thread, but also in general describes why the original view as presented in the OP is wrong in his opinion, it most certainly does.

Eregost
12-05-2011, 07:21 PM
Not once did I mention historical accuracy.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Not once did I mention historical accuracy.
So he misinterpreted your main motivation. That doesn't mean all his points are invalid, or that they're not pertaining to the main subject of this discussion.

Eregost
12-05-2011, 07:28 PM
Yes it does. His 'points' consist of uncaring dismisal. Good for him but that adds nothing to the topic at hand. Same as the 'ITS JUST A GAME!' comments Purdigurl likes to churn out.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Yes it does. His 'points' consist of uncaring dismisal. Good for him but that adds nothing to the topic at hand. Same as the 'ITS JUST A GAME!' comments Purdigurl likes to churn out.
Eh, yes it does. They're basically telling you, and everyone else in this discussion, that you might just be getting so worked up over the specifics, that you fail to see the bigger picture, which is basically a criticism on the perspective on this subject of the people in this discussion and therefore it's most certainly ok to post it here.

You should calm down and allow them to have their say, just like you have had yours. Just because you started this discussion doesn't mean it's your discussion and you're the one who decides who's allowed to say what.

Eregost
12-05-2011, 07:41 PM
If you have nothing constructive to add regarding the OP and the OP only, stop posting.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
If you have nothing constructive to add regarding the OP and the OP only, stop posting.
As I said that is not up to you, it's up to the mods.

Anyways I'm inclined to agree on the matter of your perspective being wrong. You have to remember that we only see small (though important) bits of Ezio's life. It's not like we see him go to the bathroom. His true thoughts about any of these matters are mostly unknown to us, as we can't read his mind and we have only a very biased sample of events of his life to base our models for the inner workings of his mind on.

Eregost
12-05-2011, 07:48 PM
Then stop acting like a mod.

And I'm not talking about his thoughts either, I'm talking about his actions.

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Eregost:
Then stop acting like a mod.

And I'm not talking about his thoughts either, I'm talking about his actions.
I know, that's the whole problem we're having here.

and I'm not acting like a mod, I'm simply explaining to you why what they did was valid.

Il_Divo
12-05-2011, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:

Killing Rodrigo wouldn't have stopped Cesare from attacking Monterrigioni. In fact, killing Rodrigo would simply have enraged the guy more and he'd likely have been more careful regarding leaving Rome to his "generals".

"The Pope told me about you and your little group of Assassins and THIS", referring to the Apple. Ezio's actions ultimately served as the catalyst for Cesare attacking Monterrigioni. You saw his relationship with Rodrigo, which wasn't particularly pretty. He would not have been more "enraged" at his death, and at that point Ezio and Machiavelli were not even slightly concerned with Cesare's actions, with Rodrigo serving as the main threat. Cesare was a side threat, at best.



At no point has killing the grandmaster of the Templar Order had a major effect on their influence and ability to rebuild. Robert was replaced within a few months and even killing his successor had little impact on the Templar power, eventually allowing them even to retake Cyprus in Altaïr's absence.

Why wouldn't it result in change? That's what assassination as a political device is intended to do: alter the balance of power. If that weren't the case, the Assassins wouldn't bother with it in the first place. Kill the Doge of Venice, help the people. Kill the Templar leaders, help the people. Remove figures in Masyaf, Damascus, etc, help the people. The idea behind these actions is that others will take power, or Templar goals will disintegrate. Consider Rosa's admission how killing Marco Barbarigo had already made life in Venice better. That's the most basic role of assassination, inspire fear and change.

If all this is meaningless then the Assassin Order itself is meaningless. Ezio himself demonstrates how easy it is to eliminate random figures from anonymous guards to political candidates, without thought. And yet Rodrigo, the man responsible for every event in AC2, his death won't serve as a point for change? It wouldn't make Assassin goals significantly easier to accomplish? It wouldn't potentially limit the Templar access to Papal resources? The Pope occupies an important political position. Rodrigo's death removes him from that position and ensures a great likelihood that the Assassins can move more freely about their goals.



Ezio made clear that simply cutting down the lynchpin would have no significant effect. If Ezio had killed Rodrigo, Cesare would have used the influence he had to have either himself or one of his pawns elected pope. However, by strengthening the Assassins' position in Rome while at the same time weakening the Templars' position by stopping any messages of their activities from reaching Cesare and taking down both the appointed Borgia leaders in the city and Cesare's "generals", who were basically in control of Rome in Cesare's absence, Cesare had no significant influence left in the end. The Borgia's had rapidly lost their sway over the Vatican, even over the cardinals they had bribed/appointed themselves and thanks to the help of the Assassins the people had become much more vocal about their discontent regarding the Borgia. When Cesare had killed Rodrigo, the only one who, despite his refusal to cooperate further, was the only chance along with possibly the apple for him to salvage what was left, he was basically defeated already.

Ezio made clear that he did not have an even basic understanding of politics in Renaissance Italy. Once more, there would not have been a single negative repercussion in killing Rodrigo. He was the Templar power base. He orchestrated the death of the Doge of Venice, Pazzi Conspiracy, etc. Cesare was not in any significant position to be elected Pope given his role as the General of the Papal Armies; there are certain rules regarding who may or may not be elected to the position.It's not clear what his "anger" at his father's death would have done for his political machinations. Rodrigo's death would force everyone to take a second to consider the political climate.

Ezio wants to free Rome of Borgia influence entirely? I support him whole-heartedly. But leaving the most powerful political seat in Renaissance Italy in the hands of your prime enemy, whom you have sworn to eliminate is not proper political maneuvering. Pretending that your prime enemy is not going to strike back at you is not proper political maneuvering. All of Ezio's excuses are made after the fact, after o his belief that he is free from his life as an assassin is proven wrong.

Cesare is not even a factor in AC2, mentioned only in the Codex. There is nothing accomplished in Brotherhood which could not have been aided earlier through the death of Rodrigo. If that were not the case, Ezio would not have finally consented to their elimination at the Castello. Rising up against the Borgia remnants, expelling Cesare, these were all achievable goals following Rodrigo's death.



As Machiavelli points out in his famous book, Il Principe (The Prince), Cesare's over reliance on the pope was his greatest mistake and ultimately caused his downfall. This is basically Machiavelli admitting Ezio was right (in the context of ACB of course).

That was not really what caused Cesare's downfall. At least, not in full. Machiavelli's point in The Prince was that following Rodrigo's death Cesare did not take the proper precautions to maintain power and instead allowed a Pope against his interests to be elected, which is the one area where he is critical of Cesare's errors, despite his political astuteness in the Romagna. That would be considered a validation of Machiavelli's point, since he was in favor of Rodrigo's death, a point Ezio ultimately concedes by the second visit to the Castello.

That's where I find your position untenable. Ezio ultimately gives in to Machiavelli's demands, even upon his first visit to the Castello. Even upon leaving Monterrigioni, his mother hints at his plans to kill the Borgia. All this is laid out before he and Machiavelli even begin attempting to erode the power base, indicating that he does see value in both their deaths. And yet, once Cesare's power base is broken, when he's lost the Apple, the Papal resources, etc, Ezio decides it's necessary to hunt him down in Spain because of his claims that "no chains can hold him"? I simply don't see the logic.

LightRey
12-06-2011, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
"The Pope told me about you and your little group of Assassins and THIS", referring to the Apple. Ezio's actions ultimately served as the catalyst for Cesare attacking Monterrigioni. You saw his relationship with Rodrigo, which wasn't particularly pretty. He would not have been more "enraged" at his death, and at that point Ezio and Machiavelli were not even slightly concerned with Cesare's actions, with Rodrigo serving as the main threat. Cesare was a side threat, at best.


Lol, are you serious? Cesare was one of the most powerful men in Italy way before Ezio came to Rome. Rodrigo had obviously told Cesare about the apple way before Ezio went to the Vatican. Cesare was a high ranking Templar for Christ's sake and he was the one in control of the Papal army. He most certainly would have been enraged at his death. Rodrigo was still his father and it was good for his plans father was the Pope. Let's also not forget that Rodrigo had explicitly told Cesare not to attack Monterrigioni.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Why wouldn't it result in change? That's what assassination as a political device is intended to do: alter the balance of power. If that weren't the case, the Assassins wouldn't bother with it in the first place. Kill the Doge of Venice, help the people. Kill the Templar leaders, help the people. Remove figures in Masyaf, Damascus, etc, help the people. The idea behind these actions is that others will take power, or Templar goals will disintegrate. Consider Rosa's admission how killing Marco Barbarigo had already made life in Venice better. That's the most basic role of assassination, inspire fear and change.

Rosa was talking about Ezio's killing all of the Templars in Venice, not just Marco and the only reason that worked was because there already were strong Assassin factions in Venice that could pick up the pieces. Need I remind you that even after killing Marco there was still much trouble making sure his brother got appointed or that years later his brother had become just as corrupt as Marco had, bringing Venice back to where it was when Marco was Doge? Killing Marco had changed nothing in the long term.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
If all this is meaningless then the Assassin Order itself is meaningless. Ezio himself demonstrates how easy it is to eliminate random figures from anonymous guards to political candidates, without thought. And yet Rodrigo, the man responsible for every event in AC2, his death won't serve as a point for change? It wouldn't make Assassin goals significantly easier to accomplish? It wouldn't potentially limit the Templar access to Papal resources? The Pope occupies an important political position. Rodrigo's death removes him from that position and ensures a great likelihood that the Assassins can move more freely about their goals.

No, it's not. Ezio taught the Assassins that killing high up people is not enough. First you have to set up an intricate system of dominoes and then use the killing of the enemy leader as first piece that falls and causes a series of chain reactions that ultimately wipes out their power completely. This is what happened in Rome, because Ezio set up all those other pieces. When Rodrigo died a chain reaction was started that completely destroyed Cesare's power. This would not have happened had Ezio killed Rodrigo at the end of ACII.



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Ezio made clear that he did not have an even basic understanding of politics in Renaissance Italy. Once more, there would not have been a single negative repercussion in killing Rodrigo. He was the Templar power base. He orchestrated the death of the Doge of Venice, Pazzi Conspiracy, etc. Cesare was not in any significant position to be elected Pope given his role as the General of the Papal Armies; there are certain rules regarding who may or may not be elected to the position.It's not clear what his "anger" at his father's death would have done for his political machinations. Rodrigo's death would force everyone to take a second to consider the political climate.

Cesare? Maybe not. However, Juan Borgia was a cardinal and a pawn to Cesare. Considering the amount of influence he had on the Vatican at the time, it would have been no trouble for him to have Juan be elected pope and Juan was by far not the only Borgia cardinal at the time.

And the negative repercussion? Ezio'd have killed someone who didn't need to die. Rodrigo's death wouldn't have made an impact. At best it'd have made the Templars more aware of just how dangerous the Assassins had become, which is definitely a negative repercussion, as most of Ezio's work in Rome revolved on Cesare's unawareness of how everything was going wrong in Rome.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Ezio wants to free Rome of Borgia influence entirely? I support him whole-heartedly. But leaving the most powerful political seat in Renaissance Italy in the hands of your prime enemy, whom you have sworn to eliminate is not proper political maneuvering. Pretending that your prime enemy is not going to strike back at you is not proper political maneuvering. All of Ezio's excuses are made after the fact, after o his belief that he is free from his life as an assassin is proven wrong.

He wasn't pretending his prime enemy wouldn't strike back. He was surprised by how quickly they had responded and again, Rodrigo had told Cesare not to attack Monterrigioni. Cesare was acting on his own accord.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Cesare is not even a factor in AC2, mentioned only in the Codex. There is nothing accomplished in Brotherhood which could not have been aided earlier through the death of Rodrigo. If that were not the case, Ezio would not have finally consented to their elimination at the Castello. Rising up against the Borgia remnants, expelling Cesare, these were all achievable goals following Rodrigo's death.

Cesare isn't a factor in ACII, because through most of the game he was a little kid. It wasn't near the end, during the last 2 sequences (i.e. after the huge time leap between the Battle of Forli and the Bonfire of the Vanities) that actually had power. He was the head of the papal army for Christ's sake. He was conquering most of Italy, while Ezio was restoring balance in Florence (once again by first taking down the generals and give the people the courage and power to revolt).



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
That was not really what caused Cesare's downfall. At least, not in full. Machiavelli's point in The Prince was that following Rodrigo's death Cesare did not take the proper precautions to maintain power and instead allowed a Pope against his interests to be elected, which is the one area where he is critical of Cesare's errors, despite his political astuteness in the Romagna. That would be considered a validation of Machiavelli's point, since he was in favor of Rodrigo's death, a point Ezio ultimately concedes by the second visit to the Castello.

That's where I find your position untenable. Ezio ultimately gives in to Machiavelli's demands, even upon his first visit to the Castello. Even upon leaving Monterrigioni, his mother hints at his plans to kill the Borgia. All this is laid out before he and Machiavelli even begin attempting to erode the power base, indicating that he does see value in both their deaths. And yet, once Cesare's power base is broken, when he's lost the Apple, the Papal resources, etc, Ezio decides it's necessary to hunt him down in Spain because of his claims that "no chains can hold him"? I simply don't see the logic.
Not at all. Ezio doesn't concede. He never said he wouldn't or shouldn't kill Rodrigo or Cesare, as he said at the very beginning "They will die, you have my word". As I said when starting this discussion you don't understand his lesson to the order. Killing a man is not enough, you have to trigger a chain reaction with it that wipes out all the influence they had.

You completely misunderstood what Ezio had to teach. You think he didn't think he needed to kill them. That is not true. He just knew he needed to kill them when the time was right.

EscoBlades
12-06-2011, 06:32 AM
Here is why the Assassins are considered to be the better of two evils (note, i didn't say the good guys, but rather the side humanity as a whole would be more likely to side with)

The Assassins recognise and strive to understand The 3 Ironies (the contradictory nature of the whole Brotherhood itself)

1) The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.
2) The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules.
3) The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.

You could read that and substitute Templars for Assassins, and it would almost fit their ideaology perfectly. The difference between the Templar Order and the Assassin Brotherhood lies in the latter's willingness to embrace contradiction and paradox. They accept that "Nothing is True; but Everything is Permitted"

Ezio, and by extension, all true Assassins, are acutely aware of the 3 Ironies, and seek to understand its influence and meaning in all their actions. Altair understood it when he wrote The Codex, and by the events of Revelations, Ezio comes to understand it as well. That in effect is what seperates Ezio from a homicidal maniac with a Hidden Blade.

LightRey
12-06-2011, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by EscoBlades:
Here is why the Assassins are considered to be the better of two evils (note, i didn't say the good guys, but rather the side humanity as a whole would be more likely to side with)

The Assassins recognise and strive to understand The 3 Ironies (the contradictory nature of the whole Brotherhood itself)

1) The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.
2) The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules.
3) The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.

You could read that and substitute Templars for Assassins, and it would almost fit their ideaology perfectly. The difference between the Templar Order and the Assassin Brotherhood lies in the latter's willingness to embrace contradiction and paradox. They accept that "Nothing is True; but Everything is Permitted"

Ezio, and by extension, all true Assassins, are acutely aware of the 3 Ironies, and seek to understand its influence and meaning in all their actions. Altair understood it when he wrote The Codex, and by the events of Revelations, Ezio comes to understand it as well. That in effect is what seperates Ezio from a homicidal maniac with a Hidden Blade.
Exactly. Well said, EscoBlades.

ProdiGurl
12-06-2011, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
@Wesker
No. But I do. You too probably.

Haha... too right. Poor Guard #57.


So by your logic I can decide on my own that someone is unworthy of life and take it from them- and that is morally acceptable because that person didn't follow MY morals?

That's the fundamental ethical question which the original Assassin's Creed game revolved on, the entire FOCUS OF THE STORY... and its sequels just built on that. Altair killed for fun in Sequence One, because he could, because it was easier; and then he was stripped of his rank because of it. Then he struggles through the ENTIRE GAME with this moral and philosophical question: Is it right to kill one cruel and evil man to save many? Even if that man's goals and yours (peace) are the same?

That's canon. Every single assassination and lecture from Al Mualim centers around that very question.

And the discovery is the Creed. "Everything is permitted" allows for killing a cruel man. We are always taught that this is wrong, but to an Assassin, it is not. And they do so, "to serve the light." But never by "killing civilians."

That's the story that has been told. It's the canon. Whether or not this approach is morally justifiable to each and every player? I think that is for them to decide, and for us to discuss on these forums. What is right? Who knows. I think many people would argue that blowing up Hitler would in his rise to power would have been a right and just action. Others would say no.

But for Assassins and the AC Universe, the answer is already revealed in the existing canon. Killing Hitler would be the right thing to do. In fact, for the Assassins, anyone who would deny the people freedom of choice through power has warranted their own death. They fight for Freedom, and in the story's terms, they are justified in killing cruel men to preserve it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see what the moral question is actually, it's really called murder. That's what an Assassin does - covertly goes in and takes certain people out for whatever reason.
Ask anyone here if it's ok to be an assassin in real life and I think you have your answer.

The point of this as I see it is that it's just a game & [most] don't have a problem doing very unethical things in games. AC honestly doesn't make me ask if it's moral to judge who deserves to live or die - I just feel I'm justified in a game to take out my enemies who I'm at war with for the reasons AC offers.
That makes me feel like I'm the good guy, but essentially, I'm not when based in reality.

I don't overthink these games - they are what they are. Fun. AC just puts more into the story to make it more complex & deep than most, and I like that alot.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Il_Divo
12-06-2011, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:


Lol, are you serious? Cesare was one of the most powerful men in Italy way before Ezio came to Rome. Rodrigo had obviously told Cesare about the apple way before Ezio went to the Vatican. Cesare was a high ranking Templar for Christ's sake and he was the one in control of the Papal army. He most certainly would have been enraged at his death. Rodrigo was still his father and it was good for his plans father was the Pope. Let's also not forget that Rodrigo had explicitly told Cesare not to attack Monterrigioni.

Yes, sounds almost like someone whose death might result in significant changes, doesn't it?

Until he even reaches Rome, Ezio had no clue who Cesare was. And before you say "He just didn't know what he looked like", think back to when he first asks Machiavelli about the man's identity. He doesn't say matter-of-factly "Oh, it's Cesare, you know the Pope's son, don't you?" Instead, he gives him a fairly in depth answer, filling in Ezio's lack of knowledge regarding his enemy's identity and actions. Ezio doesn't seem to know the first thing about Cesare or what he was even up to during the interim.




Rosa was talking about Ezio's killing all of the Templars in Venice, not just Marco and the only reason that worked was because there already were strong Assassin factions in Venice that could pick up the pieces. Need I remind you that even after killing Marco there was still much trouble making sure his brother got appointed or that years later his brother had become just as corrupt as Marco had, bringing Venice back to where it was when Marco was Doge? Killing Marco had changed nothing in the long term.

The primary point being: the death of one (or a few) is relevant. The problem with his brother was that he was a terrible leader, not that he was a Templar, hence it's not really an applicable point. Far as I'm aware, Assassins don't focus on killing "weak rulers". The point is that the Templars' were not simply able to throw random people into power on a whim, which defies the idea that their deaths mean nothing. It's a setback, as it is for any political faction.

That's why they freak out upon hearing about Emilio's death. The Templars are a powerful organization, but they don't have inifinitely capable men that they can shift around on a whim; they operate on limited resources. The Assassins have always operated on removing those leaders from power. That itself is what assassination is intended for, otherwise you may as well be leading armies around.




No, it's not. Ezio taught the Assassins that killing high up people is not enough. First you have to set up an intricate system of dominoes and then use the killing of the enemy leader as first piece that falls and causes a series of chain reactions that ultimately wipes out their power completely. This is what happened in Rome, because Ezio set up all those other pieces. When Rodrigo died a chain reaction was started that completely destroyed Cesare's power. This would not have happened had Ezio killed Rodrigo at the end of ACII.

I am not arguing that the use of the people in launching a revolt was a bad move. I'm arguing that everything which you suggest would "not" have happened would have still happened, but much more easily. Restore Assassin guilds in Rome? Done. Have the people rise up against the Borgia? Again, done. Expel them from Rome? Once again, done.

Only now, the Templars would not have access to the same level of Papal Resources.




Cesare? Maybe not. However, Juan Borgia was a cardinal and a pawn to Cesare. Considering the amount of influence he had on the Vatican at the time, it would have been no trouble for him to have Juan be elected pope and Juan was by far not the only Borgia cardinal at the time.

You've already exaggerated his influence. Cesare has power, he does not have the ability to snap his fingers to create an infinite supply of Templar Popes. If it were that easy for the Templars to exact influence, Rodrigo would have been Pope during the Pazzi conspiracy. The Borgia are one faction among many vying for power in Rome. They are made up of capable men, certainly. And Ezio chose to let their arguably most capable man go free, because apparently it wouldn't do anything.




And the negative repercussion? Ezio'd have killed someone who didn't need to die. Rodrigo's death wouldn't have made an impact. At best it'd have made the Templars more aware of just how dangerous the Assassins had become, which is definitely a negative repercussion, as most of Ezio's work in Rome revolved on Cesare's unawareness of how everything was going wrong in Rome.

No, this is non-sensical. The Templars were fully aware of the Assassins' power by Ezio infiltrating the Vatican, beating down Rodrigo, then entering the Vault. Rodrigo was at Ezio's mercy, and he chose to spare him. That Ezio could just as easily have killed him is an equivalent demonstration of the Assassins' power, which Cesare should have been aware of just as easily. You are currently holding two contradictory positions. Either Cesare could have easily replaced Rodrigo and gone back to his campaign, in which case the Assassins can still operate under the radar, or Cesare could not have replaced Rodrigo easily (if at all), in which case it would have had a significant impact on Templar power. Which are you arguing for?

I also think you're giving far too much credit in terms of how much long-term planning Ezio had done with his plan to restore Rome. Bear in mind three things:

1) He does not dispute Mario's or Machiavelli's appeal to kill Cesare in Monterrigioni.
2) He does not offer the explanation you are providing until after he reaches Rome, at which point it's pulled from nowhere. Instead, he claims that killing Rodrigo will not bring his family back.
3)Upon his return to the Villa, Ezio was under the impression that all his work had paid off, and that he was finished.




He wasn't pretending his prime enemy wouldn't strike back. He was surprised by how quickly they had responded and again, Rodrigo had told Cesare not to attack Monterrigioni. Cesare was acting on his own accord.

Go back to pretty much every conversation Ezio has upon his return to Monterrigioni."I have all the time in the world", "My battles are already won". He had no idea what he was doing. He thought the threat was over, that Rodrigo was done.

It's only until after he speaks with Machiavelli that he starts claiming he was surprised at Cesare's speed. For someone who honestly believes that the only way to stop the Templars is a massive revolt, for the people to rise up, he sure wasn't arguing for it at any point prior to Rome, which makes his position seem utterly insane. The many lying at your feet, whom you've killed dozens to get to, and then you spare him? Because it won't make a difference? Did Ezio in the time gap study a comprehensive list of all the different Borgia leaders in Rome that he is suddenly aware that Rodrigo shouldn't have to die?



Cesare isn't a factor in ACII, because through most of the game he was a little kid. It wasn't near the end, during the last 2 sequences (i.e. after the huge time leap between the Battle of Forli and the Bonfire of the Vanities) that actually had power. He was the head of the papal army for Christ's sake. He was conquering most of Italy, while Ezio was restoring balance in Florence (once again by first taking down the generals and give the people the courage and power to revolt).

See my earlier argument regarding how well Ezio is even aware of Cesare's actions.



Not at all. Ezio doesn't concede. He never said he wouldn't or shouldn't kill Rodrigo or Cesare, as he said at the very beginning "They will die, you have my word". As I said when starting this discussion you don't understand his lesson to the order. Killing a man is not enough, you have to trigger a chain reaction with it that wipes out all the influence they had.

You completely misunderstood what Ezio had to teach. You think he didn't think he needed to kill them. That is not true. He just knew he needed to kill them when the time was right.

The first Castello infiltration pretty much defies this argument, which is what your quote is a reference to. This is before he had even bothered taking out Juan Borgia, the French General, or even done a significant job of restoring Assassin Power. In effect, the Assassins' position was not good enough to expel the Borgias, which (by your argument) is evidence that they should not have struck. Yet, Ezio sees that they should die. Again, why? Because removing significant political figures, ones with interests contrary to your goals, is an incredibly useful tool.

Pretty much everyone makes clear that Ezio was acting like an infant with his resistance to killing them. It wasn't built on logic, or an awareness of what assassination actually does, but on a whim, contrary to everything we had been led to believe Ezio would do (and should do).

luckyto
12-06-2011, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

And Ezio clearly proved him wrong.

Up till now the only Templar that was confirmed to be a pope was Rodrigo and his successors were strongly opposed to the Borgias. The Catholic Church wasn't some organization part of the Templar order. They had very little control over it both before and after Rodrigo's death.

I disagree. Monterrigioni is destroyed and Mario is killed, in large part because of Ezio's naivety in thinking the fight is concluded. Ezio ultimately proved Machiavelli right, in that he does ultimately seek out both Cesare's and Rodrigo's deaths, upon his second return to the Castello.

They were indicated to be leaders of the Templar order and there was absolutely no justifiable motive to keep Rodrigo alive, on the understanding that he was leading the Templars and that he maintained the head office of the Vatican, both extremely powerful political positions. No good could have come from that arrangement for the Assassin Order.

That's why Ezio's claim that "killing one man won't change anything" is so off; the very Order he is a part of relies on that as a guiding principle. That itself is what assassination as a political weapon has always been about. Effectively, cut off the head and the body will die. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got to side with Il Divo on this one. Not killing Rodrigo was a huge mistake and Ezio was proven to be very wrong afterwards.


That's where I find your position untenable. Ezio ultimately gives in to Machiavelli's demands, even upon his first visit to the Castello. Even upon leaving Monterrigioni, his mother hints at his plans to kill the Borgia. All this is laid out before he and Machiavelli even begin attempting to erode the power base, indicating that he does see value in both their deaths. And yet, once Cesare's power base is broken, when he's lost the Apple, the Papal resources, etc, Ezio decides it's necessary to hunt him down in Spain because of his claims that "no chains can hold him"?

In fact, you do see the logic. Ezio realized his mistake and fixed it.


Here is why the Assassins are considered to be the better of two evils (note, i didn't say the good guys, but rather the side humanity as a whole would be more likely to side with)

The Assassins recognise and strive to understand The 3 Ironies (the contradictory nature of the whole Brotherhood itself)

1) The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.
2) The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules.
3) The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.

You could read that and substitute Templars for Assassins, and it would almost fit their ideaology perfectly. The difference between the Templar Order and the Assassin Brotherhood lies in the latter's willingness to embrace contradiction and paradox. They accept that "Nothing is True; but Everything is Permitted"

Ezio, and by extension, all true Assassins, are acutely aware of the 3 Ironies, and seek to understand its influence and meaning in all their actions. Altair understood it when he wrote The Codex, and by the events of Revelations, Ezio comes to understand it as well. That in effect is what seperates Ezio from a homicidal maniac with a Hidden Blade.

Excellent post, and I don't disagree with any of it per se; but I do think that "3 Ironies" is more of a symptom of the Creed; rather than its root --- it's cause.

Ultimately, the Creed is about Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Mind. Freeing your mind from all that is taught in the world, and freeing people to discover and choose whatever path they want.

Once you free your mind, you realize that morality is simply a state of mind. It is not set in stone. It is what we determine it to be. Is it murder when a lion kills a stray wilderbeast, or when we eat a fish? What is murder? It is a definition of acceptable behavior --- and ALL THINGS that people "perceive" are a state of mind.

It's a very deep topic, a philosophical question that pretty much every major thinker from Locke to Leibnez to Plato struggled with... so I won't go to much into it. Men have written volumes on morality and human perception. Needless to say, we call it "murder" because we are taught it is murder.

The three ironies, as you call them, are the result of their true purpose: to free the minds of mind.

THAT is why they are in complete opposition to Templars. Templars may seek "peace" or goals which are worthwhile, but they would do so at the cost of freedom.

ProdiGurl
12-06-2011, 08:37 AM
It's a very deep topic, a philosophical question that pretty much every major thinker from Locke to Leibnez to Plato struggled with... so I won't go to much into it. Men have written volumes on morality and human perception. Needless to say, we call it "murder" because we are taught it is murder.

I actually disagree with this, I find that all humanity has both reason and conscience "hardwired" into them innately.

All people know that killing is wrong bcuz of an inward conscience but they go ahead and commit murder by choice - we can all violate our consciences to do what we know is wrong ... justifying our words & actions. We do it all the time.

Some just do it to greater degrees and levels. It doesn't mean that they don't realize it's wrong without being taught otherwise.

(not that I want to get into a moral debate either, just that I think all humanity knows right and wrong but uses reason to justify things they want to do or don't want to control).

luckyto
12-06-2011, 08:51 AM
That is one line of thought, yes. I tend to agree more with that line of thought than the other; and I think fundamentally, even the Assassin's view killing as a bad thing --- thus "no killing of innoncents." They strive to free humanity, so that people can determine their own fate, and the world they would like to live in and how they feel people should be treated.

I'm just putting that out there as it relates to this topic, what morality is and isn't is a state of mind. Whether it is hard-wired into us or not, it is still a state of mind.

Did you know that Alligators eat each other? It's common. It's part of their survival instinct, it's hard wired into them.

Personally, I tend to think that humans do know, that we are, as Yoda so eloquently put it: Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.

But I recognize this is my perception, and like all perception, it is dynamic.

ProdiGurl
12-06-2011, 09:06 AM
Did you know that Alligators eat each other? It's common. It's part of their survival instinct, it's hard wired into them.

Personally, I tend to think that humans do know, that we are, as Yoda so eloquently put it: Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.

But I recognize this is my perception, and like all perception, it is dynamic.

Well, animals also eat & abandon their young, eat poop & lick their anus's . . lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I try not to use animals in comparison with humans becuz I see a very stark difference btwn the two and their capacities.

But ya, I do understand your points. Just that I view sources & premises differently than others - more black and white.

If there is no moral code whatsoever [set in stone so to speak], then really, nothing is evil either and I just cannot accept that as truth.

I strongly disagree w/ the Assassins Creed itself - I find it utterly immoral on a human level, but there again, this is just a game and I do alot of unethical things in games.

It's fun to check out of reality & go into gaming land & let loose - but even there I do have my limits on what I'll do.

I just played Saints Row 2 - an type of GTA game and at first I really had a problem shooting cops & plowing down pedestrians as I drove by like a maniac to do a job on time lol
But I got over it after awhile.
I still know it's wrong lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OgiOlack
12-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Isaac500:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eregost:
So how is Ezio a good guy again?
Ezio most definitely isn't a good guy. The assassins, including Ezio, are one side of a war. Nobody said the assassin's were good guys. If the game was set on the side of Templars, you'd think they're good, right?

The thing is, Fregost, these points are valid if the person in question was meant to be 'good'. But, he isn't. He kills in cold blood daily, and orders people to be killed in cold blood.

Remember: Ezio will do what he came to do, at any cost. He will only follow three rules; the creed.

Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
I. STAY YOUR BLADE FROM THE FLESH OF AN INNOCENT.
II. HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT.
III. NEVER COMPROMISE THE BROTHERHOOD.

Although a lot of the points you mentioned have been cruel, unthoughtful and mean he has never compromised the creed.

Before you argue, there are only two arguable points where he did break a rule, which was the one regarding civilian's lives. Let me address them. The mission in which he started the riot. Hatred, anger. All the civilians involved in the riot had these feelings. All Ezio did was give them an opportunity to vent this rage; he did not influence, he did not convince, he simply gave them a chance. Almost certainly many civilians turned down the offer; it just wasn't of course shown.

The second one would of course be the explosion and 'gassing' of the civilians in Cappacodia. Well, even though it seems obvious now, in the 16th century Ezio would not be aware of what would have happened. He did not know that an explosion causes fire, fire causes smoke, smoke will remain in an enclosed space and large amounts of smoke will suffocate and damage. He could not have known that, in that time period. You mention that it must have ruined a lot of those people's lives, well, that isn't against the creed.

As I said at the beginning, Ezio has never breached the creed. He has never killed civilians intentionally. Nobody said he was a kind man, nobody said he was on the good side.

He is an assassin, he gets the job done, within the boundaries of the creed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Completly agreed i also find it quite funny how people take their moral into the game without actualy looking the assassins obey the creed try going around and exploding a bomb on middle of civilians you will be disconnected so they are on the creed Altaïr got demoted because he broke all 3 tenents ezio never did so enuff said!

LightRey
12-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Yes, sounds almost like someone whose death might result in significant changes, doesn't it?

Until he even reaches Rome, Ezio had no clue who Cesare was. And before you say "He just didn't know what he looked like", think back to when he first asks Machiavelli about the man's identity. He doesn't say matter-of-factly "Oh, it's Cesare, you know the Pope's son, don't you?" Instead, he gives him a fairly in depth answer, filling in Ezio's lack of knowledge regarding his enemy's identity and actions. Ezio doesn't seem to know the first thing about Cesare or what he was even up to during the interim.

And this supports your point and/or discounts mine how exactly? The very fact that Ezio wasn't even aware of Cesare's existence only further supports my point. Had Cesare not existed, Monterrigioni would never have been attacked and Ezio's fights would really have ended then and there.

All Ezio was busy with in ACII was taking out the Templars responsible for his father and brothers' deaths. When he finally confronted Rodrigo, devastated by the realization that he wasn't the prophet after all and that all he had intended to accomplish was basically gone, Ezio saw no further point in killing him. It was never his intention to free Rome or destroy the Templar order. He knew very well that only killing Rodrigo then and there wouldn't accomplish such a thing anyways. He would simply have been replaced.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
The primary point being: the death of one (or a few) is relevant. The problem with his brother was that he was a terrible leader, not that he was a Templar, hence it's not really an applicable point. Far as I'm aware, Assassins don't focus on killing "weak rulers". The point is that the Templars' were not simply able to throw random people into power on a whim, which defies the idea that their deaths mean nothing. It's a setback, as it is for any political faction.

That's why they freak out upon hearing about Emilio's death. The Templars are a powerful organization, but they don't have inifinitely capable men that they can shift around on a whim; they operate on limited resources. The Assassins have always operated on removing those leaders from power. That itself is what assassination is intended for, otherwise you may as well be leading armies around.

Eh, his brother was a Templar. Years after his appointment the Assassins return to deal with him as he had broken his promise of never consorting with the Templars. You should read up on your ACB/PL.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
I am not arguing that the use of the people in launching a revolt was a bad move. I'm arguing that everything which you suggest would "not" have happened would have still happened, but much more easily. Restore Assassin guilds in Rome? Done. Have the people rise up against the Borgia? Again, done. Expel them from Rome? Once again, done.

See, now this is not true. As I said killing Rodrigo would not only have put all the Templars in Rome on high alert, it would also have meant that Cesare would very likely not have left Rome while Ezio slowly took away all his power there, but also it would have meant that the city guards would have been on a higher alert, as the pope would have been assassinated.

Cesare's presence alone would have made Ezio's work many times harder.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Only now, the Templars would not have access to the same level of Papal Resources.

Oh, but they would. Cesare, being the commander of the papal army would already have full control over basically all of Rome's military. On top of that he had many cardinal lackeys and allies such as the Baron de Valois. He would not only have had the control he had when Rodrigo was pope, but also all the political power he had, because of the fact there was no pope anymore. Cesare would have had all the political power in Rome, instead of just most of it.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
You've already exaggerated his influence. Cesare has power, he does not have the ability to snap his fingers to create an infinite supply of Templar Popes. If it were that easy for the Templars to exact influence, Rodrigo would have been Pope during the Pazzi conspiracy. The Borgia are one faction among many vying for power in Rome. They are made up of capable men, certainly. And Ezio chose to let their arguably most capable man go free, because apparently it wouldn't do anything.

Oh, but he did. The Borgia weren't simply "one faction" anymore. You must keep in mind that they were Templars and that Rodrigo had done all he could to keep the Templars in power in Rome. They had, as Cesare himself said near the end of ACB, bribed and appointed many cardinals
to do their bidding and as said cardinals explained, the only reason Cesare didn't get his way then was because "Borgia money [had] become tainted", which was thanks to Ezio's efforts in Rome.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
No, this is non-sensical. The Templars were fully aware of the Assassins' power by Ezio infiltrating the Vatican, beating down Rodrigo, then entering the Vault. Rodrigo was at Ezio's mercy, and he chose to spare him. That Ezio could just as easily have killed him is an equivalent demonstration of the Assassins' power, which Cesare should have been aware of just as easily. You are currently holding two contradictory positions. Either Cesare could have easily replaced Rodrigo and gone back to his campaign, in which case the Assassins can still operate under the radar, or Cesare could not have replaced Rodrigo easily (if at all), in which case it would have had a significant impact on Templar power. Which are you arguing for?

It wasn't a demonstration of Assassin power. You once again jump to conclusions. Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo, because he didn't feel the need. He wasn't confronting Rodrigo on behalf of the Assassins, he was confronting him on behalf of himself. Sparing Rodrigo was something Ezio did for himself and as killing Rodrigo wouldn't have significantly furthered the Assassins' cause, there was little reason to kill Rodrigo besides his own sense of revenge, which had finally faded away.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
I also think you're giving far too much credit in terms of how much long-term planning Ezio had done with his plan to restore Rome. Bear in mind three things:

1) He does not dispute Mario's or Machiavelli's appeal to kill Cesare in Monterrigioni.
2) He does not offer the explanation you are providing until after he reaches Rome, at which point it's pulled from nowhere. Instead, he claims that killing Rodrigo will not bring his family back.
3)Upon his return to the Villa, Ezio was under the impression that all his work had paid off, and that he was finished.

1) He was still out for revenge. Throughout all of ACII Ezio wasn't killing for the order. Hell, he wasn't even aware the order was still so much of an order until after he recovered the apple in Venice. The fact that killing these people benefited the people was an added bonus to him.
2) So he has to spell everything out for you at every point in the game? Here's a newsflash for you: people don't tend to say everything they're thinking out loud.
3) He was finished because he was done with revenge. There wasn't anybody left he wanted to kill and he never so much "served" the order as that he and the order had a common goal. Granted, Ezio mostly agreed with the order's ways, but he never actually served it. Ezio felt he had done enough for the order at the end of ACII (and he certainly had already) and didn't think his final target would want to come after him (and he didn't, his son just turned out to be a major a-hole).


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Go back to pretty much every conversation Ezio has upon his return to Monterrigioni."I have all the time in the world", "My battles are already won". He had no idea what he was doing. He thought the threat was over, that Rodrigo was done.

And he was. It was Cesare who decided to pick a fight with Ezio.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
It's only until after he speaks with Machiavelli that he starts claiming he was surprised at Cesare's speed. For someone who honestly believes that the only way to stop the Templars is a massive revolt, for the people to rise up, he sure wasn't arguing for it at any point prior to Rome, which makes his position seem utterly insane. The many lying at your feet, whom you've killed dozens to get to, and then you spare him? Because it won't make a difference? Did Ezio in the time gap study a comprehensive list of all the different Borgia leaders in Rome that he is suddenly aware that Rodrigo shouldn't have to die?

The fight with the Templars had never been Ezio's fight. Cesare made it his fight and in doing so Ezio came to Rome and destroyed all Templar influence there.



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
The first Castello infiltration pretty much defies this argument, which is what your quote is a reference to. This is before he had even bothered taking out Juan Borgia, the French General, or even done a significant job of restoring Assassin Power. In effect, the Assassins' position was not good enough to expel the Borgias, which (by your argument) is evidence that they should not have struck. Yet, Ezio sees that they should die. Again, why? Because removing significant political figures, ones with interests contrary to your goals, is an incredibly useful tool.

Lol, the only reason Ezio infiltrated the Castello that time was because he wanted to save Caterina. He obviously had feelings for her. Besides that all the others wanted him to finish off Cesare and Rodrigo, but as should be clear he never really intended to kill them that time, especially considering the tone of his remark on how disappointed Machiavelli would be.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Pretty much everyone makes clear that Ezio was acting like an infant with his resistance to killing them. It wasn't built on logic, or an awareness of what assassination actually does, but on a whim, contrary to everything we had been led to believe Ezio would do (and should do).
Yet Machiavelli clearly admits that Ezio was "exactly what the order needed" and he even almost decided not to criticize Ezio anymore, only to be stopped by Ezio as Ezio saw the value of his criticism. It wasn't Ezio who had admitted he was wrong, it was Machiavelli. All Ezio had admitted in being wrong about was his assumption that nobody would challenge him anymore after returning from the Vatican and the only reason he was wrong was because Cesare didn't listen to his father.

Il_Divo
12-06-2011, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:

And this supports your point and/or discounts mine how exactly? The very fact that Ezio wasn't even aware of Cesare's existence only further supports my point. Had Cesare not existed, Monterrigioni would never have been attacked and Ezio's fights would really have ended then and there.

Your point is entirely built on the understanding that Ezio had intimate knowledge of the Templar structure at the end of AC2. He did not, which is a pretty important designation in his lack of awareness regarding Cesare's identity. Assassins, as I've repeated several times now, operate under the assumption that, in killing their individual targets, they are making a difference, which goes unquestioned by Ezio when he is tasked by Mario/Machiavelli with executing Rodrigo and entering the Vault.Contrary to your own claim, Ezio is not fully aware of how the Templars are set up in Rome, prior to Brotherhood and his inquiry into the Banker/French General.



All Ezio was busy with in ACII was taking out the Templars responsible for his father and brothers' deaths. When he finally confronted Rodrigo, devastated by the realization that he wasn't the prophet after all and that all he had intended to accomplish was basically gone, Ezio saw no further point in killing him. It was never his intention to free Rome or destroy the Templar order. He knew very well that only killing Rodrigo then and there wouldn't accomplish such a thing anyways. He would simply have been replaced.

Beyond of course, being formally inducted into the Assassin Order itself. But for some reason, Ezio couldn't figure out that in attacking Templars, it would be inevitable that they would strike back. You can only poke a bear so many times before its wrath is incoming. And in this case, he chose to poke a very dangerous bear. Ezio's position is also built on the naive belief that Rodrigo didn't have other plans in action or goals as head of the Templar Order, which alone would serve as a critical aspect in killing him.




See, now this is not true. As I said killing Rodrigo would not only have put all the Templars in Rome on high alert, it would also have meant that Cesare would very likely not have left Rome while Ezio slowly took away all his power there, but also it would have meant that the city guards would have been on a higher alert, as the pope would have been assassinated.

Incorrect. The Templars should have been on high alert in so far as they are aware that an Assassin managed to infiltrate the very heart of the Vatican, take back the Apple, and had been in a position to easily execute the Grand Master of their order. Ezio failed in his task only because he allowed himself to fail. So effectively, it wouldn't have made any difference in how "alert" the Templars are/were. Especially since according to you Cesare would have attacked Monterrigioni anyway, in which case he would have believed Ezio to be dead and could continue his campaign in peace. Even as a Templar power base, it's not clear who would be in a position to take over the order, particularly when we consider that Cesare himself really wasn't concerned with Templar ideology and more with his conquest of Italy.

Effectively, Ezio had demonstrated that he could have assassinated the Pope, if he so wanted to, which would be all the demonstration they needed to understand the danger and threat the Assassins actually posed. That should make it clear that whether Ezio did or did not kill the Pope wouldn't make a difference, in terms of the Templar response, since he was in a perfectly suitable position to do so. In simply going to the Vatican, overpowering the Pope, etc, he had made a definitive statement to the Templars regarding the Assassins' current capabilities.



Cesare's presence alone would have made Ezio's work many times harder.

Cesare's presence alone? No, not unless he intended to keep a standing army around, which pose its own problems for his conquest of Italia.But as I pointed it out, if Cesare would have attacked Monterrigioni regardless, which is your argument, he would never have had any reason to occupy Roma, since he would be operating under the assumption of Ezio's death.

Ezio revealing himself to Lucrezia should have already ruined any sort of cover Ezio had hoped to maintain. The death of both Juan Borgia and Octavian should already have sent up red flags that something was wrong, but for some reason Cesare is not even remotely aware of these things. Apparently no one decided to get the message to him, though in Ezio's position I would suspect that he'd find out. For someone hoping to keep news of Assassin power restoring a secret, Ezio's actions are remarkably open and brash.



Oh, but they would. Cesare, being the commander of the papal army would already have full control over basically all of Rome's military. On top of that he had many cardinal lackeys and allies such as the Baron de Valois. He would not only have had the control he had when Rodrigo was pope, but also all the political power he had, because of the fact there was no pope anymore. Cesare would have had all the political power in Rome, instead of just most of it.

That's not how it works being Commander of the Papal Army. You see, once a Pope is actually elected, your absolute power tends to evaporate. And historically, that's exactly what happened to Cesare when Julius II came to power. Cesare (for example) doesn't have access to infinite Templar resources. In many ways, Cesare himself isn't really a Templar, having a very different mindset from most others that we have seen, and probably wouldn't even be able to maintain access to the same resources. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Juan Borgia alone wasn't responsible for giving Cesare the Vatican, particularly when we consider the sheer number of people who would seek out the Papal Office. Consider, in support of this, the number of cardinals who typically vote in the Papal Conclave vs. the number of cardinals whom we actually see Cesare arguing with, being his "bribes".




Oh, but he did. The Borgia weren't simply "one faction" anymore. You must keep in mind that they were Templars and that Rodrigo had done all he could to keep the Templars in power in Rome. They had, as Cesare himself said near the end of ACB, bribed and appointed many cardinals

to do their bidding and as said cardinals explained, the only reason Cesare didn't get his way then was because "Borgia money [had] become tainted", which was thanks to Ezio's efforts in Rome.

See above.

As I said, Ezio's plan in Brotherhood was fine. His decision to leave Rodrigo alive was idiotic and demonstrated a lack of any political understanding or awareness of how the Templars were set up. Politics are somewhat more complicated than simply snapping your fingers and having Templar Popes materialize. The death of Al Mualim is a perfect demonstration of how power can fragment and result in divided political forces. The death of leaders is almost always considered a setback, primarily because they provide direction and focus. The death of any leader raises the question: "What do we do now?"




It wasn't a demonstration of Assassin power. You once again jump to conclusions. Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo, because he didn't feel the need. He wasn't confronting Rodrigo on behalf of the Assassins, he was confronting him on behalf of himself. Sparing Rodrigo was something Ezio did for himself and as killing Rodrigo wouldn't have significantly furthered the Assassins' cause, there was little reason to kill Rodrigo besides his own sense of revenge, which had finally faded away.

His sense of revenge faded away in the five minutes between his attempted hidden blade attack from the balcony and strangling Rodrigo outside the vault?

You keep forgetting about how Ezio is an official Assassin; that's exactly what reciting the Creed is intended to represent. The entire point of that induction is that he must kill Rodrigo out of duty to the people, not out of personal bloodlust. If Ezio did not kill Rodrigo "for himself", then he had no business going to the Vatican in the first place, if we accept your belief regarding his desire of revenge.



1) He was still out for revenge. Throughout all of ACII Ezio wasn't killing for the order. Hell, he wasn't even aware the order was still so much of an order until after he recovered the apple in Venice. The fact that killing these people benefited the people was an added bonus to him.
2) So he has to spell everything out for you at every point in the game? Here's a newsflash for you: people don't tend to say everything they're thinking out loud.
3) He was finished because he was done with revenge. There wasn't anybody left he wanted to kill and he never so much "served" the order as that he and the order had a common goal. Granted, Ezio mostly agreed with the order's ways, but he never actually served it. Ezio felt he had done enough for the order at the end of ACII (and he certainly had already) and didn't think his final target would want to come after him (and he didn't, his son just turned out to be a major a-hole).


1)Absolutely irrelevant. If he was killing for revenge, then Rodrigo should have died. If he realized that killing him would change nothing, then he should not have gone along with Machiavelli's/Mario's plan of "Kill the Spaniard" so readily. Ezio's motivation at no point had anything to do with his belief that Rodrigo's death would change nothing, until we see him in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.

2)Yes, if they want to create an effective narrative. We need to see how Ezio changes as an individual in order to understand whyEzio's whole "Killing Rodrigo would not have changed anything" is an asspull, as of AC2. Your own position emphasizes that Ezio was only after revenge. But suddenly, when his "goal" is at hand, he realizes "No, this won't bring my family back". Well, great job Ezio, it's a shame about all the various political figures, anonymous guards, etc, that had to die along the way, but at least you figured it out in time to spare the Big Bad Evil Guy, the one who is ultimately responsible for your family's death.

3)Formal induction into the order, assistance in guarding the Apple of Eden against the Templars, and following the lead set by both Mario, Grand Master of the Order, and Machiavelli in dealing with this threat. That sounds like an Assassin to me. Ezio's belief was assinine in so far as he didn't think the Templars would come back for the Apple, which is their modus operandi.He's had enough experience with them at this point to at least understand that and how they work.



And he was. It was Cesare who decided to pick a fight with Ezio.

Really? Please explain to me what Ezio had done to eliminate Templar power as of AC2's conclusion. Far as I'm aware, the Templars are more than the Papal Staff and Apple of Eden, representing a World-wide Order.



The fight with the Templars had never been Ezio's fight. Cesare made it his fight and in doing so Ezio came to Rome and destroyed all Templar influence there.

Wait, what? He was assassinating Templars! Of course, it was his fight, which should have been clear once he realized that they were part of a single organization. It would be like if I tried to eliminate the heads of any government and didn't expect any retaliation from the country as a whole. He may not have identified with the Assassins officially until after meeting the "Prophet", but it should have been exceptionally clear to him that provoking them would lead to retaliation, particularly when he was in possession of an artifact they desired, had eliminated a dozen significant political figures, and had almost assassinated the head of their Order in his own house.

What would you expect beyond Cesare burning Monterrigioni down?




Lol, the only reason Ezio infiltrated the Castello that time was because he wanted to save Caterina. He obviously had feelings for her. Besides that all the others wanted him to finish off Cesare and Rodrigo, but as should be clear he never really intended to kill them that time, especially considering the tone of his remark on how disappointed Machiavelli would be.

You might want to rewatch those cut-scenes.

"Roma will heal quickly with Cesare and Rodrigo gone." Ezio: "But only if the opportunity presents itself".

and further: "They will die, I assure you".

You don't have enough evidence to make the claim that he was going to spare their lives. He simply wasn't enthusiastic in the manner that his comrades were about eliminating them. Even that off-hand comment about Machiavelli indicates much the same. Ezio's not upset, he sounds amused, because he's aware that his comrades were a tad more concerned with it than he was.




Yet Machiavelli clearly admits that Ezio was "exactly what the order needed" and he even almost decided not to criticize Ezio anymore, only to be stopped by Ezio as Ezio saw the value of his criticism. It wasn't Ezio who had admitted he was wrong, it was Machiavelli. All Ezio had admitted in being wrong about was his assumption that nobody would challenge him anymore after returning from the Vatican and the only reason he was wrong was because Cesare didn't listen to his father.

No, you've already given Ezio too much credit here. The only thing Machiavelli concedes with regard to Ezio is his foresight with regards to rising up against the Borgias. At no point does he concede that Ezio was right in sparing Rodrigo's life. Machiavelli was wrong with regard to his treatment/attitude towards Ezio, who proved that he was capable with regard to creating a unified organization and whose charisma restored the order. Machiavelli was wrong in his belief that the people were useless in his words, and in his inability to establish Rome into an effective Assassin HQ. These are both things which Ezio demonstrated he was capable of. It does not mean that his judgment had any kind of logic to it.

LightRey
12-06-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Your point is entirely built on the understanding that Ezio had intimate knowledge of the Templar structure at the end of AC2. He did not, which is a pretty important designation in his lack of awareness regarding Cesare's identity. Assassins, as I've repeated several times now, operate under the assumption that, in killing their individual targets, they are making a difference, which goes unquestioned by Ezio when he is tasked by Mario/Machiavelli with executing Rodrigo and entering the Vault.Contrary to your own claim, Ezio is not fully aware of how the Templars are set up in Rome, prior to Brotherhood and his inquiry into the Banker/French General.

Quite the contrary. You appear excellent at misinterpreting what I say. My point is entirely based on that Ezio didn't know much about the state of the Templar order. Had Ezio known about Cesare, he'd have known the state of Rome and the danger that lay in going to the Vatican. He might even have been able to expect Cesare's attack on Monterrigioni, but without knowing of him, he'd have known that killing Rodrigo would not have mattered, as he most certainly did know the Templar order was still strong in Rome, especially considering their grand master was the pope. He needn't be fully aware. Knowing Rodrigo was pope was enough information to deduce that the Templar order was strong(est) in Rome.

The Assassin order isn't simply based on expecting good will come from simply killing a few men. That's a far too simplistic view. The Assassin order focuses on allowing the people to make their own choices and as such they focus on taking out all who would force their will upon others. That doesn't go simply for Cesare and Rodrigo, but all Templars.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Beyond of course, being formally inducted into the Assassin Order itself. But for some reason, Ezio couldn't figure out that in attacking Templars, it would be inevitable that they would strike back. You can only poke a bear so many times before its wrath is incoming. And in this case, he chose to poke a very dangerous bear. Ezio's position is also built on the naive belief that Rodrigo didn't have other plans in action or goals as head of the Templar Order, which alone would serve as a critical aspect in killing him.

And again he was right. Rodrigo really didn't have any other plans. He had always intended to "kill god" and become all powerful. Instead, after realizing he would never be able to do so, all that was left was his place as grand master of the Templars and his powerful position as pope, both of which were quickly fading away as Cesare was taking over control while he had been so focused on his own goals and failure therein.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Incorrect. The Templars should have been on high alert in so far as they are aware that an Assassin managed to infiltrate the very heart of the Vatican, take back the Apple, and had been in a position to easily execute the Grand Master of their order. Ezio failed in his task only because he allowed himself to fail. So effectively, it wouldn't have made any difference in how "alert" the Templars are/were. Especially since according to you Cesare would have attacked Monterrigioni anyway, in which case he would have believed Ezio to be dead and could continue his campaign in peace. Even as a Templar power base, it's not clear who would be in a position to take over the order, particularly when we consider that Cesare himself really wasn't concerned with Templar ideology and more with his conquest of Italy.

Clearly they weren't. Not only was Cesare so lacks as to leave Rome in the hands of his generals, while he attended to the war in Romagna, but also did many of the Templars assume that Ezio was dead after the attack on Monterrigioni. They were so far from alert in fact, that no message of the troubles in Rome (which had been going on for almost 3 years by then) had reached Cesare until it was too late.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Effectively, Ezio had demonstrated that he could have assassinated the Pope, if he so wanted to, which would be all the demonstration they needed to understand the danger and threat the Assassins actually posed. That should make it clear that whether Ezio did or did not kill the Pope wouldn't make a difference, in terms of the Templar response, since he was in a perfectly suitable position to do so. In simply going to the Vatican, overpowering the Pope, etc, he had made a definitive statement to the Templars regarding the Assassins' current capabilities.

Again, it was not a demonstration of Assassin power. Ezio went to kill Rodrigo to finish his fight, but more importantly he went to get the staff and open the vault, so that he could keep away the supposed weapon that was in there. His mission was never to kill Rodrigo to begin with, but to get the staff and get into the vault to prevent the Templars from doing so. The others simply assumed it'd involve killing Rodrigo, but as we can see it didn't.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Cesare's presence alone? No, not unless he intended to keep a standing army around, which pose its own problems for his conquest of Italia.But as I pointed it out, if Cesare would have attacked Monterrigioni regardless, which is your argument, he would never have had any reason to occupy Roma, since he would be operating under the assumption of Ezio's death.

Seeing as Cesare was the commander of the papal army, it would really have meant him keeping a standing army around. Playing the courtesan side missions, it's also clear that had Cesare realized what was going on he'd have "flooded the city with troops", as quoted from the courtesan who gave Ezio the mission to replace a message to Cesare with a forgery.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Ezio revealing himself to Lucrezia should have already ruined any sort of cover Ezio had hoped to maintain. The death of both Juan Borgia and Octavian should already have sent up red flags that something was wrong, but for some reason Cesare is not even remotely aware of these things. Apparently no one decided to get the message to him, though in Ezio's position I would suspect that he'd find out. For someone hoping to keep news of Assassin power restoring a secret, Ezio's actions are remarkably open and brash.
[/QUTOE]
Those pieces of information never reached Cesare until he returned from Romagna. Did you even pay attention to the game? He returned literally saying "What happened here?". Lucrezia was too obsessed with Cesare's love and admired him too much to even bother to send him a message about Ezio. Even when he had returned (which was solely because he had noticed his funds were suddenly lacking), Cesare was unaware of the Baron's death and the fact that Rodrigo had taken the apple.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Il_Divo:
That's not how it works being Commander of the Papal Army. You see, once a Pope is actually elected, your absolute power tends to evaporate. And historically, that's exactly what happened to Cesare when Julius II came to power. Cesare (for example) doesn't have access to infinite Templar resources. In many ways, Cesare himself isn't really a Templar, having a very different mindset from most others that we have seen, and probably wouldn't even be able to maintain access to the same resources. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Juan Borgia alone wasn't responsible for giving Cesare the Vatican, particularly when we consider the sheer number of people who would seek out the Papal Office. Consider, in support of this, the number of cardinals who typically vote in the Papal Conclave vs. the number of cardinals whom we actually see Cesare arguing with, being his "bribes".

Thing is. It takes days, sometimes weeks even, before a new pope is selected and during that time he is still fully in charge of the papal army. Also, Julius II wasn't Rodrigo's direct successor, Pius III was and he supported Cesare. However, he died soon after he was elected (possibly having been poisoned).



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
As I said, Ezio's plan in Brotherhood was fine. His decision to leave Rodrigo alive was idiotic and demonstrated a lack of any political understanding or awareness of how the Templars were set up. Politics are somewhat more complicated than simply snapping your fingers and having Templar Popes materialize. The death of Al Mualim is a perfect demonstration of how power can fragment and result in divided political forces. The death of leaders is almost always considered a setback, primarily because they provide direction and focus. The death of any leader raises the question: "What do we do now?"

Only if it is done at the right time. Had Al Mualim not been killed by one of his own, or had he not betrayed his own order, he'd simply had been succeeded by a master like Altaïr and the order would not have been divided. Abbass would have remained a nobody with little influence and most if not all other assassins would have followed their new grand master.

Ezio has shown that it's not just about killing the leaders, it's about killing the leaders when the time is right, when killing them causes a chain reaction that takes down all their influence.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
His sense of revenge faded away in the five minutes between his attempted hidden blade attack from the balcony and strangling Rodrigo outside the vault?

Yes, it did. After the struggle he saw Rodrigo as a broken man who really had little to nothing left. Ezio's feelings of revenge were replaced by pity.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
You keep forgetting about how Ezio is an official Assassin; that's exactly what reciting the Creed is intended to represent. The entire point of that induction is that he must kill Rodrigo out of duty to the people, not out of personal bloodlust. If Ezio did not kill Rodrigo "for himself", then he had no business going to the Vatican in the first place, if we accept your belief regarding his desire of revenge.

Just because he was an official assassin doesn't mean he did everything for the order. He was officially part of the order since his initiation, yes, but anyone can see that he only went after the people who had directly gotten in his way or were part of the conspiracy that caused his father and brothers' deaths. Ezio cared about the people and shared his ideologies with that of the order, but he carried out the missions that were of personal interest to him, which involved the codex, the people involved in his father and brothers' deaths and of course the apple, no others.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
1)Absolutely irrelevant. If he was killing for revenge, then Rodrigo should have died. If he realized that killing him would change nothing, then he should not have gone along with Machiavelli's/Mario's plan of "Kill the Spaniard" so readily. Ezio's motivation at no point had anything to do with his belief that Rodrigo's death would change nothing, until we see him in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.

2)Yes, if they want to create an effective narrative. We need to see how Ezio changes as an individual in order to understand whyEzio's whole "Killing Rodrigo would not have changed anything" is an asspull, as of AC2. Your own position emphasizes that Ezio was only after revenge. But suddenly, when his "goal" is at hand, he realizes "No, this won't bring my family back". Well, great job Ezio, it's a shame about all the various political figures, anonymous guards, etc, that had to die along the way, but at least you figured it out in time to spare the Big Bad Evil Guy, the one who is ultimately responsible for your family's death.

3)Formal induction into the order, assistance in guarding the Apple of Eden against the Templars, and following the lead set by both Mario, Grand Master of the Order, and Machiavelli in dealing with this threat. That sounds like an Assassin to me. Ezio's belief was assinine in so far as he didn't think the Templars would come back for the Apple, which is their modus operandi.He's had enough experience with them at this point to at least understand that and how they work.

1) As I explained he eventually was done with revenge as he realized at the end of ACII.
2) That is nonsense. It's a very normal thing to keep the viewer/player guessing as to what exactly the thoughts of a main character are. It's absolutely preposterous to see it as a requirement that they'd reveal every thought they had. True good plots try to get the player to realize (or think of) what the main character's intentions are. That's one of the main things that separate games, TV series and movies from novels (though some novels do use such a style). You're actually refuting something that is very common in such things. Just think of crime TV shows. They often focus completely on the viewer guessing what a detective is deducing.
3) explained above.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Really? Please explain to me what Ezio had done to eliminate Templar power as of AC2's conclusion. Far as I'm aware, the Templars are more than the Papal Staff and Apple of Eden, representing a World-wide Order.

So? They didn't attack him. They didn't want to start a fight they might not win. It was Cesare and Cesare alone who challenged Ezio. Rodrigo didn't, the Byzantines certainly didn't and we haven't even seen any other Templars of those days.

The Templars don't seek out fights with the Assassins unless they're sure they'll win. The only one who was even in the position to do such a thing was Cesare and Ezio was completely unaware of him.


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
Wait, what? He was assassinating Templars! Of course, it was his fight, which should have been clear once he realized that they were part of a single organization. It would be like if I tried to eliminate the heads of any government and didn't expect any retaliation from the country as a whole. He may not have identified with the Assassins officially until after meeting the "Prophet", but it should have been exceptionally clear to him that provoking them would lead to retaliation, particularly when he was in possession of an artifact they desired, had eliminated a dozen significant political figures, and had almost assassinated the head of their Order in his own house.

What would you expect beyond Cesare burning Monterrigioni down?

He was assassinating specific Templars. He hadn't bothered to look up Templars that weren't on or related to his dad's list and all the other people he killed he killed because they happened to be in his way.



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
You might want to rewatch those cut-scenes.

"Roma will heal quickly with Cesare and Rodrigo gone." Ezio: "But only if the opportunity presents itself will I take it".

and further: "They will die, I assure you".

You don't have enough evidence to make the claim that he was going to spare their lives. He simply wasn't enthusiastic in the manner that his comrades were about eliminating them. Even that off-hand comment about Machiavelli indicates much the same. Ezio's not upset, he sounds amused, because he's aware that his comrades were a tad more concerned with it than he was.

Fixed something for you there. Once again you manage to misinterpret something I say. I never said he was upset, I am well aware that he was amused. That's the whole freaking point. Of course he wasn't going to kill them. He never intended to and he found it amusing he had an excuse. Need I remind you he didn't even bother to look for Rodrigo? He only asked if Caterina knew where he was, which isn't exactly the best source considering she was just a prisoner of Cesare. All he was interested in was saving Caterina. That really should be clear.

He was planning to kill them eventually of course, but when the time was right. That's why he said "They will die". That way he was just ambiguous enough to not be lying and still not kill them then and there.



Originally posted by Il_Divo:
No, you've already given Ezio too much credit here. The only thing Machiavelli concedes with regard to Ezio is his foresight with regards to rising up against the Borgias. At no point does he concede that Ezio was right in sparing Rodrigo's life. Machiavelli was wrong with regard to his treatment/attitude towards Ezio, who proved that he was capable with regard to creating a unified organization and whose charisma restored the order. Machiavelli was wrong in his belief that the people were useless in his words, and in his inability to establish Rome into an effective Assassin HQ. These are both things which Ezio demonstrated he was capable of. It does not mean that his judgment had any kind of logic to it.
I think you give Ezio too little credit.

I believe the only reason you're even having this discussion is because you seem to be having trouble relating to Ezio. You dare not admit that his choices were right ones even if you would not have made them.

This game isn't about Ezio being wrong and Machiavelli being right, but vice versa.

Oh, and there's one final thing I'd like to point out once again. At the end of ACII, Ezio didn't go to the Vatican on an assassination mission. He went, because through the codex the Assassins had discovered that the papal staff and the apple were 2 PoE's that when used in conjunction could be used by the prophet to open a hidden vault below the Vatican. Their goal was to make sure the Templars never got the chance to get their hands on whatever lay in that vault. That was the primary goal. Most assumed killing Rodrigo would be inevitable, but they were wrong.

Il_Divo
12-07-2011, 11:02 AM
Quite the contrary. You appear excellent at misinterpreting what I say. My point is entirely based on that Ezio didn't know much about the state of the Templar order. Had Ezio known about Cesare, he'd have known the state of Rome and the danger that lay in going to the Vatican. He might even have been able to expect Cesare's attack on Monterrigioni, but without knowing of him, he'd have known that killing Rodrigo would not have mattered, as he most certainly did know the Templar order was still strong in Rome, especially considering their grand master was the pope. He needn't be fully aware. Knowing Rodrigo was pope was enough information to deduce that the Templar order was strong(est) in Rome.

So Ezio now didn’t know about the state of the Templar Order? Yet somehow managed to determine that killing Rodrigo wouldn’t have changed anything? Sounds like backpedaling. For one, merely because Rodrigo was the Templar Grandmaster does not mean that the Templars had infinite resources in Rome, particularly when you consider what it even took to get him there. Hint: It was over a twenty year time period. If it was that easy, the Borgias would have always been in possession of the Vatican.



And again he was right. Rodrigo really didn't have any other plans. He had always intended to "kill god" and become all powerful. Instead, after realizing he would never be able to do so, all that was left was his place as grand master of the Templars and his powerful position as pope, both of which were quickly fading away as Cesare was taking over control while he had been so focused on his own goals and failure therein.

Really? Templar Grandmasters only ever enact one plan of action to achieve their goals of World Domination? You might want to replay AC2. Hint: Assassination of the Doge of Venice, Pazzi Conspiracy. You might also want to look into how Templars operate. What you’re suggesting is the equivalent of the Republican party disbanding because Obama won an election; it’s not how politics works.

This logic is also dependent on the idea that Rodrigo does nothing following his defeat. That is the height of naivety, for anyone with a basic understanding of Templar structure. Grandmasters do not sit around and twiddle their thumbs because their plan to take over the world was foiled for the millionth time.



Clearly they weren't. Not only was Cesare so lacks as to leave Rome in the hands of his generals, while he attended to the war in Romagna, but also did many of the Templars assume that Ezio was dead after the attack on Monterrigioni. They were so far from alert in fact, that no message of the troubles in Rome (which had been going on for almost 3 years by then) had reached Cesare until it was too late.

You're missing my point. Killing the Pope would not have changed anything in terms of Templar Awareness. Your point was that killing the Pope would have made the Templars more aware. It would not have changed anything from that perspective, because they were already aware that an assassin had managed to successfully infiltrate their ranks and ***
assinated/had the option to assassinate the Pope.

If Cesare always attacks Monterrigioni following Ezio’s attack on the Vatican, then he always believes Ezio to be dead. It’s that simple. Cesare, under that assumption, would not simply stay in Rome because he’s worried what Ezio Auditore’s/the Assassins’ plan of attack is, since he believes him to be dead. Everything that stems after, including that no messages got out to Cesare, I consider a plothole.



Again, it was not a demonstration of Assassin power. Ezio went to kill Rodrigo to finish his fight, but more importantly he went to get the staff and open the vault, so that he could keep away the supposed weapon that was in there. His mission was never to kill Rodrigo to begin with, but to get the staff and get into the vault to prevent the Templars from doing so. The others simply assumed it'd involve killing Rodrigo, but as we can see it didn't.

It involved killing Rodrigo because he was the prime target of the plan and the Templar head. You might also want to recheck your mission assignment upon reaching the Vatican. It says something to the effect of “Assassinate the Spaniard”. That was always the intended mission, in addition to preventing access to the Vault. Killing Rodrigo would, in many ways, be considered a necessary element because he demonstrated, on multiple occasions, his skill in manipulating others. The Pazzi Conspiracy and Doge of Venice were two areas where the Assassins had gained the upper hand, but still demonstrated Rodrigo’s skill at manipulation. Assassins fight/kill Templars, particularly when they’re major political figures.




Those pieces of information never reached Cesare until he returned from Romagna. Did you even pay attention to the game? He returned literally saying "What happened here?". Lucrezia was too obsessed with Cesare's love and admired him too much to even bother to send him a message about Ezio. Even when he had returned (which was solely because he had noticed his funds were suddenly lacking), Cesare was unaware of the Baron's death and the fact that Rodrigo had taken the apple.

Exactly. Hell, maybe I should have been more clear: it’s a plothole. He didn’t have any clue that his top generals, including major figures in the Vatican, had suddenly dropped like flies? That itself is in defiance of everything you claim regarding how Ezio shouldn’t have killed the Pope because Cesare would keep a standing army in Rome, and yet, Ezio doesn’t realize (in theory) that killing Cesare’s leaders wouldn’t make him realize something was wrong on the homefront? However you might want to spin it, it’s bad story-telling. Ezio claims that Rodrigo’s death wouldn’t have changed anything, while taking out other figures whose deaths would have a negative effect, while trying to stay hidden.

And do you realize how foolish it sounds that Lucrezia was too obsessed with Cesare to tell him about Ezio? That’s the very reason why she would/should inform him, as he indicates a threat to his potential power, potentially unraveling all of his plans.




Only if it is done at the right time. Had Al Mualim not been killed by one of his own, or had he not betrayed his own order, he'd simply had been succeeded by a master like Altaïr and the order would not have been divided. Abbass would have remained a nobody with little influence and most if not all other assassins would have followed their new grand master.

Ezio has shown that it's not just about killing the leaders, it's about killing the leaders when the time is right, when killing them causes a chain reaction that takes down all their influence.

Primary point being: every political death represents a setback. After Rodrigo dies, the Templars do not just pretend like nothing happened. It’s a significant change in the political climate. There’s also no clear guarantee as of AC2 that a Templar Pope would have been elected.



Yes, it did. After the struggle he saw Rodrigo as a broken man who really had little to nothing left. Ezio's feelings of revenge were replaced by pity.

And that’s why, from a narrative perspective, Ezio’s actions are so foolish. There was no build-up to this “realization”. Consider how many revenge plots exist. Often, they present us with the dichotomy: “Is revenge just?”. Assassin’s Creed II never presents that question, which is perfectly fine from a story-telling perspective, but then Ezio shouldn’t be having major realizations at the conclusion of this venture, not when he’s stacked the bodies so high and couldn’t realize at any point that what he was doing might have been wrong. Ezio’s catharsis is without any basis, essentially contradicting everything we’ve seen about the character.



Just because he was an official assassin doesn't mean he did everything for the order. He was officially part of the order since his initiation, yes, but anyone can see that he only went after the people who had directly gotten in his way or were part of the conspiracy that caused his father and brothers' deaths. Ezio cared about the people and shared his ideologies with that of the order, but he carried out the missions that were of personal interest to him, which involved the codex, the people involved in his father and brothers' deaths and of course the apple, no others.

Uhh, yes it did. That’s kinda what Assassins do. Anyone can see that the Assassins in Italy were concerned with the events in Italy. Notice that they don’t send Ezio to Constantinople, Spain, or anything. Why? He’s in Italy, because the current fight is in Italy. If all that mattered was revenge, he wouldn’t have even bothered with the Apple, the Codex, etc. He would have simply said “Hey, how can I reach Rodrigo?” That’s what we see Ezio do, because that’s the focus of the story.



1) As I explained he eventually was done with revenge as he realized at the end of ACII.
2) That is nonsense. It's a very normal thing to keep the viewer/player guessing as to what exactly the thoughts of a main character are. It's absolutely preposterous to see it as a requirement that they'd reveal every thought they had. True good plots try to get the player to realize (or think of) what the main character's intentions are. That's one of the main things that separate games, TV series and movies from novels (though some novels do use such a style). You're actually refuting something that is very common in such things. Just think of crime TV shows. They often focus completely on the viewer guessing what a detective is deducing.
3) explained above.

1) And he realized it in the most asinine fashion possible, which is my point.

2) No, it’s terrible story-telling.

To start off, this is not a detective TV show, which is heavily reliant on guessing the murderer’s/criminal’s motivation. AC2 follows the monomyth, the Hero’s Journey, surrounding Ezio’s rise as an Assassin. We need to understand his motivation and development every step of the way. Here’s a hint: if your viewer at any point finds himself saying “Wtf is going on? Why did he just do that?”, then you (as the storyteller) have screwed something up. Clarity is practically a necessity to tell your tale.

If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was revenge, which is something you have claimed, then his decision to chicken out looks even worse, since at no point prior to this is Ezio confronted with the possibility that his desire revenge is wrong, at least not that the audience can see. If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was not to kill Rodrigo, then the story has still done something wrong, since AC2 never explains to the player Ezio’s grand plan of “free Rome”, which he doesn’t even bother putting into action until being attacked by Cesare. Any way you look at it, Ezio screwed up, as did the writers.



So? They didn't attack him. They didn't want to start a fight they might not win. It was Cesare and Cesare alone who challenged Ezio. Rodrigo didn't, the Byzantines certainly didn't and we haven't even seen any other Templars of those days.

The Templars don't seek out fights with the Assassins unless they're sure they'll win. The only one who was even in the position to do such a thing was Cesare and Ezio was completely unaware of him.

So Ezio’s actions remain idiotic. Do Assassins really believe that the Templars will never strike back in some fashion? Templars want power and control. Ezio took the Apple of Eden with him back to Monterrigioni, after hitting the Templar Grandmaster. What? Did he see himself settling down and having kids in that aftermath? He made this his fight, he should’ve seen the consequences.



He was assassinating specific Templars. He hadn't bothered to look up Templars that weren't on or related to his dad's list and all the other people he killed he killed because they happened to be in his way.

Now you’re being purposely obtuse. It doesn’t matter why he was killing them. Altair killed specific Templars, and they retaliated. Ezio killed specific Templars because assassination requires the killing of specific Templars. That in no way changes the reality that he is, in effect, declaring war on their order. For them, it doesn’t make the slightest difference that Ezio did it for revenge, he was attacking them and attempting to foil their plans.

Add on top of that the Templars in the Battle for Forli had tried to recover the Apple and that Ezio himself had returned it to Monterrigioni, and any idiot really could have predicted that there would be repercussions for his actions. The Apple is itself an artifact which the Templars have always strived to control. Rodrigo probably would not have sacked Monterrigioni, but he would have retaliated in some fashion, as the Orsi Brothers demonstrated.



Fixed something for you there. Once again you manage to misinterpret something I say. I never said he was upset, I am well aware that he was amused. That's the whole freaking point. Of course he wasn't going to kill them. He never intended to and he found it amusing he had an excuse. Need I remind you he didn't even bother to look for Rodrigo? He only asked if Caterina knew where he was, which isn't exactly the best source considering she was just a prisoner of Cesare. All he was interested in was saving Caterina. That really should be clear.

He was planning to kill them eventually of course, but when the time was right. That's why he said "They will die". That way he was just ambiguous enough to not be lying and still not kill them then and there.

Despite two in game sources which say you’re wrong? I think your position is clear; Ezio conceding to kill Rodrigo/Cesare is essentially him in effect admitting his error in the Vatican, which would destroy your argument.



I think you give Ezio too little credit.

Nonsense, I’ve already assigned him the proper amount of credit. He’s incredibly charismatic, built up the Assassin presence in Rome, made alliances, successfully expelled the Borgia from Rome, and led in a manner Machiavelli never could have. Good leaders make mistakes. Ezio was one such example.



I believe the only reason you're even having this discussion is because you seem to be having trouble relating to Ezio. You dare not admit that his choices were right ones even if you would not have made them.

I think a better way of putting is that I take issue with improper characterization. I can handle characters making choices I would not make. Perfect example: Batman, defender of Gotham City, absolutely refuses to kill or use guns, no matter what crimes his enemies may have committed.

You will never hear me express surprise at Batman’s actions, no matter how misguided I think they may be, so long as I consider them consistent with his character. Ezio presents the opposite scenario. In Brotherhood alone, he demonstrates that he has no issue taking life at random opportunities. Whether it’s Luigi the Guard or Il Carnefice, he’s not above killing nobodies to get to his goal. He’s killed dozens of guards, politicians, thieves, who’ve served those in power. But when it finally comes to the big Templar himself, Rodrigo Borgia, suddenly Ezio has a major epiphany; “No, this won’t bring my family back”. It’s wonderful that he realized it; it’s just a shame that his realization comes from nowhere, and happens with the last person who does deserve to live following the events of this story. Rodrigo is the power base, the manipulator, who had set events into motion, and suddenly killing him is wrong? Absolutely ridiculous.



This game isn't about Ezio being wrong and Machiavelli being right, but vice versa.

This game was about Ezio taking control of the Assassins to expel the Borgia from Rome. It doesn’t matter if you think the game was about Machiavelli being wrong. I could just as easily say it's Ezio atoning for his mistakes.



Oh, and there's one final thing I'd like to point out once again. At the end of ACII, Ezio didn't go to the Vatican on an assassination mission. He went, because through the codex the Assassins had discovered that the papal staff and the apple were 2 PoE's that when used in conjunction could be used by the prophet to open a hidden vault below the Vatican. Their goal was to make sure the Templars never got the chance to get their hands on whatever lay in that vault. That was the primary goal. Most assumed killing Rodrigo would be inevitable, but they were wrong.

Really? Again, with the contradictions. Did Ezio go for revenge, or to stop the Apple? You cannot simply throw out arguments which contradict each other. If Ezio realized that killing the Spaniard would not change anything, then he did not go for revenge.

And as I said before, you might want to check your mission assignment when Ezio reaches the Vatican. It says something to the effect of “Assassinate the Spaniard”.

ACSineQuaNon
12-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
2) No, it’s terrible story-telling.

To start off, this is not a detective TV show, which is heavily reliant on guessing the murderer’s/criminal’s motivation. AC2 follows the monomyth, the Hero’s Journey, surrounding Ezio’s rise as an Assassin. We need to understand his motivation and development every step of the way. Here’s a hint: if your viewer at any point finds himself saying “Wtf is going on? Why did he just do that?”, then you (as the storyteller) have screwed something up. Clarity is practically a necessity to tell your tale.

If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was revenge, which is something you have claimed, then his decision to chicken out looks even worse, since at no point prior to this is Ezio confronted with the possibility that his desire revenge is wrong, at least not that the audience can see. If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was not to kill Rodrigo, then the story has still done something wrong, since AC2 never explains to the player Ezio’s grand plan of “free Rome”, which he doesn’t even bother putting into action until being attacked by Cesare. Any way you look at it, Ezio screwed up, as did the writers.


LightRey is a Ubisoft apologist. It's obvious the writers had Ezio spare Rodrigo to open a path for a sequel. LightRey's defense by comparing a character study (or at least what's supposed to be one) to a mystery story is ridiculous. It really is a case of poor character development. After the decades long unraveling of the conspiracy that killed his father and brothers, not to mention the thousands of guards/city officials/assassination targets Ezio had killed along the way, for him to suddenly drop his blade to be "the bigger man" is extremely poor writing.

phoenix-force411
12-07-2011, 05:17 PM
"An Assassin takes orders from no one." - Ezio Auditore

LightRey
12-07-2011, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Il_Divo:
2) No, it’s terrible story-telling.

To start off, this is not a detective TV show, which is heavily reliant on guessing the murderer’s/criminal’s motivation. AC2 follows the monomyth, the Hero’s Journey, surrounding Ezio’s rise as an Assassin. We need to understand his motivation and development every step of the way. Here’s a hint: if your viewer at any point finds himself saying “Wtf is going on? Why did he just do that?”, then you (as the storyteller) have screwed something up. Clarity is practically a necessity to tell your tale.

If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was revenge, which is something you have claimed, then his decision to chicken out looks even worse, since at no point prior to this is Ezio confronted with the possibility that his desire revenge is wrong, at least not that the audience can see. If Ezio’s goal in going to the Vatican was not to kill Rodrigo, then the story has still done something wrong, since AC2 never explains to the player Ezio’s grand plan of “free Rome”, which he doesn’t even bother putting into action until being attacked by Cesare. Any way you look at it, Ezio screwed up, as did the writers.


LightRey is a Ubisoft apologist. It's obvious the writers had Ezio spare Rodrigo to open a path for a sequel. LightRey's defense by comparing a character study (or at least what's supposed to be one) to a mystery story is ridiculous. It really is a case of poor character development. After the decades long unraveling of the conspiracy that killed his father and brothers, not to mention the thousands of guards/city officials/assassination targets Ezio had killed along the way, for him to suddenly drop his blade to be "the bigger man" is extremely poor writing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not true. As is quite clear from the novel, Ubi had originally planned for Ezio to spare Rodrigo after which he would commit suicide, with the fight actually taking place in 1503. Ezio sparing Rodrigo was always intended.

I'm not a Ubisoft apologist. You guys are simply bending the intention of the story story in order to validate your complaints. What Il_Divo here is supposing is absolutely ridiculous. You guys are forgetting that this did not actually happen. It's a fictional story. If something happens it's because the writers wanted it to happen and they'll have had their own reasons for it happening that way. What Il_Divo is suggesting is that things happened for reasons the writers quite obviously didn't intend at all. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is about Ezio teaching the Order, not the other way around.

However, since you guys clearly hate ACB, it's obvious that you're just bending every bit information to further your "cause" in bashing the game and its main character.

I'm not responding to Il_Divo again either. These posts are becoming way too long and I really think we both have said everything there is to say at least twice. Not to mention he either can't seem to read well through my posts or basically lacks the ability to understand basic logical arguments, as he has misunderstood most of my points at every turn.

ACSineQuaNon
12-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
This is not true. As is quite clear from the novel, Ubi had originally planned for Ezio to spare Rodrigo after which he would commit suicide, with the fight actually taking place in 1503. Ezio sparing Rodrigo was always intended.

I'm not a Ubisoft apologist. You guys are simply bending the intention of the story story in order to validate your complaints. What Il_Divo here is supposing is absolutely ridiculous. You guys are forgetting that this did not actually happen. It's a fictional story. If something happens it's because the writers wanted it to happen and they'll have had their own reasons for it happening that way. What Il_Divo is suggesting is that things happened for reasons the writers quite obviously didn't intend at all. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is about Ezio teaching the Order, not the other way around.

However, since you guys clearly hate ACB, it's obvious that you're just bending every bit information to further your "cause" in bashing the game and its main character.

I'm not responding to Il_Divo again either. These posts are becoming way too long and I really think we both have said everything there is to say at least twice. Not to mention he either can't seem to read well through my posts or basically lacks the ability to understand basic logical arguments, as he has misunderstood most of my points at every turn.

LOL! You still don't seem to understand. Il_Divo, Eregost, and I are well aware of the writer's intentions. On the other hand, we do not automatically assume that they are without flaws, a mindset you unceasingly seem to adopt. Moreover, I doubt none of us three believe these events occurred; we don't live in fantasy worlds. We are merely criticizing plot inconsistencies and instances of storytelling failure.

I am not a Brotherhood hater as you so recklessly characterize me as. I actually believe most people on this forum under-appreciate the game. The storytelling, in general, was spectacular, save the few cheesy lines and rushed, illogical finale. IMO, Brotherood deserved a GOTY nomination. While I'm not going to write a review atm, I'll let you know I'd rate it a 9.5/10. Clearly, I'm not a "hater." Just because I may criticize some aspects of the AC franchise doesn't make me a "hater." Although a cliche to say, the best fans of any product criticize it in hopes of enabling its improvement. Obviously this is something you need to be reminded of.

LightRey
12-07-2011, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
This is not true. As is quite clear from the novel, Ubi had originally planned for Ezio to spare Rodrigo after which he would commit suicide, with the fight actually taking place in 1503. Ezio sparing Rodrigo was always intended.

I'm not a Ubisoft apologist. You guys are simply bending the intention of the story story in order to validate your complaints. What Il_Divo here is supposing is absolutely ridiculous. You guys are forgetting that this did not actually happen. It's a fictional story. If something happens it's because the writers wanted it to happen and they'll have had their own reasons for it happening that way. What Il_Divo is suggesting is that things happened for reasons the writers quite obviously didn't intend at all. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is about Ezio teaching the Order, not the other way around.

However, since you guys clearly hate ACB, it's obvious that you're just bending every bit information to further your "cause" in bashing the game and its main character.

I'm not responding to Il_Divo again either. These posts are becoming way too long and I really think we both have said everything there is to say at least twice. Not to mention he either can't seem to read well through my posts or basically lacks the ability to understand basic logical arguments, as he has misunderstood most of my points at every turn.

LOL! You still don't seem to understand. Il_Divo, Eregost, and I are well aware of the writer's intentions. On the other hand, we do not automatically assume that they are without flaws, a mindset you unceasingly seem to adopt. Moreover, I doubt none of us three believe these events occurred; we don't live in fantasy worlds. We are merely criticizing plot inconsistencies and instances of storytelling failure.

I am not a Brotherhood hater as you so recklessly characterize me as. I actually believe most people on this forum under-appreciate the game. The storytelling, in general, was spectacular, save the few cheesy lines and rushed, illogical finale. Just because I may criticize some aspects of the AC franchise doesn't make me a "hater." Although a cliche to say, the best fans of any product criticize it in hopes of enabling its improvement. Obviously this is something you need to be reminded of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, so that's the issue. You claim to know better what makes a good story. Thing is though, if it's such a bad story, why did the game sell so well and is the main reason most people buy it the story to begin with?

It's not that the story is bad, it's that you didn't enjoy it as much as you would've liked to. You guys are just claiming to know what makes a good story, whilst you, unless you have some sort of degree in something like literature, have no authority on whatsoever (at least not any more than any other random individual, which would again bring me to it being well received and having sold many copies).

The fact of the matter is that all you guys really are are disappointed fans that didn't get their way and try to blame everything on the story of ACB being poor instead of just accepting that not everyone will get their way.

Stop whining.

ACSineQuaNon
12-07-2011, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Ah, so that's the issue. You claim to know better what makes a good story. Thing is though, if it's such a bad story, why did the game sell so well and is the main reason most people buy it the story to begin with?

It's not that the story is bad, it's that you didn't enjoy it as much as you would've liked to. You guys are just claiming to know what makes a good story, whilst you, unless you have some sort of degree in something like literature, have no authority on whatsoever (at least not any more than any other random individual, which would again bring me to it being well received and having sold many copies).

The fact of the matter is that all you guys really are are disappointed fans that didn't get their way and try to blame everything on the story of ACB being poor instead of just accepting that not everyone will get their way.

Stop whining.

Again, you fail to produce a logical argument, instead opting to employ more base ad hominem measures. As I made quite clear in my previous post, I didn't find the story of ACB to be bad, so I don't know why you're still putting those words in my mouth. Quite ironically, however, you've again cited erroneous facts. One of the major and most common criticisms of Brotherhood was it's story, as is evident in the feedback threads. Nearly every single poster in those threads found ACB's story to be a disappointment, at least on Ezio's side of things. LightRey, you're not helping yourself by using unfounded "facts," which in reality, are just misinformed observances blinded by fanboysim.

Furthermore, my lack of a degree in literature does not make my opinion invalid. You seem to display a worrisome trend of automatically subscribing to an authoritative figure's views without first critically analyzing them. If Harold Bloom, academia's preeminent literary critic, dismissed ACB's story as simple Hollywood pulp, would you unflinchingly follow his opinion? I certainly hope not.

P.S.
I'm still in high school, so it'd be impossible for me to attain a degree. On the other hand, it obviously hasn't prevented me from effectively dismantling your rather poorly constructed arguments. Eregost and Il_Divo have done the same, much better than myself, even.

P.S.S.
Sales in the entertainment industry should not taken as a direct indicator of a product's storytelling worth. Take James Cameron's Avatar, for example. It has become the highest grossing film to date, but I doubt the average viewer, let alone film critic who you seem to hold in such high regard, would rank it as one cinema's greatest storytelling achievements, at least in terms of originality, dialogue, or character development. Most viewed Avatar as a means of escape and exhilaration, not for a thought-provoking social commentary or character study, as is evident in Avatar's absence of any screenplay nominations from major award committees.

Summary for your refuted points:
1. Most fans praised ACB's story = wrong
2. My opinion is invalid because I don't have a degree in literature = wrong
3. I am a hater of ACB, particularly its story = wrong

P.S.S.S.
So you can run and tell that, homeboy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LightRey
12-08-2011, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Ah, so that's the issue. You claim to know better what makes a good story. Thing is though, if it's such a bad story, why did the game sell so well and is the main reason most people buy it the story to begin with?

It's not that the story is bad, it's that you didn't enjoy it as much as you would've liked to. You guys are just claiming to know what makes a good story, whilst you, unless you have some sort of degree in something like literature, have no authority on whatsoever (at least not any more than any other random individual, which would again bring me to it being well received and having sold many copies).

The fact of the matter is that all you guys really are are disappointed fans that didn't get their way and try to blame everything on the story of ACB being poor instead of just accepting that not everyone will get their way.

Stop whining.

Again, you fail to produce a logical argument, instead opting to employ more base ad hominem measures. As I made quite clear in my previous post, I didn't find the story of ACB to be bad, so I don't know why you're still putting those words in my mouth. Quite ironically, however, you've again cited erroneous facts. One of the major and most common criticisms of Brotherhood was it's story, as is evident in the feedback threads. Nearly every single poster in those threads found ACB's story to be a disappointment, at least on Ezio's side of things. LightRey, you're not helping yourself by using unfounded "facts," which in reality, are just misinformed observances blinded by fanboysim.

Furthermore, my lack of a degree in literature does not make my opinion invalid. You seem to display a worrisome trend of automatically subscribing to an authoritative figure's views without first critically analyzing them. If Harold Bloom, academia's preeminent literary critic, dismissed ACB's story as simple Hollywood pulp, would you unflinchingly follow his opinion? I certainly hope not.

P.S.
I'm still in high school, so it'd be impossible for me to attain a degree. On the other hand, it obviously hasn't prevented me from effectively dismantling your rather poorly constructed arguments. Eregost and Il_Divo have done the same, much better than myself, even.

P.S.S.
Sales in the entertainment industry should not taken as a direct indicator of a product's storytelling worth. Take James Cameron's Avatar, for example. It has become the highest grossing film to date, but I doubt the average viewer, let alone film critic who you seem to hold in such high regard, would rank it as one cinema's greatest storytelling achievements, at least in terms of originality, dialogue, or character development. Most viewed Avatar as a means of escape and exhilaration, not for a thought-provoking social commentary or character study, as is evident in Avatar's absence of any screenplay nominations from major award committees.

Summary for your refuted points:
1. Most fans praised ACB's story = wrong
2. My opinion is invalid because I don't have a degree in literature = wrong
3. I am a hater of ACB, particularly its story = wrong

P.S.S.S.
So you can run and tell that, homeboy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All you say requires actual data to back it up. Things like "I see a lot of complaints" or "I have a lot of friends who think so too" aren't scientific data. You're all just blabbering on on how bad the story is and saying that it's a common opinion, but unless you actually do a good, poll without bias all your points are just statements based on assumptions, which is usually what people who are wrong tend to do.

Need I remind you of the sales rates of ACB and the prizes it won?

So here I say this: Actual data or GTFO.

B_Crispino
12-08-2011, 05:40 AM
I'll tell you guys a secret... this whole **** is a game... not actual history... the writers messed up, yeah they did, but just for the sake of entertainment... come on... it is fun to blow things up, thats the point... you shouldnt focus so much on these details... they are just for fun really...

eagleforlife1
12-08-2011, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACSineQuaNon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Ah, so that's the issue. You claim to know better what makes a good story. Thing is though, if it's such a bad story, why did the game sell so well and is the main reason most people buy it the story to begin with?

It's not that the story is bad, it's that you didn't enjoy it as much as you would've liked to. You guys are just claiming to know what makes a good story, whilst you, unless you have some sort of degree in something like literature, have no authority on whatsoever (at least not any more than any other random individual, which would again bring me to it being well received and having sold many copies).

The fact of the matter is that all you guys really are are disappointed fans that didn't get their way and try to blame everything on the story of ACB being poor instead of just accepting that not everyone will get their way.

Stop whining.

Again, you fail to produce a logical argument, instead opting to employ more base ad hominem measures. As I made quite clear in my previous post, I didn't find the story of ACB to be bad, so I don't know why you're still putting those words in my mouth. Quite ironically, however, you've again cited erroneous facts. One of the major and most common criticisms of Brotherhood was it's story, as is evident in the feedback threads. Nearly every single poster in those threads found ACB's story to be a disappointment, at least on Ezio's side of things. LightRey, you're not helping yourself by using unfounded "facts," which in reality, are just misinformed observances blinded by fanboysim.

Furthermore, my lack of a degree in literature does not make my opinion invalid. You seem to display a worrisome trend of automatically subscribing to an authoritative figure's views without first critically analyzing them. If Harold Bloom, academia's preeminent literary critic, dismissed ACB's story as simple Hollywood pulp, would you unflinchingly follow his opinion? I certainly hope not.

P.S.
I'm still in high school, so it'd be impossible for me to attain a degree. On the other hand, it obviously hasn't prevented me from effectively dismantling your rather poorly constructed arguments. Eregost and Il_Divo have done the same, much better than myself, even.

P.S.S.
Sales in the entertainment industry should not taken as a direct indicator of a product's storytelling worth. Take James Cameron's Avatar, for example. It has become the highest grossing film to date, but I doubt the average viewer, let alone film critic who you seem to hold in such high regard, would rank it as one cinema's greatest storytelling achievements, at least in terms of originality, dialogue, or character development. Most viewed Avatar as a means of escape and exhilaration, not for a thought-provoking social commentary or character study, as is evident in Avatar's absence of any screenplay nominations from major award committees.

Summary for your refuted points:
1. Most fans praised ACB's story = wrong
2. My opinion is invalid because I don't have a degree in literature = wrong
3. I am a hater of ACB, particularly its story = wrong

P.S.S.S.
So you can run and tell that, homeboy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All you say requires actual data to back it up. Things like "I see a lot of complaints" or "I have a lot of friends who think so too" aren't scientific data. You're all just blabbering on on how bad the story is and saying that it's a common opinion, but unless you actually do a good, poll without bias all your points are just statements based on assumptions, which is usually what people who are wrong tend to do.

Need I remind you of the sales rates of ACB and the prizes it won?

So here I say this: Actual data or GTFO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LightRey bitten off more than he can chew? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Mr_Shade
12-09-2011, 03:38 AM
Let's agree to disagree and move on..

HiddenBlade593
12-09-2011, 01:20 PM
"We fight to end the fighting. A sad irony" ~ Ezio Auditore.

He's human, we all make mistakes, if he was a perfect man, the game would be boring. He's human, that's why I love his character, he's had a tough life, he's never going to make the right decisions is he?

But hey, we're all aloud our own opinions!

<span class="ev_code_RED">H-B</span>

LordWolv
12-09-2011, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Let's agree to disagree and move on..
No offence shade, but they were having a heated conversation. Both were posting constructively, were not being offensive and technically this thread supports such discussions.

hornby7
12-10-2011, 12:34 PM
hey peps i agree with u all because ezio has turned evil and ezio has changedand why is altiar has his voice and why is there an secret armour like the way it because it should just be like the seals in assassins creed 2 or like the keys in assassins creed brotherhood in stead of finding 10 pages and u dont have to do them sort of side missons u just need to find them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

RzaRecta357
12-10-2011, 01:00 PM
Ahhh LightRey. My favorite poster on this board. School em brotha.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
Ahhh LightRey. My favorite poster on this board. School em brotha.

I have to hand it to him, he knows his AC story & info.

jmk1999
12-10-2011, 06:04 PM
enough with the endless bickering or everyone involved is taking a timeout. learn to be civil or leave these forums for good.

Heartist_of_All
12-11-2011, 01:18 PM
lol @ all these kids who don't know what it's like to be old or get older.

Ezio acted differently in Revelations, yes, but Ubisoft didn't forget his character at all. They added to it.

He's tired.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Heartist_of_All:
lol @ all these kids who don't know what it's like to be old or get older.

Ezio acted differently in Revelations, yes, but Ubisoft didn't forget his character at all. They added to it.

He's tired.

Tired, yes (his work is ending)
Slow, No.

I enjoyed a mature Ezio alot more than I thought I would! I was impressed with his character.