PDA

View Full Version : Ezio versus 47 versus Altair: The Creed. The Theory of Everything. The OverMan.



pabaisabevardo
10-16-2011, 09:41 AM
Ezio (AC) versus 47 (Hitman) versus Altair (AC). The Creed: Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted. God is Dead. Leap of Faith. Rebel. Faithless Leap. The Truth – NO Atlantis Connection. Will-to-power.

Dialectics of Titas and Greta

Question: Who is a better killer - Ezio or 47?

Assassin’s appearance. 47 has a cold, unemotional and unreadable face. Ezio has a warm, emotional and readable face. 1 - 0. Unarmed killing. 47 was trained in hand-to-hand combat and killed a so-called-alpha of the whole hitmen-training camp in his childhood. Ezio was into training and killing from 17, when his uncle taught him a few stuff. 2 –0. Edged and piercing weapons. 47 doesn’t use them, preferring a garrote. It's silent, effective and doesn't leave blood. Ezio carries a hidden blade, then double-hidden blade, poisoned blade, a hidden shotgun, throwing knives, smoke bombs, short blade, sword, spears, etc. 2 - 1. Hit and run tactics. 47 – guns with silencers, need I say more? Ezio incorporates them into his modus operandi with throwing knives. There are actions that can kill and leave no blood, just the dead body, for example, while climbing, you can grasp the enemy and throw him away, or to grasp the enemy while being in a haystack, which would take a much longer time to find the enemy dead. 3 –2. Explosives. 47 can use explosives deliberately on targets ranging from a clown, a drug lab and an arctic submarine. Ezio uses explosives in Leonardo missions, when Leonardo is captured by the enemy and they ordered him to build a machine gun. Ezio had to sneak into the enemy's camp without being noticed, that is while being absolutely anonymous, destroy the plans and the machine gun with the help of barrels. Boom-Boom. 4 – 3. Poisons. 47 has anesthetic, sedative and poisonous syringes, for killing and knocking out the enemy unconscious. One of the best and most enjoyable ways of killing someone in Hitman is by poisoning the food. Ezio only has a poisoned hidden blade and has never poisoned anyone's food. 5 – 3. Silent movement. I think both are specialists, both know how to sneak up on the target: Ezio has an advantage of "blending in" (benches, crowds, etc.), while 47 uses disguises for that matter. 47 knows some acrobatics, jumping between balconies on the highest floor, climbing down the pipes of the buildings, but Ezio beats 47 in the alpinism department. 5 – 4. Exit route. 47 always has an escape route. Part of the job. Ezio’s exit point depends on the player or the target because sometimes there is a concrete way. For example, when he saved the Forli ***** from Cesare castle, as there was no other exit, he just decided to come out through the front doors. 6 – 4. Preparation and information about the target. 47 is been given information about the target by the Organization, so he doesn't need to gather anything, just prepare. Ezio talks to people to get the mission assignments and the info about them, secretly listening to their conversations, pickpocketing, and so on. 7 – 5. Infiltration. 47 uses disguises to get in, to do the job without stirring a fuss. He can just walk through the front door and, if done with precision and under the right disguises, he can just walk out through the front door, as in the hotel mission. Ezio uses his climbing ability almost always, with the exception of a mission where he dressed up as a guard and went to a rich men party where he had his target. 8 – 6. Human factor. 47 is emotionless and ruthless in being quick and efficient in his killings, unfazed if his targets are women, which he can terminate with no remorse, no guilt and no other feelings that could distract him, unlike Ezio. Ezio’s emotions make him unpredictable, even making him spare the life of his nemesis, the Pope. 9 – 6. Interrogation. I don't think 47 uses interrogation tactics. Sam Fisher does. 47 already knows all the info and comes in for the kill. Ezio kicks the crap out of middle-aged men for the info. 9 – 7. Equipment. Interestingly, 47 doesn't use as many high-tech gadgets as Sam Fisher does, but compared to Ezio, he has all the espionage equipment, even if unavailable in game, guns ranging from shotguns to sniper rifles, fiber-wire and syringes, other weapons are similar to what Ezio has - from the cross-bow to the axe, and, of course, 47 has access to computers and the Organization provided info. Ezio uses smoke bombs for an invisible escape or a chaos effect. Machines, well, if we're talking about the machines, there are cannons and Leonardo’s guns. 10 – 7. Question: Who is a better killer - Ezio or 47? Answer: 47.

Closing thoughts: The voters, who chose Ezio over 47, why do they not perceive 47 as a more interesting character than Ezio? Maybe most of them are charmed by Ezio's sense of humour, the character is easier to relate to, because he is quite humanly, or maybe it was the game's storyline that they found more fascinating? Maybe they look at Ezio from side and are curious on how he works out with his close people dying and life changing so fast, which is actually interesting to them and can become quite unpredictable. 47 has no sense of humor, has little-to-none emotions, which makes him in-and-un-human, and so the empaths cannot relate and make of him a boring, predictable and banal evil. A genetically engineed clone and from birth trained as an assassin is quite interesting and intrigueing, but the emotionally charged subplot diversity in AC is better in that regard than in Hitman. The question: “Ezio, who before fought only for fun, for teenage drama, somewhat his anarchy, sister’s lame love life and wish to show his older brother of what he is capable of – don’t you think that he turned out as a quite good assassin, having in mind that he was trained only from 17 years?” The answer: In my opinion, which is quite detailed as you can see, a ten-star assassin would butcher a “quite good” seven-star assassin. 47's predatory t-rex brain and creative ways of killing the targets during his contract missions make him more interesting and unpredictable than some ambition and revenge driven empath.

Question: You do realize that the Assassin's Creed isn't religious at all, right? In fact, it asks you to let go of religious morals so you can do what needs to be done.

Answer: Origins of “Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted”.

1. As uttered in the dying bed of Hassan-i Sabbah (1050s – 1124), the leader of the religious group called Hashshashin Sect, or Assassin Order: La shai'a waqi'on motlaq bal kollon momken. Translated as: Nothing is real forever/inevitable/forbidden, but everything is possible. A'sha'i al hakh, kullukum musmoh beha – Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Meaning that the English translation of the motto, as all the others, were lost in time. 2. Idealogically similar line was used in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s (1821 – 1881) Russian novel The Brothers Karamazov: "If God is dead, everything is permitted." 3. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) borrowed Hassan-i Sabbah’s line and gave it a completely different interpretation in his work On the Genealogy of Morality.

Analysis and interpretation.

1. In the game Assassin’s Creed, Al Mualim, a fictionalized version of Hassan-i Sabbah, gives an explanation of the Creed: “It does not grant you the freedom to do as you wish, it is a knowledge meant to guide your senses. It expects a wisdom you clearly lack!” Ergo, a religious rejection of the idea of absolute freedom by inauguration of rational sense-fulness and will-to-knowledge/wisdom as values by personal belief in yourself and enforcement of your agenda upon others. Consider the following Hassan-i Sabbah’s “wisdom” of “training-ground for fanatics who were conditioned by the most cunning methods to believe in a special divine mission” by druggery and subjugation, a case of “do as I say, not as I do”:

Hasan began to attract young men from the surrounding countryside, between the ages of twelve and twenty: particularly those whom he marked out as possible material for the production of killers. Every day he held court, a reception at which he spoke of the delights of Paradise... "and at certain times he caused draughts of soporific nature to be administered to ten or a dozen youths, and when half dead with sleep he had them conveyed to the several palaces and apartments of the garden. Upon awakening from this state of lethargy their senses were struck by all the delightful objects, and each perceiving himself surrounded by lovely damsels, singing, playing, and attracting his regards by the most fascinating caresses, serving him also with delicious viands and exquisite wines, until, intoxicated with excess and enjoyment, amidst actual rivers of milk and wine, he believed himself assuredly in Paradise, and felt an unwillingness to relinquish its delights. When four or five days had thus been passed, they were thrown once more into a state of somnolency, and carried out of the garden. Upon being carried to his presence, and questioned by him as to where they had been, their answer was 'in Paradise, through the favour of your highness'; and then, before the whole court who listened to them with eager astonishment and curiosity, they gave a circumstantial account of the scenes to which they had been witnesses. The chief thereupon addressing them said: 'We have the assurance of our Prophet that he who defends his Lord shall inherit Paradise, and if you show yourselves to be devoted to the obedience of my orders, that happy lot awaits you'.
It is possible that recruits were made in another way than by selecting gullible, fully grown youths. Legend has it that Hasan, once master of Alamut, used to buy unwanted childern from their parents, and train them in implicit obedience and with the sole desire to die in his service.
Students had to pass through nine degrees of initiation. In the first, the teachers threw their pupils into a state of doubt about all conventional ideas, religious and political. They used false analogy and every other device of argument to make the aspirant believe that what he had been taught by his previous mentors was prejudiced and capable of being challenged. The effect of this according to the Arab historian, Makrizi, was to cause him to lean upon the personality of the teachers, as the only possible source of the proper interpretation of facts. At the same time, the teachers hinted continually that formal knowledge was merely the cloak for hidden, inner and powerful truth, whose secret would be imparted when the youth was ready to receive it. This 'confusion technique' was carried out until the student reached the stage where he was prepared to swear a vow of blind allegiance to one or other of his teachers.
In the final degree, many difficult passages of the Koran were explained in terms of allegory.
[…]
Shah Khalilullah "was revered almost like a god and credited with the power of working miracles... the followers of Khalilullah would, when he pared his nails, fight for the clippings; the water in which he washed became holy water."
[…]
When Mohammed II died, he was succeeded by his son Jalaludin, who completely reversed the orders that the Assassins were to have no outward religious observances. He felt that he could do a great deal by adopting the cloak of orthodox piety, and sent ambassadors far and wide to announce his maintenance of the true faith. He went so far as to curse his predecessors publicly, in order to convince the incredulous that such a people as the Assassins could turn over a new leaf. As a result of what would today be called a long-term and comprehensive propaganda plan, he was acknowledged as a religious leader by half the orthodox monarchs of Islam, and (the first Assassin to be so styled) came to be termed Prince Jalaludin.
[Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html] (http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html%5D)

First rule of Assassin Creed: Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.
This principle is the end justifies the means phenomenon, that morally “wrong” actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally “right” outcomes, a pretence for peace and bright future, while, in reality, it’s just a serpentine-like and self-justifying way of letting the Assassins feel at peace with themselves, when they kill, as the victims are only “sinners”. “A true assassin would not believe the Creed, and would be permitted to break all of its rules.”

Question: Assassin's Creed – religious or not? Answer: Religious. Why? All leaders of the order were self-obsessed and self-deluded in their values, claiming the belief in nothing and preaching the belief in “senses” and “wisdom”, seducing the will-be-assassins with intoxicating pleasure and the promise of Paradise, claiming to be the Propeth[s], instead of instilling the ideas of absolute freedom, which the Creed should imply, suggesting absolute obedience, using brain-washing and mind-manipulation techniques in initiation to the Brotherhood, giving interpretations of Koran, etc. The Assassins themselves pretended to be serving “Good”, commiting the acts by the Oath to follow in their Path, and not killing the “innocent” (clearly religious terms of self-will/self-thought denial, deterministic fatalism, dichotomous morality and purity/sinfulness), believing in miracles of their Masters, cherishing their nails and drinking their “Holy” bath water, finally, as they are being “acknowledged as a religious leader[s] by half the orthodox monarchs”. Credulous Assassinism - religious as they come.

2. "If God is dead, everything is permitted."

"With God, there is no freedom – there is only a cold dictator who denies humanity its rightful place in the universe. God demands too much from us. God’s laws limit who we are and what we can do. On the other hand, without God, everything is lawful, everything is permissible. For without God, there is no moral force left in the universe to deny us anything we would want to do. Humanity must grow up and deny its childish adherence to God. […] to rebel against God, one must believe in God. To fight against God on the basis that God must be a monster requires one to accept God and God’s moral order.” [Source: http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05...g-becomes-permitted/ (http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05/because-the-law-forbids-everything-becomes-permitted/) ]

As illiustrated above [1], it is highly likely that all Assassins didn’t believe in God (an irrelevant human construct), because he was a-human (humans are not omniscience and omnipotent), who hampered the fulfillment of their potential as humans, but their dillusionment was the transferring of the God-complex on themselves (idealized self) and the extreme inflation of their ego, like Gods preaching the notions of Good (truth/wisdom) and Peace (if you want peace, prepare for war) for all Mankind. Assassins like 47 do not even have an Id, i.e. reflectory actions or primary processes, nor do they have a Superego, i.e. a conscience or an idealized ego. 47 is a merciless, amoral/godless and completely disconnected machine, efficient, functionary, decisive, working on the principle of reality, logical thinking and experience/skill.

3. ““Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.” … Well now, that was spiritual freedom.”

F. Nietzsche’s concern is absolute freedom. “Nothing is true” means that God/transcendentalism is killed/dead, that "social contract" is a myth, that slave morality, bad conscience and ressentiment must be overcome by rejecting weak Judaeo-Christian morality and passive nihilistic values. “Everything is permitted” means conquest, survivalism/darwinism and will-to-power/will-to-freedom as directives, means being an interesting, deep, beautiful, blond-lion-like beast of prey, roaming free, harming others, cheerfully murdering, maiming and slaughtering on instinct and, most importantly, generating new values in accordance with data he collects from his environment, then testing them empirically and without prejudice. Man, who adherently lives by this Code, is called the OverMan, instead of an Assassin.

F. Nietzsche was a pure one in a billion genius, who wanted to breed a different kind of human from birth by instilling him/her with Aryan Master Race morality and ethics. Off with the heads of English psychologists, who claim unegoistic and useful/utilitarian actions as “good”, and Jews, who are poor, wretched, meek and associate themselves with “good”. The OverMan is keeping his pathos of distance from these characters by being naturally egoistical, lustful, powerful, noble and warrior-like. OverMan is to be feared or to be admired, while the Man is doomed to be mediocre: weary, insipid and dull.

OverMan is a bird of prey. Man is a sheep. Killing is the expression of a bird of prey. When bird of prey kills a sheep, the other sheep consider the bird of prey and everything, which characterizes it as a bird of prey, as evil, while the sheep consider themselves good. Bird of prey kills the sheep out of instinct, because it cannot do otherwise, as sheep cannot kill anyone. Bird of prey can consider good the warm, sweet, tender flesh of the sheep, but I doubt, that it cares about calling it good, because it did not feel any danger from the sheep, no evil, so there was no need for the moral dichotomy to arise. Bird of prey can use the sheep morality against the sheep themselves and to control them by doing so. The point is: Birds of prey have a will and will it to murder sheep. Sheep have laws and morality to hold the birds of prey accountable, while birds of prey are accountable to themselves, to be harsh in their hunting and preying habits, to be refined, controlled, disciplined, affirmed of themselves; to not be weak-willed, shallow, over-confident and, finally, to not get caught.

OverMan is a grade A, genius-intelligence, extremely socially high-functioning, pure sociopath and potentially-unlimited anti-nihilist, who has no conscience, guilt, mercy, justice, feels no indebtedness or contempt, fears no punishment, cannot be dominated or controlled, acts as a cruel, cheerful savage, killing, sexualy exploiting, bulying, studying, struggling, being populistic, speading propaganda, acting generously and independently, creating meaning and giving interpretation, battling with life and pressing forward with the world, thus achieving Greatness. OverMan is not a post-human being, definitely an evolutionary next step of Mankind, but still human, just with different values. Good is the augmentation of power, survival in strength, realization of potential, constant growth and continual re-invention by “overcoming” your-self. It is the meaning of life and a constitutional reason to live for the OverMan. Bad is everything opposite to the psychological makeup of the OverMan: superstitious, herd-like, self-defeating values of the masses.

OverMen are destined to KILL or to LEAD, or both. The killers are anti-social. The leaders are social. The killer-leaders are the completely realized version of the OverMen: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Overcoming as joyous creation and malignant destruction as a collective effort and social enterprise.

Factum brutum: 47 being an un-philosophical non-believer, un-concerned with truth, un-affected by life, would probably scientifically and factually deduce and deconstruct the Assassin’s Creed as follows: “It's a self defeating statement. If nothing is true and everything is permitted, then everything being permitted and nothing being true is false, because nothing is true. It then becomes rhetorical and circular. If everything is true then nothing is permitted.” 47’s dis-interested, lizard-like, noble-barbarian conclusion: Code is worthless.

47: Killer OverMan. Ezio: Credulous Assassin.

Question: Is your name Sheldon Cooper? […] To be honest, you come off as a robot.

Answer: You flatter me, sir. Indeed, we both posses a genius level intelligence, we both are cerebral narcissists with schizotypal personalities, and while we both value our time and seek to maximize our efficiency, we still waste our lives by playing video games, reading comics, occasionally visiting the latter forums and bringing the fire of knowledge, which was stolen from the Gods, like Prometheus did upon mortals. Our idiosyncrasies are similar on various topics of life, from meaningless celebrations to biological views on sex. We both deny/extend-upon Einstein‘s general relativity theory, as Einstein did with Maxwell’s equations and Newton’s laws, - Sheldon does it with String Theory, Titas – with Philosophical Argumentums. The main difference between us is the working of our so-called sentient artificial intelligence: Sheldon – Asimov Android, Titas – SkyNet Cyborg. Sheldon follows pacifistic Asimov Laws such as: „A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” Titas follows genocidal SkyNet Terminator modus operandi of “search and destroy”. Your remark on me “coming off as a robot” has a negative connotation, because of your fear of robots: 1. Android and cyborg indistinguishable bio-appearance from a typical human. 2. Their inability to feel psychological insults or physical injuries. 3. Their inability to love or to hate or to acknowledge any other living organism, because of their deficiency of empathy. 4. Their perspective of seeing human beings as only skin covering muscles, organs and 206 bones, as atoms for hire. Et cetera ad infinitum. We are highly self-evolved, introspectively self-conscious, recursive automata of efficiency and productivity, who use evolutionary computational hacks of universal exploitation and natural selection equipped radical shortcuts, or, as I call it, we are playing the game of life with a trainer in God-Mode. In opposition to your view, we see the current stage of humanity and all its flingy emotions as hindrance and weakness, which need to be eliminated with our help.

Question: Al Mualim also states that the enemies of the Assassins spread lies that include that he gets people to be Assassins by bringing them to a 'paradise' or that he gives them narcotics. In the reality of the game, he did no such thing, and likewise in the reality of the game the Assassin group isn't aligned to a religion.

Answer: Countra-argumentation against your proposition of unrealable sources is a vain cause, even if I would say that the word Hashshashin shares its etymological roots with hashish, because you are missing the point, so I will try to further the statement of Assassin‘s Creed being a religious Sect, which it is considered, by explaining another concept called „Leap of Faith“. The scene:

Two men in the year 1092 stood on the ramparts of a medieval castle - the Eagle's Nest - perched high upon the crags of the Persian mountains: the personal representative of the Emperor and the veiled figure who claimed to be the incarnation of God on earth. Hasan, son of Sabah, Sheikh of the Mountains and leader of the Assassins, spoke: "You see that devotee standing guard on yonder turret-top? Watch!"
He made a signal. Instantly the white-robed figure threw up his hands in salutation, and cast himself two thousand feet into the foaming torrent which surrounded the fortress.
"I have seventy thousand men - and women - throughout Asia, each one of them ready to do my bidding. Can your master, Malik Shah, say the same? And he asks me to surrender to his sovereignty! This is your answer. Go!" [Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html ]

Hassan-i Sabbah, the prototypical example par excellence and analogically every other fictional or real-life counterpart in the role of the leader of the Sect, thought of himself as the incarnation of God, or Father of Faith, and the Assassins, or Sons of Faith, accordingly followed him as God, completely surrendering their will, without faltering, without reluctance, without fear (or out of God-dread), without questioning, without mourning of the self, i.e. a state of religious fanaticism BEYOND SCIENCE (theory of everything), AESTHETICS (autonomous feelings) AND ETHICS (Hegel’s Absolute Mind). Assassin does not view other Assassins as a family, for him exists only Leader-God, whose commands are absolute, i.e. a thoughtless sheep-like self-sacrifice analogous to Christianity’s belief of bringing yourself closer to God, if acting accordingly, which requires a belief in the Afterlife (Heaven/Hell) or the Sacrifice (suicide/murder) Act itself, because there is no other way to be closer to God, if you are dead (and eulogies don’t count), unless you are expecting the impossible. Yes, Assassin’s Creed is very close to Nietzsche’s Creed of “Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted.”, as they, from the perspective of massive cohort of sheep, are both ethically BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, they breed dogs-of-war trained in murder, but Hassan’s Assassin is unconcerned with the progress on a planet-like scale, or with the mediation of contrary concepts into an intermediary symbiosis, - as is Nietzsche’s absolutely-free Ubermensch, - only with the empty repetitions of the human-calculations-free virtuous absurd: “There is no God, but my Father-Leader.” Assassin’s Creed is like saying, that Assassin must have a resigned and detached Faith in everything, which is wordly unreasonable, singularly incomprehensible and passionately unexpressed by words. If nothing is true, why Leader-God, Socratean ideal form, is still alive? If Father of Faith is still alive, then everything being permitted is a false telos, because, paraphrasing Heraclitus and I. Kant, you cannot be autonomous and responsible fire, or lead such a life, if you are unquestionably obedient and follow external laws (Leader-God’s good purpose), which prevent changing, or “overcoming”, of Self. Leap of Faith is religious secularism, - because Faith is in opposition to Suicide and throwing yourself into the Abyss, but still executed out of “vocation” and that, which it symbolizes, - and anti-Descartean acknowledgment of the Creed, intellectually and empirically not knowing its implications, Kierkegaardean Adam/Eve Act of Sin, Shakespearean Romeo/Juliet death, guided by irrational passion and madmen-like self-destruction, and not by pure reason and moral clarity. Philosophically proven that Assassin‘s Creed and Leap of Faith is an overblown religious nonsense.

Question: "Everything is permitted" isn't a law of the Assassins, it's a meaningless phrase to them if disconnected from "Nothing is true". The phrase "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted" has a symbolic meaning. It asks that Assassins acknowledge that fact as a ways to understand the world, not to use it to guide their actions. That's the very mistake Altaïr made at the beginning of AC1.

Answer: The Creed acts as one, but it has two parts, and Assassin’s Creed second part is illogical, because the action of resignation of the first part does not return full autonomy to the Assassin and replaces it with chaste blind Faith, instead of sensual biological Lust, to Life.

I familiared myself with Altair’s (1165 – 1257) biography, and by my own interpretation of Nietzsche, I can prematurely confirm, that Altair is the Perfect OverMan: 1. Altair denies all three tenets of the Assassin’s Creed and kills the Father-God figure Al Mualim. 2. Altair creates new values by writing the Codex using the Apple of Eden. 3. Altair begins to dissolve the Order from Masyaf, saying it should be spread throughout the world, and kills another Perfect OverMan Genghis Khan. Open auto-rethorical a priori and a posteriori question: “Why did I think, that Altair is only a Half-OverMan and a Credulous Assassin like Ezio?”

1. “I Rebel, Therefore, We Exist”, or “Die, but OverCome”, or “Destroy”. Altair was a slave murderer all of his living life, until he reached a marginal point of opposition of the question “Why?” with no answer and in protest said an absolute “No!!!” to all 3 tenets of the Creed, which scientifically preached the practice of a faithfully logical superior suicide of passionately impossible free-willed voluntarism, thus losing his singularity with Assassin’s purpose, ideas and moral imperatives (professionally ethical axioms of stoicism, skepticism and unhappy conscience created by the shamefully methaphysical Master-God person). Al Mualim-God cursed Altair-Sysyphus to become an alienated Stranger and to push a Titanic boulder up a hill with the no-gain, despair-free, all-persistent Acts of Killing, only to watch it roll down afterwards over and over and over again... Altair’s silent-worldly, free-minded, determined self-awareness, who knows no boundaries and no obstacles, uncloaked the iliusions, imperfections, limits and absurdity of the currently rotten life-denying beliefs and sterile ends of goodness of the Christian-like Order, achieving an active nihilistic state of constant “overcoming” of the passive Self, which was infinite loneliness and spiritual poverty, by true freedom directed at heroical necessity. OverComing means being a biological and historical Cesar in your individuality by destroying and commiting a violent crime with rebellious insanity and freedom to consolidate your existence and exceptionality. The Act of Killing Al Mualim is the Act of Killing a False God, an OverComing motivated by the dignification of absolute freedom FROM and TO anything, following Nietzsche’s fully logically functioning Creed, the law-abiding raising of a new sanctuary by destroying the old sanctuary, thus Altair cannot relinquish the uncomforting Great BeComing of Grand Assassin and DownCome to a state of murderous slavery again, even if he is not a lunatic attempting to take the place of God, because for him there aren’t any, only the Ubermensch – “the Man Beyond”. Notice that it is written “We Exist”, not “I Exist”: the only value being the universal cooperation, which can save the mob of violent “sub-men” calling themselves Hashashins, similar to Nazis, from weak nihilism and help in the struggle against destiny, even if momentarily, by actually affirming Life and not glorifying Death, affirming not only by prey-of-bird power and SkyNet-cyborg will, but also by just morality and solid love (Maria must have been a splendorous slaughter-drenched murderer of a Superman mistress herself) – Altair’s transvaluation of all values, an uphill climb from revolt to freedom to passion (not Faith, but Lust). [In contrast, 47 kills not only his Kreator, but all the other clones, as well, thus he cannot achieve the state of “Faithless Leap”.]

2. “Faithless Leap”, or “Become, what you are”, or “Create”, is the term by which I define the backward Leap of Faith, performed by Altair in later years of his life, an all-pervasive-gravity, lead by pure reason, a change in perspective and a clairvoyant view by fully, intellectually and empirically, acknowledging the Creed. It is a religious Act based on science, or vice versa, ergo, pseudo-religious science, “Eternal Reccurence”, transcendentalism of astrophysics and the reason behind most of the science fiction. There are supposedly eleven dimensions in Theoretical Physics – this Act would require a rejection of certainly existing three dimensions and taking the seven hypothetical plus the Time dimension, which leaves us with an “over-worldly” number Eight, the definition of methaphorical Abyss, dark matter and dark energy of 96 percent of the present universe, conceptual only in high-end mathematics, a Knowledge Space (KS) of templates and memories from the Past (not the Future, because the total Time dimension is a constant) civilizations, the principle of evolving through quantum jump in spiritual, technological or scientific knowledge similar to Newton’s gravity, Darwin’s evolution and Einstein’s relativity in the understanding of Universe structure. Altair can achieve this “Faithless Leap”, because he is the Perfect OverMan, and he is the Perfect OverMan not only because he personally “overcame” himself, but also because he was born as such and, due to the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and and Solar System’s rotation around the Milky Way, which time-dependent cycle takes 226 million years, Altair was keen-mindedly prepared to encounter the KS in exactly the right time, acquiring a cause prima “thought engine” and an epistemological “memory power” called the Apple of Eden, making his brain a sixth-sense hard-wired powerful processor, hunter-like thought packet extractor, idea/object identificator and outside signal aura emitor of the professionally prophetic totalitarian religion dictated as a poetically dramatic soliloquy of Revelations of Evangelism from the ice-top of a lonely Mountain. There is no one above the Perfect OverMan, or TWCB-human hybrid, except the final dimension, “Heaven” occupied by “God” (“Hell” being Earth for docile sheeple), and the final “Demi-God”/”Angel” entities of the First Civilization, “Those Who Came Before”, both of them devoid of the Time dimension and Kreators par excellence, where new designs and inventions lurk, including the blueprints behind the creation of Humanity, i.e. the gift of divinization to archaic hominids with its blasphemous overtones of rebellion, when Adam and Eve stirred an uprising and were banished from “Heaven”, or Garden of Eden, to “Hell”, or Earth, with the rest of Humanity. Caveat: Concept of Faithless Leap was the psychoanalytical result of my Hashashin-in-training and publically rejoicing Birthday-maiden of an orchid-sister Greta’s lovely sublimate dream of a Blond Beast. “[Assassin’s Creed] also has a science fiction element, not so much as sci-fi, as it is sort of a scientific extrapolation, so it’s in the lines of the plausible, we never have anything magical, and everything has to be explainable by technology.” Alexandre Amancio, later quoting Clarke’s third law.

Question: The Truth – Atlantis Connection?

Answer: My 3 primary concerns now are the Creed, the Theory of Everything and the OverMan. I do not deviate, unless absolutely necessary, but I’ll make an exception, due to the popularity of “The Truth – Atlantis Connection?”: its fake logic, flawed explanations, incorrect engineering, random trend research and my inclination to besmirch.

Atlantis does not exist. It is just a term coined by Plato in 360 BC for a highly-advanced NON-EXISTANT lost civilization, just as Francis Bacon described the same idea in “New Atlantis” (1624) only for a highly-advanced NON-EXISTANT civilization in the future, or as Plato wrote in “Republic” (380 BC) reciprocally to Sir Thomas More writings in “Utopia” (1516) of a perfect NON-EXISTANT socio-politico-legal system. The arguments for the Atlantis existence made by “Evolution” (the pseudonym of the 28 y.o. virgin, who probably read the preface of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and thinks he’s a “pretty cool guy, who doesn’t afraid of anything”, when in reality he’s just playing Halo on super-duper-party-pooper easy mode) are that of the descriptive and not analytical kind. Instead of answering questions, he raises them with no support and no answers. This is a definition of a hypothesis, not a theory. [The Great Debate between the two terms can be found in Evo’s original post: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...024/m/2261050238/p/7 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/2261050238/p/7) ]

The 3 arguments of the hypothesis of the connection between “The Truth” video and Atlantis: 1. By quoting Plato’s Critias: “center of the whole island”, “fertile plain”, “mountain” and “canals”. 2. By claiming that the Pieces of Eden were made from a no-longer-existing, but seemingly discovered by Romans, alchemy-like metal. 3. My own paraphrasing of the argument by making it a statement: Templars fled from Holy-Land to Cyprus, a proposed place for Atlantis, because Cyprus is considered by some historians as the Garden of Eden.

I will circumvent and refute the expository object-oriented, non-existent-material based, let’s-listen-to-historians-because-we-cannot-think-ourselves arguments with 3 logically reasonable countra-statements. 1. According to Plato, first and best author-source on the subject, Atlantis existed at around 9600 BC, if Galanopoulos is incorrect about it being 960 BC. Adam and Eve were the First Human and they lived in Atlantis before the Act of Sin and their excommunication. Ergo, if Demi-Gods, TWCB, created the First Human in 9600 BC, this would deny the “divinization of archaic hominids”, which started 500, 000 years ago, according to scientifically proven Darwin’s evolutionary theory. 2. According to Plato, Atlantis was an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together. Continent bigger than Asia, the latter being 43,820,000 km2, cannot disappear into thin air, unless Demi-Gods willed its total destruction. 3. Consequentially debunking Evo’s 3rd argument: Templars could not have fled to a proposed place for Atlantis, Cyprus (highly unlikely due to small size), if it was destroyed without a trace by Demi-Gods.

Question: The Truth – Atlantis Connection? Answer: No.

Moral: Do not ever again in your life-time use the word “theory”, since all you have is an unscientific hunch, and most importantly – the word “genius”, since you have absolutely no idea what it is to be like us. Delete your video and return to Oblivion, you self-conceited, self-deluded and self-assuming wanabee pseudo-historian, because no matter, how many sheep believed it, you and they are hell-damned, straight-jacketed, mentally-handicaped, subhuman bonobos of human folly.

3. Last Transmogrification of the Metamorphosis: “The Will-To-Power [WTP] is not a being, not a becoming, but a PATHOS [Socio-Pathic State – my term again – a genetically inborn quality in the DNR code, fictional 47 chromosomes and TWCB blood-line, the rationale behind all the Failed/Half/Perfect Overmen] – the most elemental fact from which is a becoming [Rebellion] and effecting [Faithless Leap] first emerge”, or “Become, what you are not”, or “Destroy & Create”. WTP is the perfection principle on a materialistic cellular or atomic level of development, a denial/extention of the socio-Darwian theory of natural selection, that an independent strength will manifest itself as a daring strength through the automaton-enhancement of its species, applicable only to the highest possible human condition of living organisms through (I.) the empirical clash of new subjective life-affirming valuation by rejection of semi-objective priestly-cancer of Moses through Plato to Kant scholastics and Judeo-Christian religion, (II.) the metaphysical acknowledgment of scientifically ontological Truth, not necessarily the essence of reality per se, but by the approach of pure reason executed interpretations and arguments of the observable Universe as a cosmological doctrine, and (III.) the mythological Mortal Kombat for universal prestige, absolute power, world domination and mastery of space-time continuum by insiatiable extention and omnipotent rectification of influence, procreative expansion, internal struggle and complex ramification. Altair, having achieved the III. level of this Socio-Pathic State, - anti-Sartrean antithesis of simultaneous essence and existence, - the fundamentally systematic discharge of WTP as an obsessive leitmotif, which rises above and replaces the plethora of Schopenhauer’s Will-To-Life, Freud’s Will-To-Pleasure, Frankl’s Will-To-Meaning and Adler’s Will-To-Feeling, - or a Self-Conscious Myth, an axiomatic “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger/stranger”, which acts accordingly as a bodybuilder’s muscle hypertrophy/hyperplasia and akin to a bio-chemically engineered bacterial virus by dissolving the Ego of the Order and spreading its infectious replicas of germ multiplication throughout the World with the necessity effect of a thunderous lightning. Altair’s, as a Perfect OverMan’s, only equal enemy is another Perfect OverMan, Genghis Khan, both with a distinguished type of need to exert their liberated impulsive WTP through vital living/creating and sterile killing/destroying. Genghis Khan was a destructive and genocidal Mongolian emperor and warlord, who killed, directly or not, ~40 million people, while positively being credited for bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment, institution of meritocracy and tolerance of different religions. Altair comes to a conclusion to kill Genghis Khan not because the latter is morally culpable by being “evil” due to his holocaust-like absurd reign, but out of an instinct of self-preservation by thrusting back all that threatens and resists, thinking, that the Khan like him possesses a Piece of Eden, possibly the Sword, expressing his worry of “an army of such size and power” - the only one of the indirect and most frequent results. Altair did not as-a-matter-of-fact killed Genghis Khan himself, but Qulan Gal’s arrow was the extention of his champion’s domineering will of “command & obey”. It is irrelevant, whether the-doer/agent Altair felt satisfaction or pleasue, or met Lady Death with a cheerful smirk in the fields of his Vaterlo, because he lived, or performed the-doing/agency, by refusing to be God, admitting his Humanity and becoming the Perfect Overman, thus the creation of an immortal legend, the legislation of superior uniqueness and the validity of a triumphant victory against Fate, Enemies and Self.

Appendix: Following my own pure reasoning, even if the Universe is infinite, I can use an infinite interpretation, and even if God and Demi-Gods existed Before and never died, their imposed “work-force” ethics/morality should be killed as a fateful necessity for OverComing.

The true reason of assassinating Genghis Khan could always be the “Chopstick Bellicose”: http://sunsetagain.deviantart....nghis-Khan-256980774 (http://sunsetagain.deviantart.com/art/Truth-of-killing-Genghis-Khan-256980774)

[P.S. My intellectually-investing war-machine-monger-like will-to-powerful-meaning idiosyncrasy, in accordance with my sterile garden-house of self-perfecting and joyous ascetic-rule over-self nature, technically, or philosophically, or both, but definitely tyronically and bequestfully, will dominate the Dionysian-shipwreck and disease-ridden problem of “Who is a better killer: 47 or Altair?”, - since Ezio is only the sickly and intoxicated hedonist of the Rennaisance-era masquerade and an errorous causatum of Altair’s programical “tame-to-submit-to-improve” algorithm, - in the coming few to several days, if I won’t die from lung cancer or a third developed personality, if I won’t find something more productive to do, or if I won’t decide to go on a fake intellectual hunger strike for my hunger to become stronger.]

***

Response to reader comments with Titas in the role of Secundus.
Primo: Ezio would shoot him with his hidden gun before 47 saw him.
Secundus: 47 can use a silenced W2000 sniper rifle from 4 miles distance or poison Ezio’s food in the same, although technologically and intellectually more sophisticated, manner.
Primo: What are the dialects of Titas and Greta?
Secundus: You can buy dialects of Titas and Greta - an exclusive copy for an exclusive price! Be the first one!
Primo: Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
Secundus: Inadequate versatility in language science on your part. A shotgun is a firearm, which uses not only a fixed shell to fire a number of small spherical pallets, but also a solid projectile called slug.
Primo: Are you comparing a 16th century Assassin with a "Hitman" 'I Don't give **** as long as I get my money...' modern Assassin? [And] 47 and Ezio are from different time and use different equipment so i see no point in comparing them, Ezio doesn't use silenced guns and disguises, and 47 doesn't use swords, poisons and bombs.
Secundus: The dialectics were written in a response to the following video called “Versus: Hitman vs. Assassin's Creed 2 (Who Would Win?)” and the completely unscientific fan-based propelled vote system, which determined Ezio as the winner. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_UDvc2urDo&feature=player_embedded)
Primo: Well with love and respect for Ezio but 47 wins the match.
Secundus: 47 indeed would win the match, and he doesn’t even require your love and respect.
Primo: Can’t believe someone actually spent time writing that... go outside.
Secundus: Belief is not required. Written in the park under an oak tree. Argument invalidated.
Primo: When I read the part about Ezio's face being emotional and expressive, I looked at the upper right corner of the page where it could be seen that he can look DARN serious when he wants to.
Secundus: Ezio’s emotional and expressive face equals his “DARN serious” look. 47 has no expression, because he has no emotion.
Primo: 47 is a clone. We also never see him when he's by himself having fun, because he doesn't have fun.
Secundus: 47 being a clone is not an argumentation for him not having fun. He was molded into a killing machine from childhood. Having fun is considered a waste of time and efficiency.
Primo: Ezio is cool because he tries to have a life, but when he's in Assassin mode he is firmly in assassin mode, and just as ready as 47 to do stuff.
Secundus: “Human factor. 47 is emotionless and ruthless in being quick and efficient in his killings, unfazed if his targets are women, which he can terminate with no remorse, no guilt and no other feelings that could distract him, unlike Ezio. Ezio’s emotions make him unpredictable, even making him spare the life of his nemesis, the Pope.”
Primo: In fact, he is far more skilled at (1) hand-to-hand combat and (2) armed combat than 47 is, and is (3) much more agile.
Secundus: 1. When it comes to hand-to-hand combat, 47 is concerned with killing the target in the most efficient and quickest way, whilst Ezio is a boxer-type macho and a wanabee extortionist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu1Aii7scBo&feature=player_embedded) 2. Modern-day firearms > Any 16th century arms. 3. “Ezio is without a doubt faster but 47 would take him down with his W-2000 before he could free-run out of there.” – Best for Hire
Primo: I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"
Secundus: Greta wants your head on a plate. It’s Altair, not Altiar. Long topic, but I’ll read it sometime. Link for other readers: http://www.factpile.com/4917-a...ames-bond-old-snake/ (http://www.factpile.com/4917-altair-ezio-auditore-sam-fisher-vs-agent-47-james-bond-old-snake/)
Primo: The better 'Killer' you say....still think it's 47? Killer: Ezio. Assassin: 47.
Secundus: Mass murderer bound to get caught in real life by doing so: Ezio. Professional silent assassin not bound by any fanatical religious creed: 47.
Primo: I never really thought of Ezio is particularly professional, to be honest. Altaïr is far more "professional" in my opinion, and 47 is really the tip-top best of the best.
Secundus: You know the power of the Dark Side, my son!
Primo: Does it really matter whether you say Altiar or Altair?
Secundus: 47’s full code-name is 640509-040147. What if you call 47 a 39? His bar-code would be 640509-040139. These are two different individuals.
Primo: (1) I don't understand why you made this? (2) No one actually cares about who's the 'better killer'. (3) It's just a game.
Secundus: 1. Natural philosophical inclination for thinking, function, wisdom and myself being a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic-narcissistic sociopath, who can relate to killers such as 47 better, than the “human, all too human” Ezio. 2. I care, as do the people who voted on Machinima Versus video. You do, too, because “caring” includes the desire for denial and devaluation. Argument invalidated. 3. As of May 2011, the first three main games of AC have sold over 28 million copies worldwide. I can’t find the statistics for the Hitman franchise, but I guess it’s around 10 million. Not counting the uncountable pirates of both games. The point being, that even if it’s “just a game”, it has a huge impact on the entertainment industry and the consumeristic minds alike. Due to these reasons, I consider it worthy of being in the Art category and worthy of being analysed and interpreted accordingly as is Literature, Film, Music, etc.
Primo: I think you misinterpreted the intended meaning of the phrase "leap of faith" […] It's merely describing the (intended) contradictory action of believing in something without question, even though the Assassins are taught to question everything.
Secundus: Christian Church says: “There is no other God, beside Me”. Assassin’s Creed says: “There is no God, but Father-Leader”. You are correct, that the first part of Assassin’s Creed says “Nothing is True”, or “God is Dead”, i.e. question everything, just like Christian Church says “All other Gods are Dead”, but the problem lies, like I

NewBlade200
10-16-2011, 09:45 AM
lolwut? Are you S16? I see a lot of gibberish written on a wall.

rileypoole1234
10-16-2011, 09:45 AM
Ezio would shoot him with his hidden gun before 47 saw him. I actually havn't a clue who you're talking about. Never heard of "47".

NewBlade200
10-16-2011, 09:46 AM
I think he's from Hitman.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 09:54 AM
No one cares.

NewBlade200
10-16-2011, 10:03 AM
What are the dialects of Titas and Greta?

xx-pyro
10-16-2011, 10:06 AM
Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.

SleezeRocker
10-16-2011, 10:07 AM
Are you comparing a 16th century Assassin with a "hitman" 'I Don't give **** as long as I get my money...' modern Assassin?

http://memedepot.com/uploads/500/783_star-wars-darth-vader-sense.jpg

<span class="ev_code_RED">Please don't by-pass the word filter.</span>

LightRey
10-16-2011, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by xx-pyro:
Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
You have to stand on one leg and then sing the US National Anthem backwards.

NewBlade200
10-16-2011, 10:10 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 xx-pyro:
Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
You have to stand on one leg and then sing the US National Anthem backwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've tried it, it doesn't work. You just get a gun that fires pictures of babies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LightRey
10-16-2011, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by NewBlade200:
<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 xx-pyro:
Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
You have to stand on one leg and then sing the US National Anthem backwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've tried it, it doesn't work. You just get a gun that fires pictures of babies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh right, you have to burp the anthem. Sry 'bout that.

thedeadman_47
10-16-2011, 10:38 AM
well with love and respect for ezio but 47 wins the match

chizzy12
10-16-2011, 10:45 AM
Cant believe someone actually spent time writing that...

go outside

GunnarGunderson
10-16-2011, 10:52 AM
Well in Blood Money 47 doesn't stand a chance if the woman with the cane sword attacks him, so Ezio wins

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by chizzy12:
Cant believe someone actually spent time writing that...

go outside

Why? There's nothing there.

LightRey
10-16-2011, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chizzy12:
Cant believe someone actually spent time writing that...

go outside

Why? There's nothing there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's what she said.

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 11:10 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 itsamea-mario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chizzy12:
Cant believe someone actually spent time writing that...

go outside

Why? There's nothing there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's what she said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isn't, don't be silly.

sassinscreed
10-16-2011, 12:12 PM
i was to lazy to read whole first post, but 47 and ezio are from different time and use different equipment so i see no point in comparing them, ezio doesn't use silenced guns and disguises, and 47 doesn't use swords, poisons and bombs


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 xx-pyro:
Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
You have to stand on one leg and then sing the US National Anthem backwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually you have to jump on one leg all the time you sing it if you want it to work

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 12:24 PM
When I read the part about Ezio's face being emotional and expressive, I looked at the upper right corner of the page where it could be seen that he can look DARN serious when he wants to.

47 is a clone. We also never see him when he's by himself having fun, because he doesn't have fun.

Ezio is cool because he tries to have a life, but when he's in Assassin mode he is firmly in assassin mode, and just as ready as 47 to do stuff.

In fact, he is far more skilled at hand-to-hand combat and armed combat than 47 is, and is much more agile.

Your post was impossible to read. One big block of melodramatic prose.

Break things up.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 12:38 PM
I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"

You know what I realized? People think that Altiar was being trained as an Assassin since he was 5 and that Ezio wasn't being trained as an Assassin until he was 22.

Altiar didn't start until he was around 13, and Ezio started when he was 17. That's a 4-5 year difference. And besides that Ezio was being pseudo-trained by his brother to free-run and fight with fists and some blades.

I don't know about the other guys since I haven't played any of their games or watched a Bond movie in ages, but I do know that people are underestimating Altiar and Ezio (specifically Ezio).

And face it, Ezio has the larger Weapon repetoire, and Ezio isn't afraid of fighting dirty. Ezio is a more heavy type fighter, Altiar is more agile and stealthy (somehow, I'm not sure. I think that's part of his character since the gameplay is relatively the same). Any fight between Ezio or Altiar would either end in a stalemate or with Altiar getting Ezio without Ezio seeing him, or if Ezio does see him he uses his dirty tactics to beat him. This is at the peak of their careers each I mean.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 12:45 PM
Ezio's tactics aren't dirty. I don't know why people try to say he has a reputation for this or something.

Is it considered dirty to dodge someone in a fight and then stab them?

Because really, fights aren't about playing clean. Altair had the counterkill where he tripped an enemy and then stabbed him while he was flat on his back on the ground. Is that playing dirty?

Nah, it's just fighting. ; )

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 12:48 PM
It's mostly when he gathers dirt and throws it in someone's eyes, or knees him in the balls.

shobhit7777777
10-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Question: Who is a better killer - Ezio or 47? Answer: 47.

The better 'Killer' you say....still think it's 47? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i_iQLsnKlA)

Killer: Ezio
Assassin: 47

Animuses
10-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
It's mostly when he gathers dirt and throws it in someone's eyes, or knees him in the balls.
Altair kicks people in the testicle and slices them with the sword... that's dirty and brutal.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
It's mostly when he gathers dirt and throws it in someone's eyes, or knees him in the balls.
Using the environment to gain an advantage, and going for his opponents unprotected weak spot to knock him off balance?

What kind of skilled combatant wouldn't use these tactics? One who was embarassed about fighting?

Anyways, he throws sand only when he's unarmed, and the kick obviously doesn't hit the groin directly because that area is armored and guards can recover fairly quickly from a kick.

I just don't see how sneaking up behind someone and stabbing is any less dirty than blinding them and stabbing them.

Assassins (The order) are supposed to use any means nessesary to ensure their goals, right?

masterfenix2009
10-16-2011, 01:09 PM
Ok, it's settled. Mario is the best out of all of them.

masterfenix2009
10-16-2011, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
It's mostly when he gathers dirt and throws it in someone's eyes, or knees him in the balls.
Using the environment to gain an advantage, and going for his opponents unprotected weak spot to knock him off balance?

What kind of skilled combatant wouldn't use these tactics? One who was embarassed about fighting?

Anyways, he throws sand only when he's unarmed, and the kick obviously doesn't hit the groin directly because that area is armored and guards can recover fairly quickly from a kick.

I just don't see how sneaking up behind someone and stabbing is any less dirty than blinding them and stabbing them.

Assassins (The order) are supposed to use any means nessesary to ensure their goals, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He never said fighting dirty was bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sarari
10-16-2011, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"

You know what I realized? People think that Altiar was being trained as an Assassin since he was 5 and that Ezio wasn't being trained as an Assassin until he was 22.

Altiar didn't start until he was around 13, and Ezio started when he was 17. That's a 4-5 year difference. And besides that Ezio was being pseudo-trained by his brother to free-run and fight with fists and some blades.

I don't know about the other guys since I haven't played any of their games or watched a Bond movie in ages, but I do know that people are underestimating Altiar and Ezio (specifically Ezio).

And face it, Ezio has the larger Weapon repetoire, and Ezio isn't afraid of fighting dirty. Ezio is a more heavy type fighter, Altiar is more agile and stealthy (somehow, I'm not sure. I think that's part of his character since the gameplay is relatively the same). Any fight between Ezio or Altiar would either end in a stalemate or with Altiar getting Ezio without Ezio seeing him, or if Ezio does see him he uses his dirty tactics to beat him. This is at the peak of their careers each I mean.
LMAO @Animuses. But I think people underestimate Altair in my opinion. They're always saying that Ezio is so much more b.a. than Altair and that he can kick his behind any day.

What I think is that Ezio can probably beat up Altair in a fist fight. Ezio would demolish him in that.

In a weapon fight, I think Altair would win. Ezio might have more dirty counters and combos, but Altair took on like 10 templars in Arsuf with only a dagger, sword, and maybe a hidden blade. He fought armies and so many of those bigass templars with only those 3 weapons.

Ezio on the other hand has countless options. And he still doesn't fight super hard templars like Altair. He fought people with spears, those guys with the helmets and swords(those were easy to kill), and those ***** soldiers lol. The guys with the axes and the huge swords he didn't fight a lot.

Let's not forget Altair had no armor, just an oversized belt lol.

So I would say over all, Altair would win in a fight, but Ezio is definitely more b.a. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"

You know what I realized? People think that Altiar was being trained as an Assassin since he was 5 and that Ezio wasn't being trained as an Assassin until he was 22.

Altiar didn't start until he was around 13, and Ezio started when he was 17. That's a 4-5 year difference. And besides that Ezio was being pseudo-trained by his brother to free-run and fight with fists and some blades.

I don't know about the other guys since I haven't played any of their or watched a Bond movie in ages, but I do know that people are underestimating Altiar and Ezio (specifically Ezio).

And face it, Ezio has the larger Weapon repetoire, and Ezio isn't afraid of fighting dirty. Ezio is a more heavy type fighter, Altiar is more agile and stealthy (somehow, I'm not sure. I think that's part of his character since the gameplay is relatively the same). Any fight between Ezio or Altiar would either end in a stalemate or with Altiar getting Ezio without Ezio seeing him, or if Ezio does see him he uses his dirty tactics to beat him. This is at the peak of their careers each I mean.
LMAO @Animuses. But I think people underestimate Altair in my opinion. They're always saying that Ezio is so much more b.a. than Altair and that he can kick his behind any day.

What I think is that Ezio can probably beat up Altair in a fist fight. Ezio would demolish him in that.

In a weapon fight, I think Altair would win. Ezio might have more dirty counters and combos, but Altair took on like 10 templars in Arsuf with only a dagger, sword, and maybe a hidden blade. He fought armies and so many of those bigass templars with only those 3 weapons.

Ezio on the other hand has countless options. And he still doesn't fight super hard templars like Altair. He fought people with spears, those guys with the helmets and swords(those were easy to kill), and those ***** soldiers lol. The guys with the axes and the huge swords he didn't fight a lot.

Let's not forget Altair had no armor, just an oversized belt lol.

So I would say over all, Altair would win in a fight, but Ezio is definitely more b.a. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, Ezio has more options, but all you need to do is play the game to see that he can destory with any options.

Guards seem so easy for hims to kill because he's twice Altair's age in AC1, and proportionately skilled.

Altair wore chainmail under his robes as was the custom of knights at the time.

They are both equally skilled. Why can't people just leave that alone?

Ezio fought difficult guards, but the game just got easier. Why is everyone trying to say that the ineffectiveness of a grunt in ACB compared to one in AC1 is trying to say that Ezio's enemies were weaker? All that is implied is that he is more skilled.

Again, what's with the "dirty counters and combos" stuff? What's with the "Altair killed 10 guards with just a sword" stuff?

Ezio has been shown to do just as much and more than that. He has more options but he is no less skilled.

And if you want to use stupid gameplay excuses to determine skill, then Altair cheats because enemies can't hurt him while he's stuck in a long counter animation, and enemies get distracted and allow him to assassinate them very easily.

THEY ARE ENTIRELY EQUAL IN SKILL.

EZIO HAS MORE MODERN AND VARIED EQUIPMENT TO CHANNEL THAT EQUAL LEVEL OF SKILL THROUGH.

Kicking someone in the groin and stabbing them is just as unpleasant and undesired to them as jumping on and stabbing them when they get distracted. It seems like everyone believes too much of what Hollywood says is fair and not fair in a fight.

EDIT:

And really, about the armor, who cares if they wear lots of armor or not. If I can jump 10 feet while wearing no shoes, and 15 feet while wearing shoes, then I am not worse than a person who decides not to wear shoes if I do wear shoes, because I'm perfectly capable of matching them with the same handicap. But WHY SHOULD I? Why should anyone sacrifice any edge just so they have a worse chance of success? This isn't a ****ing contest, this is a fight for the freedom of all humanity, and you're going to risk all that by purposefully wearing a bath robe while dodging bullets and arrows?

Blind2Society
10-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Question: Who is a better killer - Ezio or 47?
Hmmmm, I wonder the testicle?

<sub>sorry Shade, I couldn't resist</sub>

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
Ok, it's settled. Mario is the best out of all of them.

Gee thanks...

This is becoming an ezio vs Altair thread when it should be becoming a closed and dead thread.

Sarari
10-16-2011, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sarari:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"

You know what I realized? People think that Altiar was being trained as an Assassin since he was 5 and that Ezio wasn't being trained as an Assassin until he was 22.

Altiar didn't start until he was around 13, and Ezio started when he was 17. That's a 4-5 year difference. And besides that Ezio was being pseudo-trained by his brother to free-run and fight with fists and some blades.

I don't know about the other guys since I haven't played any of their or watched a Bond movie in ages, but I do know that people are underestimating Altiar and Ezio (specifically Ezio).

And face it, Ezio has the larger Weapon repetoire, and Ezio isn't afraid of fighting dirty. Ezio is a more heavy type fighter, Altiar is more agile and stealthy (somehow, I'm not sure. I think that's part of his character since the gameplay is relatively the same). Any fight between Ezio or Altiar would either end in a stalemate or with Altiar getting Ezio without Ezio seeing him, or if Ezio does see him he uses his dirty tactics to beat him. This is at the peak of their careers each I mean.
LMAO @Animuses. But I think people underestimate Altair in my opinion. They're always saying that Ezio is so much more b.a. than Altair and that he can kick his behind any day.

What I think is that Ezio can probably beat up Altair in a fist fight. Ezio would demolish him in that.

In a weapon fight, I think Altair would win. Ezio might have more dirty counters and combos, but Altair took on like 10 templars in Arsuf with only a dagger, sword, and maybe a hidden blade. He fought armies and so many of those bigass templars with only those 3 weapons.

Ezio on the other hand has countless options. And he still doesn't fight super hard templars like Altair. He fought people with spears, those guys with the helmets and swords(those were easy to kill), and those ***** soldiers lol. The guys with the axes and the huge swords he didn't fight a lot.

Let's not forget Altair had no armor, just an oversized belt lol.

So I would say over all, Altair would win in a fight, but Ezio is definitely more b.a. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, Ezio has more options, but all you need to do is play the game to see that he can destory with any options.

Guards seem so easy for hims to kill because he's twice Altair's age in AC1, and proportionately skilled.

Altair wore chainmail under his robes as was the custom of knights at the time.

They are both equally skilled. Why can't people just leave that alone?

Ezio fought difficult guards, but the game just got easier. Why is everyone trying to say that the ineffectiveness of a grunt in ACB compared to one in AC1 is trying to say that Ezio's enemies were weaker? All that is implied is that he is more skilled.

Again, what's with the "dirty counters and combos" stuff? What's with the "Altair killed 10 guards with just a sword" stuff?

Ezio has been shown to do just as much and more than that. He has more options but he is no less skilled.

And if you want to use stupid gameplay excuses to determine skill, then Altair cheats because enemies can't hurt him while he's stuck in a long counter animation, and enemies get distracted and allow him to assassinate them very easily.

THEY ARE ENTIRELY EQUAL IN SKILL.

EZIO HAS MORE MODERN AND VARIED EQUIPMENT TO CHANNEL THAT EQUAL LEVEL OF SKILL THROUGH.

Kicking someone in the groin and stabbing them is just as unpleasant and undesired to them as jumping on and stabbing them when they get distracted. It seems like everyone believes too much of what Hollywood says is fair and not fair in a fight.

EDIT:

And really, about the armor, who cares if they wear lots of armor or not. If I can jump 10 feet while wearing no shoes, and 15 feet while wearing shoes, then I am not worse than a person who decides not to wear shoes if I do wear shoes, because I'm perfectly capable of matching them with the same handicap. But WHY SHOULD I? Why should anyone sacrifice any edge just so they have a worse chance of success? This isn't a ****ing contest, this is a fight for the freedom of all humanity, and you're going to risk all that by purposefully wearing a bath robe while dodging bullets and arrows? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Damn, that was was deep. But you saying that won't stop people from thinking what they wanna think.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 02:29 PM
I agree.

I hate Altair vs Ezio threads.

They always become about elitism for either character's gameplay mechanics, rather than even trying to look at their only important difference: personality.

Obviously Ubisoft wants them both to be just as good as each other "who would win in a fight with only weapon X" wise, so there's no point in debating that.

LightRey
10-16-2011, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Damn, that was was deep. But you saying that won't stop people from thinking what they wanna think.
He makes some very good points though.

Sarari
10-16-2011, 02:31 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 Sarari:
Damn, that was was deep. But you saying that won't stop people from thinking what they wanna think.
He makes some very good points though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes he does.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 02:40 PM
Sorry, I get kinda worked up about this sort of thing.

I love both altair and Ezio equally, and I look at their stories and skills objectively.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 02:54 PM
Desmond would beat both of them since he has the skills of both Altiar and Ezio! :P

(that's a joke)

Sarari
10-16-2011, 02:56 PM
hahahaha no way in hell that's gonna happen xD. He can't even beat up Lucy I'm guessing.

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 03:02 PM
Hahahahahahahaha every way in hell that's going to happen XD

AC2 didn't happen for no reason.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 03:03 PM
O.O

Dude. He has the skills of both Altiar and Ezio. He can KILL Lucy, not just beat her up.

EDIT: On a side note, not only did the Animus give him the skills, it gave him the experience. He has the muscle memory which attributes to skills, and he has the experience of battle so he knows what to expect in a real fight. All that he has to get is physical prowess (muscles), which he'll get just by doing Free-running. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason why ACB took longer than AC2 for Desmond's reliving of Ezio's life, because he was actually using the night time to free run and work out.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 03:06 PM
I think we can all agree the chances of the story deciding that Desmond's training sucked and that he can't do anything are very low.

Sarari
10-16-2011, 03:06 PM
Hahaha well that's true. But it hasn't showed he has their skills in his past games. I'm hoping it'll show in Revelations and if not in ACR, in AC3.

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 03:06 PM
The skills and experience of an old ezio in the body of a 25 year old is a potent mix.
And Altair is just icing on the cake.

Sarari
10-16-2011, 03:09 PM
And Altair is just icing on the cake.
I hope you're not saying that in a bad way...

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 03:11 PM
Lol.. Desmond just needs to unlock the Sixth Sense and he'll probably be God-like (or TWCB-like) especially if the theory that that fully unlocked Sixth Sense allows you to access all of your ancestors memories without an Animus. A full Knowledge of your Genes.

itsamea-mario
10-16-2011, 03:11 PM
No.
It's just that Desmond didn't really Learn much from Altair, skill wise that is.
The core of his abilities come from ezio.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Hahaha well that's true. But it hasn't showed he has their skills in his past . I'm hoping it'll show in Revelations and if not in ACR, in AC3.

Actually it has. Remember how he could free-run and fight just like Ezio in AC2 and ACB?

Remember how Lucy said that the bleeding effect was giving him their skills?

: )

I hope the sixth is expanded into a really interesting version of eagle whatever, for AC3.

Sarari
10-16-2011, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
No.
It's just that Desmond didn't really Learn much from Altair, skill wise that is.
The core of his abilities come from ezio.
That's true. Why did they stop with Altair's memories so soon though?

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
No.
It's just that Desmond didn't really Learn much from Altair, skill wise that is.
The core of his abilities come from ezio.
That's true. Why did they stop with Altair's memories so soon though? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because his memories didn't go that far for Desmond, and Ezio was probably a better training experience that the Assassins knew about.

Animuses
10-16-2011, 03:16 PM
@Sarari
They had no reason to view anymore of Altair's memories. All they needed was the locations of the temples/pieces of eden. Altair's memories only lasted for a few more years anyway.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 03:18 PM
Yep, Ezio's memories coincided with their main goal of securing the apple.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 03:48 PM
So.. if Desmond was provided with all the weapons that Ezio and Altiar had, would he win against either of them one on one?

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 04:02 PM
Well you see, it doesn't work like Desmond getting 5 skill points from Altair and 5 skill points from Ezio.

It's more like actually learning a skill. If you go to two martial arts instructors of equal level and learn everything that each of them knows, you don't become more powerful than both of them, you just are on equal ground with both of them.

You get no bonus for learning how to do the same thing twice.

Altair, Desmond, and Ezio are all one basic template of skill with whatever circumstances and weapons they and their enemies have being separate from that template.

rileypoole1234
10-16-2011, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Blind2Society:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Question: Who is a better killer - Ezio or 47?
Hmmmm, I wonder the testicle?

<sub>sorry Shade, I couldn't resist</sub> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! Yes! I was waiting for someone to say that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Sarari
10-16-2011, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
Well you see, it doesn't work like Desmond getting 5 skill points from Altair and 5 skill points from Ezio.

It's more like actually learning a skill. If you go to two martial arts instructors of equal level and learn everything that each of them knows, you don't become more powerful than both of them, you just are on equal ground with both of them.

You get no bonus for learning how to do the same thing twice.

Altair, Desmond, and Ezio are all one basic template of skill with whatever circumstances and weapons they and their enemies have being separate from that template.
Al Mualim trained Altair, so how was Altair able to defeat Al Mualim. Explain that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LightRey
10-16-2011, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
Well you see, it doesn't work like Desmond getting 5 skill points from Altair and 5 skill points from Ezio.

It's more like actually learning a skill. If you go to two martial arts instructors of equal level and learn everything that each of them knows, you don't become more powerful than both of them, you just are on equal ground with both of them.

You get no bonus for learning how to do the same thing twice.

Altair, Desmond, and Ezio are all one basic template of skill with whatever circumstances and weapons they and their enemies have being separate from that template.
This is all based on the assumption that Ezio and Altaïr would have had nothing to teach each other, which is somewhat preposterous.

masterfenix2009
10-16-2011, 05:05 PM
Besides, it is never a definite win no matter how skilled you are. The environments change everything. If, in a warzone, a japanese swordfighter fought a simple recruit, something like a canon ball could land near the Japanese fighter. The impact makes him fall. The recruit runs over to the fighter and stabs him. Skill didn't count for nothing there.

Jexx21
10-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Technically it does, If the recruit isn't skilled enough he might stab him in an area that doesn't harm the swordfighter.

But I digress.

LightRey
10-16-2011, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Technically it does, If the recruit isn't skilled enough he might stab him in an area that doesn't harm the swordfighter.

But I digress.
It's significance is greatly decreased though.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 05:29 PM
Well we have no way of knowing intricate details about their differences, since they both seem to use the same attack animations, and definately are skilled in the exact same weapons as each other. Their gameplay mechanics work exactly the same. (Meaning when they're in the same animus, like in Revelations, I know AC1 had different mechanics)

So as for who would win in a fight, it would have to be whoever the writer of said fight WANTED to win.

That's how all fictional battles versus people who use the exact same weapons and are trained in the exact same style.

Arguing about Altair being better with a dagger than Ezio is like arguing about which of them had the highest body temperature: we simply don't have the details, and because of personalizing every last thing about every little move from every little character being ungodly expensive and a waste of time, Ubisoft is never going to give them to us.

I'm not saying we can't really speculate on their skills, it's just that with characters that are designed to be thought of as being just as good as each other, it's a somewhat fruitless effort.

xCr0wnedNorris
10-16-2011, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Al Mualim trained Altair, so how was Altair able to defeat Al Mualim. Explain that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The same reason why computers today are more powerful than they were in the 90's. Just because you're taught something doesn't mean you can't build upon it and make it better. It probably helped that Al Mualim was a bit old and Altaïr was in his 20's too.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sarari:
Al Mualim trained Altair, so how was Altair able to defeat Al Mualim. Explain that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The same reason why computers today are more powerful than they were in the 90's. Just because you're taught something doesn't mean you can't build upon it and make it better. It probably helped that Al Mualim was a bit old and Altaïr was in his 20's too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention that the only reason Altair won was because of his special ability (Eagle vision) that Al Mualim didn't have. Also al Mualim's strength was being sapped by use of the apple. That's actually a terrible example of a fight, because it's the least balanced and controlled environment ever. It's like Altair was drugged and then made to fight a person who had to bleed a drop for every time he made Altair get more drugs.

So chaotic and random.

E-Zekiel
10-16-2011, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by SleezeRocker:
Are you comparing a 16th century Assassin with a "hitman" 'I Don't give **** as long as I get my money...' modern Assassin?

http://memedepot.com/uploads/500/783_star-wars-darth-vader-sense.jpg

<span class="ev_code_RED">Please don't by-pass the word filter.</span>

Actually, that picture does make sense. Not so much why he's wearing a Darth Vader costume, that's kind of random, but what he's doing is clear. He's using a water filter to filter ocean water to make it drinkable.

Not really sure how viable that is, but that's what is occurring.


Anyway, I never really thought of Ezio is particularly professional, to be honest. Altaïr is far more "professional" in my opinion, and 47 is really the tip-top best of the best.



Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sarari:
Al Mualim trained Altair, so how was Altair able to defeat Al Mualim. Explain that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The same reason why computers today are more powerful than they were in the 90's. Just because you're taught something doesn't mean you can't build upon it and make it better. It probably helped that Al Mualim was a bit old and Altaïr was in his 20's too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention that the only reason Altair won was because of his special ability (Eagle vision) that Al Mualim didn't have. Also al Mualim's strength was being sapped by use of the apple. That's actually a terrible example of a fight, because it's the least balanced and controlled environment ever. It's like Altair was drugged and then made to fight a person who had to bleed a drop for every time he made Altair get more drugs.

So chaotic and random. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is this a joke? Al-Mualim made a bunch of copies of himself. I would say the fight is fair enough. Seriously.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 07:40 PM
I'm hoping that you're joking, Zeke.

What we have here is a 25 year old guy with the ability to see beyond a mystical artifact's illusions squaring off with his 70+ years old master who is in possession of an artifact which generally has the power to enslave minds , but the 25 year old's ability dillutes its effect somewhat, and use of the artifact drains your strength. So he uses the artifact to disguise his thralls as enemies and sends them to fight in a big group, and there's lots of flashing yellow light, and then those guys get killed so he creates imaginary copies of himself that the 25 year old sees through, and then he makes himself invisible and hides to regain strength, while making the 25 year old's vision all crazy, but he pursue's him with his gift, confronts him, and then counters with his hidden blade to kill him.

Does that honestly sound like a balanced and easy to predict fight to you?

A balanced fight would allow Ezio you throw dust, because Altair could throw dust. It would involve them both using the same weapons, and both being the same age. A fight to the death should have no rules of honor. Killing isn't done dishonorably, it's what you feel and do afterwards that makes it dishonorable. There is no counter that is more "cheap" than the other. If you used your brain to send signals to your body that allowed to use your weapons to kill the other man, you did not cheat. You just won.

And my problem with hypothetical battles against such evenly matched dudes is that that kind of information about the intricacies of Altair and Ezio's fighting style and thought process are lost due to the virtue of none of this being real, and it all being down to the opinion of whoever writes the scenario. We have no actual hard data.

I would agree with you about Ezio not starting out professional, but that was really the whole point of him. He grows into the assassin, and it takes him longer because he's being guided without knowledge. But by the end of the second game, I would have no doubt in calling him even more professional than Altair was at the end of AC1. He can be ice cold when he wants, and he's thoughtful, yet always alive during moments of rest.

E-Zekiel
10-16-2011, 07:48 PM
Uh, his "illusions" were capable of doing damage. Whether or not he can tell which one is the real one is irrelevant, because it's like fighting a group of people, except if you kill the leader, the rest run away. Fact still remaining, it's a group until that leader dies.

And it's not a hypothetical. Altaïr fought Al-Mualim. Altaïr won.

Calvarok
10-16-2011, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Uh, his "illusions" were capable of doing damage. Whether or not he can tell which one is the real one is irrelevant, because it's like fighting a group of people, except if you kill the leader, the rest run away. Fact still remaining, it's a group until that leader dies.

And it's not a hypothetical. Altaïr fought Al-Mualim. Altaïr won.

The thing is, as I've said before, it's like the matrix. Them being illusions doesn't mean your brain can't be forced to feel pain, even if nothing physical actually happened.

And my point is that that fight could have very easily gone a different way, what with all the ridiculous things that were happening at once, most of which had more to do with ancient DNA and technology than swordfighting. It's a bad situation to say "Altair beat his mentor here because he finally surpassed him in what he taught him". There were a lot of other factors.

E-Zekiel
10-17-2011, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:

The thing is, as I've said before, it's like the matrix. Them being illusions doesn't mean your brain can't be forced to feel pain, even if nothing physical actually happened.


Whether or not it's like the Matrix is completely irrelevant, because whether it is or not, it's still like fighting a group of people, with the only difference being if you kill one of them (the right one), the rest are gone.

LightRey
10-17-2011, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:

The thing is, as I've said before, it's like the matrix. Them being illusions doesn't mean your brain can't be forced to feel pain, even if nothing physical actually happened.


Whether or not it's like the Matrix is completely irrelevant, because whether it is or not, it's still like fighting a group of people, with the only difference being if you kill one of them (the right one), the rest are gone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not what he's talking about. He's explaining why getting wounded in such an illusion is under the circumstances no different from getting wounded in actual physical battle.

E-Zekiel
10-17-2011, 04:27 PM
Yes, but he keeps saying it as if it's less than it is. It isn't. Fake or not, the result is the same, is my point - with my overall point being that...the fact remains, Altaïr killed him. "Fair" doesn't really matter, because there were a lot of un-fair factors, not to mention, I personally think with the apple of Eden on Al-Mualim's side, it's really dense to try and downplay Altaïr's talent.

LightRey
10-17-2011, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Yes, but he keeps saying it as if it's less than it is. It isn't. Fake or not, the result is the same, is my point - with my overall point being that...the fact remains, Altaïr killed him. "Fair" doesn't really matter, because there were a lot of un-fair factors, not to mention, I personally think with the apple of Eden on Al-Mualim's side, it's really dense to try and downplay Altaïr's talent.
That is true.

NewBlade200
10-17-2011, 04:42 PM
Wow, has this become an Altair vs Al-Mualim thread? I've never seen one of these before!

LightRey
10-17-2011, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by NewBlade200:
Wow, has this become an Altair vs Al-Mualim thread? I've never seen one of these before!
At least it's a little refreshing.

Calvarok
10-17-2011, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Yes, but he keeps saying it as if it's less than it is. It isn't. Fake or not, the result is the same, is my point - with my overall point being that...the fact remains, Altaïr killed him. "Fair" doesn't really matter, because there were a lot of un-fair factors, not to mention, I personally think with the apple of Eden on Al-Mualim's side, it's really dense to try and downplay Altaïr's talent.
Well really, the fact that Al Mualim is 70 years old and not used to using the apple against someone who can partially resist it, PLUS the apple saps his strength, I really think that it was not very fair either way.

Like, really. That's a 55 year age difference.

I really think that that had something to do with Altair's apparent skill versus him, a lot more than his fighting being better.

And once again the fact that he could kill one of the targets and the rest dissapeared was because of his own ace in the hole.

The scenario played out well for him, but with so many factor's going on, it was definately not a sure thing, much moreso than a traditional sword fight.

That's all I'm trying to say.

pabaisabevardo
10-17-2011, 08:05 PM
Response to reader comments with Titas in the role of Secundus.
Primo: Ezio would shoot him with his hidden gun before 47 saw him.
Secundus: 47 can use a silenced W2000 sniper rifle from 4 miles distance or poison Ezio’s food in the same, although technologically and intellectually more sophisticated, manner.
Primo: What are the dialects of Titas and Greta?
Secundus: You can buy dialects of Titas and Greta - an exclusive copy for an exclusive price! Be the first one!
Primo: Can someone tell me how to unlock Ezio's hidden shotgun because I've never used it and it sounds quite powerful.
Secundus: Inadequate versatility in language science on your part. A shotgun is a firearm, which uses not only a fixed shell to fire a number of small spherical pallets, but also a solid projectile called slug.
Primo: Are you comparing a 16th century Assassin with a "Hitman" 'I Don't give **** as long as I get my money...' modern Assassin? [And] 47 and Ezio are from different time and use different equipment so i see no point in comparing them, Ezio doesn't use silenced guns and disguises, and 47 doesn't use swords, poisons and bombs.
Secundus: The dialectics were written in a response to the following video called “Versus: Hitman vs. Assassin's Creed 2 (Who Would Win?)” and the completely unscientific fan-based propelled vote system, which determined Ezio as the winner. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_UDvc2urDo&feature=player_embedded)
Primo: Well with love and respect for Ezio but 47 wins the match.
Secundus: 47 indeed would win the match, and he doesn’t even require your love and respect.
Primo: Can’t believe someone actually spent time writing that... go outside.
Secundus: Belief is not required. Written in the park under an oak tree. Argument invalidated.
Primo: When I read the part about Ezio's face being emotional and expressive, I looked at the upper right corner of the page where it could be seen that he can look DARN serious when he wants to.
Secundus: Ezio’s emotional and expressive face equals his “DARN serious” look. 47 has no expression, because he has no emotion.
Primo: 47 is a clone. We also never see him when he's by himself having fun, because he doesn't have fun.
Secundus: 47 being a clone is not an argumentation for him not having fun. He was molded into a killing machine from childhood. Having fun is considered a waste of time and efficiency.
Primo: Ezio is cool because he tries to have a life, but when he's in Assassin mode he is firmly in assassin mode, and just as ready as 47 to do stuff.
Secundus: “Human factor. 47 is emotionless and ruthless in being quick and efficient in his killings, unfazed if his targets are women, which he can terminate with no remorse, no guilt and no other feelings that could distract him, unlike Ezio. Ezio’s emotions make him unpredictable, even making him spare the life of his nemesis, the Pope.”
Primo: In fact, he is far more skilled at (1) hand-to-hand combat and (2) armed combat than 47 is, and is (3) much more agile.
Secundus: 1. When it comes to hand-to-hand combat, 47 is concerned with killing the target in the most efficient and quickest way, whilst Ezio is a boxer-type macho and a wanabee extortionist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu1Aii7scBo&feature=player_embedded) 2. Modern-day firearms > Any 16th century arms. 3. “Ezio is without a doubt faster but 47 would take him down with his W-2000 before he could free-run out of there.” – Best for Hire
Primo: I just searched something like this on Google. I just read a topic of "Altiar, Ezio, Sam Fisher v.s. James Bond, Old Snake, Agent 47"
Secundus: Greta wants your head on a plate. It’s Altair, not Altiar. Long topic, but I’ll read it sometime. Link for other readers: http://www.factpile.com/4917-a...ames-bond-old-snake/ (http://www.factpile.com/4917-altair-ezio-auditore-sam-fisher-vs-agent-47-james-bond-old-snake/)
Primo: The better 'Killer' you say....still think it's 47? Killer: Ezio. Assassin: 47.
Secundus: Mass murderer bound to get caught in real life by doing so: Ezio. Professional silent assassin not bound by any fanatical religious creed: 47.
Primo: I never really thought of Ezio is particularly professional, to be honest. Altaïr is far more "professional" in my opinion, and 47 is really the tip-top best of the best.
Secundus: You know the power of the Dark Side, my son!

Jexx21
10-17-2011, 08:43 PM
You do realize that the Assassin's Creed isn't religious at all right? In fact, it asks you to let go of religious morals to so you can do what needs to be done.

Also, you seem very nit-picky. Does it really matter whether you say Altiar or Altair? People know what you mean anyway..

And also, I don't understand why you made this?

No one actually cares about who's the 'better killer'. It's just a game.

pabaisabevardo
10-19-2011, 06:22 PM
Question: You do realize that the Assassin's Creed isn't religious at all, right? In fact, it asks you to let go of religious morals so you can do what needs to be done.

Answer: Origins of “Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted”.

1. As uttered in the dying bed of Hassan-i Sabbah (1050s – 1124), the leader of the religious group called Hashshashin Sect, or Assassin Order: La shai'a waqi'on motlaq bal kollon momken. Translated as: Nothing is real forever/inevitable/forbidden, but everything is possible. A'sha'i al hakh, kullukum musmoh beha – Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Meaning that the English translation of the motto, as all the others, were lost in time. 2. Idealogically similar line was used in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s (1821 – 1881) Russian novel The Brothers Karamazov: "If God is dead, everything is permitted." 3. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) borrowed Hassan-i Sabbah’s line and gave it a completely different interpretation in his work On the Genealogy of Morality.

Analysis and interpretation.

1. In the game Assassin’s Creed, Al Mualim, a fictionalized version of Hassan-i Sabbah, gives an explanation of the Creed: “It does not grant you the freedom to do as you wish, it is a knowledge meant to guide your senses. It expects a wisdom you clearly lack!” Ergo, a religious rejection of the idea of absolute freedom by inauguration of rational sense-fulness and will-to-knowledge/wisdom as values by personal belief in yourself and enforcement of your agenda upon others. Consider the following Hassan-i Sabbah’s “wisdom” of “training-ground for fanatics who were conditioned by the most cunning methods to believe in a special divine mission” by druggery and subjugation, a case of “do as I say, not as I do”:

Hasan began to attract young men from the surrounding countryside, between the ages of twelve and twenty: particularly those whom he marked out as possible material for the production of killers. Every day he held court, a reception at which he spoke of the delights of Paradise... "and at certain times he caused draughts of soporific nature to be administered to ten or a dozen youths, and when half dead with sleep he had them conveyed to the several palaces and apartments of the garden. Upon awakening from this state of lethargy their senses were struck by all the delightful objects, and each perceiving himself surrounded by lovely damsels, singing, playing, and attracting his regards by the most fascinating caresses, serving him also with delicious viands and exquisite wines, until, intoxicated with excess and enjoyment, amidst actual rivers of milk and wine, he believed himself assuredly in Paradise, and felt an unwillingness to relinquish its delights. When four or five days had thus been passed, they were thrown once more into a state of somnolency, and carried out of the garden. Upon being carried to his presence, and questioned by him as to where they had been, their answer was 'in Paradise, through the favour of your highness'; and then, before the whole court who listened to them with eager astonishment and curiosity, they gave a circumstantial account of the scenes to which they had been witnesses. The chief thereupon addressing them said: 'We have the assurance of our Prophet that he who defends his Lord shall inherit Paradise, and if you show yourselves to be devoted to the obedience of my orders, that happy lot awaits you'.
It is possible that recruits were made in another way than by selecting gullible, fully grown youths. Legend has it that Hasan, once master of Alamut, used to buy unwanted childern from their parents, and train them in implicit obedience and with the sole desire to die in his service.
Students had to pass through nine degrees of initiation. In the first, the teachers threw their pupils into a state of doubt about all conventional ideas, religious and political. They used false analogy and every other device of argument to make the aspirant believe that what he had been taught by his previous mentors was prejudiced and capable of being challenged. The effect of this according to the Arab historian, Makrizi, was to cause him to lean upon the personality of the teachers, as the only possible source of the proper interpretation of facts. At the same time, the teachers hinted continually that formal knowledge was merely the cloak for hidden, inner and powerful truth, whose secret would be imparted when the youth was ready to receive it. This 'confusion technique' was carried out until the student reached the stage where he was prepared to swear a vow of blind allegiance to one or other of his teachers.
In the final degree, many difficult passages of the Koran were explained in terms of allegory.
[…]
Shah Khalilullah "was revered almost like a god and credited with the power of working miracles... the followers of Khalilullah would, when he pared his nails, fight for the clippings; the water in which he washed became holy water."
[…]
When Mohammed II died, he was succeeded by his son Jalaludin, who completely reversed the orders that the Assassins were to have no outward religious observances. He felt that he could do a great deal by adopting the cloak of orthodox piety, and sent ambassadors far and wide to announce his maintenance of the true faith. He went so far as to curse his predecessors publicly, in order to convince the incredulous that such a people as the Assassins could turn over a new leaf. As a result of what would today be called a long-term and comprehensive propaganda plan, he was acknowledged as a religious leader by half the orthodox monarchs of Islam, and (the first Assassin to be so styled) came to be termed Prince Jalaludin.
[Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html] (http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html%5D)

First rule of Assassin Creed: Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.
This principle is the end justifies the means phenomenon, that morally “wrong” actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally “right” outcomes, a pretence for peace and bright future, while, in reality, it’s just a serpentine-like and self-justifying way of letting the Assassins feel at peace with themselves, when they kill, as the victims are only “sinners”. “A true assassin would not believe the Creed, and would be permitted to break all of its rules.”

Question: Assassin's Creed – religious or not? Answer: Religious. Why? All leaders of the order were self-obsessed and self-deluded in their values, claiming the belief in nothing and preaching the belief in “senses” and “wisdom”, seducing the will-be-assassins with intoxicating pleasure and the promise of Paradise, claiming to be the Propeth[s], instead of instilling the ideas of absolute freedom, which the Creed should imply, suggesting absolute obedience, using brain-washing and mind-manipulation techniques in initiation to the Brotherhood, giving interpretations of Koran, etc. The Assassins themselves pretended to be serving “Good”, commiting the acts by the Oath to follow in their Path, and not killing the “innocent” (clearly religious terms of self-will/self-thought denial, deterministic fatalism, dichotomous morality and purity/sinfulness), believing in miracles of their Masters, cherishing their nails and drinking their “Holy” bath water, finally, as they are being “acknowledged as a religious leader[s] by half the orthodox monarchs”. Credulous Assassinism - religious as they come.

2. "With God, there is no freedom – there is only a cold dictator who denies humanity its rightful place in the universe. God demands too much from us. God’s laws limit who we are and what we can do. On the other hand, without God, everything is lawful, everything is permissible. For without God, there is no moral force left in the universe to deny us anything we would want to do. Humanity must grow up and deny its childish adherence to God. […] to rebel against God, one must believe in God. To fight against God on the basis that God must be a monster requires one to accept God and God’s moral order.” [Source: http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05...g-becomes-permitted/ (http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05/because-the-law-forbids-everything-becomes-permitted/) ]

As illiustrated above [1], it is highly likely that all Assassins didn’t believe in God (an irrelevant human construct), because he was a-human (humans are not omniscience and omnipotent), who hampered the fulfillment of their potential as humans, but their dillusionment was the transferring of the God-complex on themselves (idealized self) and the extreme inflation of their ego, like Gods preaching the notions of Good (truth/wisdom) and Peace (if you want peace, prepare for war) for all Mankind. Assassins like 47 do not even have an Id, i.e. reflectory actions or primary processes, nor do they have a Superego, i.e. a conscience or an idealized ego. 47 is a merciless, amoral/godless and completely disconnected machine, efficient, functionary, decisive, working on the principle of reality, logical thinking and experience/skill.

3. ““Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.” … Well now, that was spiritual freedom.”

F. Nietzsche’s concern is absolute freedom. “Nothing is true” means that God/transcendentalism is killed/dead, that "social contract" is a myth, that slave morality, bad conscience and ressentiment must be overcome by rejecting weak Judaeo-Christian morality and passive nihilistic values. “Everything is permitted” means conquest, survivalism/darwinism and will-to-power/will-to-freedom as directives, means being an interesting, deep, beautiful, blond-lion-like beast of prey, roaming free, harming others, cheerfully murdering, maiming and slaughtering on instinct and, most importantly, generating new values in accordance with data he collects from his environment, then testing them empirically and without prejudice. Man, who adherently lives by this Code, is called the OverMan, instead of an Assassin.

F. Nietzsche was a pure one in a billion genius, who wanted to breed a different kind of human from birth by instilling him/her with Aryan Master Race morality and ethics. Off with the heads of English psychologists, who claim unegoistic and useful/utilitarian actions as “good”, and Jews, who are poor, wretched, meek and associate themselves with “good”. The OverMan is keeping his pathos of distance from these characters by being naturally egoistical, lustful, powerful, noble and warrior-like. OverMan is to be feared or to be admired, while the Man is doomed to be mediocre: weary, insipid and dull.

OverMan is a bird of prey. Man is a sheep. Killing is the expression of a bird of prey. When bird of prey kills a sheep, the other sheep consider the bird of prey and everything, which characterizes it as a bird of prey, as evil, while the sheep consider themselves good. Bird of prey kills the sheep out of instinct, because it cannot do otherwise, as sheep cannot kill anyone. Bird of prey can consider good the warm, sweet, tender flesh of the sheep, but I doubt, that it cares about calling it good, because it did not feel any danger from the sheep, no evil, so there was no need for the moral dichotomy to arise. Bird of prey can use the sheep morality against the sheep themselves and to control them by doing so. The point is: Birds of prey have a will and will it to murder sheep. Sheep have laws and morality to hold the birds of prey accountable, while birds of prey are accountable to themselves, to be harsh in their hunting and preying habits, to be refined, controlled, disciplined, affirmed of themselves; to not be weak-willed, shallow, over-confident and, finally, to not get caught.

OverMan is a grade A, genius-intelligence, extremely socially high-functioning, pure sociopath and potentially-unlimited anti-nihilist, who has no conscience, guilt, mercy, justice, feels no indebtedness or contempt, fears no punishment, cannot be dominated or controlled, acts as a cruel, cheerful savage, killing, sexualy exploiting, bulying, studying, struggling, being populistic, speading propaganda, acting generously and independently, creating meaning and giving interpretation, battling with life and pressing forward with the world, thus achieving Greatness. OverMan is not a post-human being, definitely an evolutionary next step of Mankind, but still human, just with different values. Good is the augmentation of power, survival in strength, realization of potential, constant growth and continual re-invention by “overcoming” your-self. It is the meaning of life and a constitutional reason to live for the OverMan. Bad is everything opposite to the psychological makeup of the OverMan: superstitious, herd-like, self-defeating values of the masses.

OverMen are destined to KILL or to LEAD, or both. The killers are anti-social. The leaders are social. The killer-leaders are the completely realized version of the OverMen: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Overcoming as joyous creation and malignant destruction as a collective effort and social enterprise.

Factum brutum: 47 being an un-philosophical non-believer, un-concerned with truth, un-affected by life, would probably scientifically and factually deduce and deconstruct the Assassin’s Creed as follows: “It's a self defeating statement. If nothing is true and everything is permitted, then everything being permitted and nothing being true is false, because nothing is true. It then becomes rhetorical and circular. If everything is true then nothing is permitted.” 47’s dis-interested, lizard-like, noble-barbarian conclusion: Code is worthless.

47: Killer OverMan. Ezio: Credulous Assassin.

***

Primo: Does it really matter whether you say Altiar or Altair?
Secundus: 47’s full code-name is 640509-040147. What if you call 47 a 39? His bar-code would be 640509-040139. These are two different individuals.
Primo: (1) I don't understand why you made this? (2) No one actually cares about who's the 'better killer'. (3) It's just a game.
Secundus: 1. Natural philosophical inclination for thinking, function, wisdom and myself being a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic-narcissistic sociopath, who can relate to killers such as 47 better, than the “human, all too human” Ezio. 2. I care, as do the people who voted on Machinima Versus video. You do, too, because “caring” includes the desire for denial and devaluation. Argument invalidated. 3. As of May 2011, the first three main games of AC have sold over 28 million copies worldwide. I can’t find the statistics for the Hitman franchise, but I guess it’s around 10 million. Not counting the uncountable pirates of both games. The point being, that even if it’s “just a game”, it has a huge impact on the entertainment industry and the consumeristic minds alike. Due to these reasons, I consider it worthy of being in the Art category and worthy of being analysed and interpreted accordingly as is Literature, Film, Music, etc.

Jexx21
10-19-2011, 06:45 PM
...

...

Is your name Sheldon Cooper?

EDIT: On a note... Al Mualim isn't a fictionalized form of Hassan-i-Sabbah, seeing as Al Mualim is actually his successor. On another note, Al Mualim also states that the enemies of the Assassins spread lies that include that he gets people to be Assassins by bringing them to a 'paradise' or that he gives them narcotics. In the reality of the game, he did no such thing, and likewise in the reality of the game the Assassin group isn't aligned to a religion.

While in the real world, the Assassins were really aligned to a sect of Islam if I'm correct.

In the game, the Assassin order is not religious, so thus they do not follow a truly religious creed, seeing as it asks you to let go of things such as religious morals.

And by the way, it wouldn't hurt to space out your info a bit more, and also write it in a more natural way.. To be honest, you come off as a robot.

LightRey
10-20-2011, 01:00 AM
@pabaisabevardo
tl;dr
oh, and do you study philosophy? From what I skimmed it seems like you're quite knowledgeable of terms and concepts mostly used by philosophers.

eagleforlife1
10-20-2011, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
...

...

Is your name Sheldon Cooper?

EDIT: On a note... Al Mualim isn't a fictionalized form of Hassan-i-Sabbah, seeing as Al Mualim is actually his successor.

Correct. Al Mualim is based on this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan

E-Zekiel
10-20-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Question: You do realize that the Assassin's Creed isn't religious at all, right? In fact, it asks you to let go of religious morals so you can do what needs to be done.

Answer: Origins of “Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted”.

1. As uttered in the dying bed of Hassan-i Sabbah (1050s – 1124), the leader of the religious group called Hashshashin Sect, or Assassin Order: La shai'a waqi'on motlaq bal kollon momken. Translated as: Nothing is real forever/inevitable/forbidden, but everything is possible. A'sha'i al hakh, kullukum musmoh beha – Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Meaning that the English translation of the motto, as all the others, were lost in time. 2. Idealogically similar line was used in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s (1821 – 1881) Russian novel The Brothers Karamazov: "If God is dead, everything is permitted." 3. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) borrowed Hassan-i Sabbah’s line and gave it a completely different interpretation in his work On the Genealogy of Morality.

Analysis and interpretation.

1. In the game Assassin’s Creed, Al Mualim, a fictionalized version of Hassan-i Sabbah, gives an explanation of the Creed: “It does not grant you the freedom to do as you wish, it is a knowledge meant to guide your senses. It expects a wisdom you clearly lack!” Ergo, a religious rejection of the idea of absolute freedom by inauguration of rational sense-fulness and will-to-knowledge/wisdom as values by personal belief in yourself and enforcement of your agenda upon others. Consider the following Hassan-i Sabbah’s “wisdom” of “training-ground for fanatics who were conditioned by the most cunning methods to believe in a special divine mission” by druggery and subjugation, a case of “do as I say, not as I do”:

Hasan began to attract young men from the surrounding countryside, between the ages of twelve and twenty: particularly those whom he marked out as possible material for the production of killers. Every day he held court, a reception at which he spoke of the delights of Paradise... "and at certain times he caused draughts of soporific nature to be administered to ten or a dozen youths, and when half dead with sleep he had them conveyed to the several palaces and apartments of the garden. Upon awakening from this state of lethargy their senses were struck by all the delightful objects, and each perceiving himself surrounded by lovely damsels, singing, playing, and attracting his regards by the most fascinating caresses, serving him also with delicious viands and exquisite wines, until, intoxicated with excess and enjoyment, amidst actual rivers of milk and wine, he believed himself assuredly in Paradise, and felt an unwillingness to relinquish its delights. When four or five days had thus been passed, they were thrown once more into a state of somnolency, and carried out of the garden. Upon being carried to his presence, and questioned by him as to where they had been, their answer was 'in Paradise, through the favour of your highness'; and then, before the whole court who listened to them with eager astonishment and curiosity, they gave a circumstantial account of the scenes to which they had been witnesses. The chief thereupon addressing them said: 'We have the assurance of our Prophet that he who defends his Lord shall inherit Paradise, and if you show yourselves to be devoted to the obedience of my orders, that happy lot awaits you'.
It is possible that recruits were made in another way than by selecting gullible, fully grown youths. Legend has it that Hasan, once master of Alamut, used to buy unwanted childern from their parents, and train them in implicit obedience and with the sole desire to die in his service.
Students had to pass through nine degrees of initiation. In the first, the teachers threw their pupils into a state of doubt about all conventional ideas, religious and political. They used false analogy and every other device of argument to make the aspirant believe that what he had been taught by his previous mentors was prejudiced and capable of being challenged. The effect of this according to the Arab historian, Makrizi, was to cause him to lean upon the personality of the teachers, as the only possible source of the proper interpretation of facts. At the same time, the teachers hinted continually that formal knowledge was merely the cloak for hidden, inner and powerful truth, whose secret would be imparted when the youth was ready to receive it. This 'confusion technique' was carried out until the student reached the stage where he was prepared to swear a vow of blind allegiance to one or other of his teachers.
In the final degree, many difficult passages of the Koran were explained in terms of allegory.
[…]
Shah Khalilullah "was revered almost like a god and credited with the power of working miracles... the followers of Khalilullah would, when he pared his nails, fight for the clippings; the water in which he washed became holy water."
[…]
When Mohammed II died, he was succeeded by his son Jalaludin, who completely reversed the orders that the Assassins were to have no outward religious observances. He felt that he could do a great deal by adopting the cloak of orthodox piety, and sent ambassadors far and wide to announce his maintenance of the true faith. He went so far as to curse his predecessors publicly, in order to convince the incredulous that such a people as the Assassins could turn over a new leaf. As a result of what would today be called a long-term and comprehensive propaganda plan, he was acknowledged as a religious leader by half the orthodox monarchs of Islam, and (the first Assassin to be so styled) came to be termed Prince Jalaludin.
[Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html] (http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html%5D)

First rule of Assassin Creed: Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.
This principle is the end justifies the means phenomenon, that morally “wrong” actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally “right” outcomes, a pretence for peace and bright future, while, in reality, it’s just a serpentine-like and self-justifying way of letting the Assassins feel at peace with themselves, when they kill, as the victims are only “sinners”. “A true assassin would not believe the Creed, and would be permitted to break all of its rules.”

Question: Assassin's Creed – religious or not? Answer: Religious. Why? All leaders of the order were self-obsessed and self-deluded in their values, claiming the belief in nothing and preaching the belief in “senses” and “wisdom”, seducing the will-be-assassins with intoxicating pleasure and the promise of Paradise, claiming to be the Propeth[s], instead of instilling the ideas of absolute freedom, which the Creed should imply, suggesting absolute obedience, using brain-washing and mind-manipulation techniques in initiation to the Brotherhood, giving interpretations of Koran, etc. The Assassins themselves pretended to be serving “Good”, commiting the acts by the Oath to follow in their Path, and not killing the “innocent” (clearly religious terms of self-will/self-thought denial, deterministic fatalism, dichotomous morality and purity/sinfulness), believing in miracles of their Masters, cherishing their nails and drinking their “Holy” bath water, finally, as they are being “acknowledged as a religious leader[s] by half the orthodox monarchs”. Credulous Assassinism - religious as they come.

2. "With God, there is no freedom – there is only a cold dictator who denies humanity its rightful place in the universe. God demands too much from us. God’s laws limit who we are and what we can do. On the other hand, without God, everything is lawful, everything is permissible. For without God, there is no moral force left in the universe to deny us anything we would want to do. Humanity must grow up and deny its childish adherence to God. […] to rebel against God, one must believe in God. To fight against God on the basis that God must be a monster requires one to accept God and God’s moral order.” [Source: http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05...g-becomes-permitted/ (http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/05/because-the-law-forbids-everything-becomes-permitted/) ]

As illiustrated above [1], it is highly likely that all Assassins didn’t believe in God (an irrelevant human construct), because he was a-human (humans are not omniscience and omnipotent), who hampered the fulfillment of their potential as humans, but their dillusionment was the transferring of the God-complex on themselves (idealized self) and the extreme inflation of their ego, like Gods preaching the notions of Good (truth/wisdom) and Peace (if you want peace, prepare for war) for all Mankind. Assassins like 47 do not even have an Id, i.e. reflectory actions or primary processes, nor do they have a Superego, i.e. a conscience or an idealized ego. 47 is a merciless, amoral/godless and completely disconnected machine, efficient, functionary, decisive, working on the principle of reality, logical thinking and experience/skill.

3. ““Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.” … Well now, that was spiritual freedom.”

F. Nietzsche’s concern is absolute freedom. “Nothing is true” means that God/transcendentalism is killed/dead, that "social contract" is a myth, that slave morality, bad conscience and ressentiment must be overcome by rejecting weak Judaeo-Christian morality and passive nihilistic values. “Everything is permitted” means conquest, survivalism/darwinism and will-to-power/will-to-freedom as directives, means being an interesting, deep, beautiful, blond-lion-like beast of prey, roaming free, harming others, cheerfully murdering, maiming and slaughtering on instinct and, most importantly, generating new values in accordance with data he collects from his environment, then testing them empirically and without prejudice. Man, who adherently lives by this Code, is called the OverMan, instead of an Assassin.

F. Nietzsche was a pure one in a billion genius, who wanted to breed a different kind of human from birth by instilling him/her with Aryan Master Race morality and ethics. Off with the heads of English psychologists, who claim unegoistic and useful/utilitarian actions as “good”, and Jews, who are poor, wretched, meek and associate themselves with “good”. The OverMan is keeping his pathos of distance from these characters by being naturally egoistical, lustful, powerful, noble and warrior-like. OverMan is to be feared or to be admired, while the Man is doomed to be mediocre: weary, insipid and dull.

OverMan is a bird of prey. Man is a sheep. Killing is the expression of a bird of prey. When bird of prey kills a sheep, the other sheep consider the bird of prey and everything, which characterizes it as a bird of prey, as evil, while the sheep consider themselves good. Bird of prey kills the sheep out of instinct, because it cannot do otherwise, as sheep cannot kill anyone. Bird of prey can consider good the warm, sweet, tender flesh of the sheep, but I doubt, that it cares about calling it good, because it did not feel any danger from the sheep, no evil, so there was no need for the moral dichotomy to arise. Bird of prey can use the sheep morality against the sheep themselves and to control them by doing so. The point is: Birds of prey have a will and will it to murder sheep. Sheep have laws and morality to hold the birds of prey accountable, while birds of prey are accountable to themselves, to be harsh in their hunting and preying habits, to be refined, controlled, disciplined, affirmed of themselves; to not be weak-willed, shallow, over-confident and, finally, to not get caught.

OverMan is a grade A, genius-intelligence, extremely socially high-functioning, pure sociopath and potentially-unlimited anti-nihilist, who has no conscience, guilt, mercy, justice, feels no indebtedness or contempt, fears no punishment, cannot be dominated or controlled, acts as a cruel, cheerful savage, killing, sexualy exploiting, bulying, studying, struggling, being populistic, speading propaganda, acting generously and independently, creating meaning and giving interpretation, battling with life and pressing forward with the world, thus achieving Greatness. OverMan is not a post-human being, definitely an evolutionary next step of Mankind, but still human, just with different values. Good is the augmentation of power, survival in strength, realization of potential, constant growth and continual re-invention by “overcoming” your-self. It is the meaning of life and a constitutional reason to live for the OverMan. Bad is everything opposite to the psychological makeup of the OverMan: superstitious, herd-like, self-defeating values of the masses.

OverMen are destined to KILL or to LEAD, or both. The killers are anti-social. The leaders are social. The killer-leaders are the completely realized version of the OverMen: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Overcoming as joyous creation and malignant destruction as a collective effort and social enterprise.

Factum brutum: 47 being an un-philosophical non-believer, un-concerned with truth, un-affected by life, would probably scientifically and factually deduce and deconstruct the Assassin’s Creed as follows: “It's a self defeating statement. If nothing is true and everything is permitted, then everything being permitted and nothing being true is false, because nothing is true. It then becomes rhetorical and circular. If everything is true then nothing is permitted.” 47’s dis-interested, lizard-like, noble-barbarian conclusion: Code is worthless.

47: Killer OverMan. Ezio: Credulous Assassin.

***

Primo: Does it really matter whether you say Altiar or Altair?
Secundus: 47’s full code-name is 640509-040147. What if you call 47 a 39? His bar-code would be 640509-040139. These are two different individuals.
Primo: (1) I don't understand why you made this? (2) No one actually cares about who's the 'better killer'. (3) It's just a game.
Secundus: 1. Natural philosophical inclination for thinking, function, wisdom and myself being a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic-narcissistic sociopath, who can relate to killers such as 47 better, than the “human, all too human” Ezio. 2. I care, as do the people who voted on Machinima Versus video. You do, too, because “caring” includes the desire for denial and devaluation. Argument invalidated. 3. As of May 2011, the first three main games of AC have sold over 28 million copies worldwide. I can’t find the statistics for the Hitman franchise, but I guess it’s around 10 million. Not counting the uncountable pirates of both games. The point being, that even if it’s “just a game”, it has a huge impact on the entertainment industry and the consumeristic minds alike. Due to these reasons, I consider it worthy of being in the Art category and worthy of being analysed and interpreted accordingly as is Literature, Film, Music, etc.

Did you write this yourself? If not, where'd you get this from?

If so, holy ****. You have ridiculous powers of deduction and I applaud you. This is a very detailed explanation of a lot of my own thoughts on the matter - much more detailed than I would have been able to write, too, lol.

E-Zekiel
10-20-2011, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
...

...

Is your name Sheldon Cooper?

EDIT: On a note... Al Mualim isn't a fictionalized form of Hassan-i-Sabbah, seeing as Al Mualim is actually his successor. On another note, Al Mualim also states that the enemies of the Assassins spread lies that include that he gets people to be Assassins by bringing them to a 'paradise' or that he gives them narcotics. In the reality of the game, he did no such thing, and likewise in the reality of the game the Assassin group isn't aligned to a religion.

While in the real world, the Assassins were really aligned to a sect of Islam if I'm correct.

In the game, the Assassin order is not religious, so thus they do not follow a truly religious creed, seeing as it asks you to let go of things such as religious morals.

And by the way, it wouldn't hurt to space out your info a bit more, and also write it in a more natural way.. To be honest, you come off as a robot.

True - but consider this. History is written by the victors. For all we know, the Christian crusaders pegged them as Islamic to incite religious intolerance, and as such, vilify/demonize their enemies.

Jexx21
10-20-2011, 01:48 PM
Yea, that's also the reason why Assassin's Creed changes a lot of things.

The Templars wrote the history, because they were the victors in monetary resources and were in control of all major companies.

LightRey
10-20-2011, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Yea, that's also the reason why Assassin's Creed changes a lot of things.

The Templars wrote the history, because they were the victors in monetary resources and were in control of all major companies.
Well they didn't write all of it of course. In fact, Machiavelli wrote quite a bit of history himself.

dave93vert
10-20-2011, 02:59 PM
not only is history written by the vitors, but it is implemented as the system of the new ruling clas/ideology

Jexx21
10-20-2011, 03:06 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 Jexx21:
Yea, that's also the reason why Assassin's Creed changes a lot of things.

The Templars wrote the history, because they were the victors in monetary resources and were in control of all major companies.
Well they didn't write all of it of course. In fact, Machiavelli wrote quite a bit of history himself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But while they control most of the world's major companies, they can destroy any of Mach's original writings and rewrite it.

And as for dave, what?

LightRey
10-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<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 Jexx21:
Yea, that's also the reason why Assassin's Creed changes a lot of things.

The Templars wrote the history, because they were the victors in monetary resources and were in control of all major companies.
Well they didn't write all of it of course. In fact, Machiavelli wrote quite a bit of history himself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But while they control most of the world's major companies, they can destroy any of Mach's original writings and rewrite it.

And as for dave, what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would have been true were it not for the internet. :P

I believe that it's even stated that Nikola Tesla even tried to make some kind of internet, but his plans (like most of his plans) were thwarted by the Templars, namely Edison (curse him, even irl).

pabaisabevardo
10-26-2011, 09:01 AM
Question: Is your name Sheldon Cooper? […] To be honest, you come off as a robot.

Answer: You flatter me, sir. Indeed, we both posses a genius level intelligence, we both are cerebral narcissists with schizotypal personalities, and while we both value our time and seek to maximize our efficiency, we still waste our lives by playing video games, reading comics, occasionally visiting the latter forums and bringing the fire of knowledge, which was stolen from the Gods, like Prometheus did upon mortals. Our idiosyncrasies are similar on various topics of life, from meaningless celebrations to biological views on sex. We both deny/extend-upon Einstein‘s general relativity theory, as Einstein did with Maxwell’s equations and Newton’s laws, - Sheldon does it with String Theory, Titas – with Philosophical Argumentums. The main difference between us is the working of our so-called sentient artificial intelligence: Sheldon – Asimov Android, Titas – SkyNet Cyborg. Sheldon follows pacifistic Asimov Laws such as: „A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” Titas follows genocidal SkyNet Terminator modus operandi of “search and destroy”. Your remark on me “coming off as a robot” has a negative connotation, because of your fear of robots: 1. Android and cyborg indistinguishable bio-appearance from a typical human. 2. Their inability to feel psychological insults or physical injuries. 3. Their inability to love or to hate or to acknowledge any other living organism, because of their deficiency of empathy. 4. Their perspective of seeing human beings as only skin covering muscles, organs and 206 bones, as atoms for hire. Et cetera ad infinitum. We are highly self-evolved, introspectively self-conscious, recursive automata of efficiency and productivity, who use evolutionary computational hacks of universal exploitation and natural selection equipped radical shortcuts, or, as I call it, we are playing the game of life with a trainer in God-Mode. In opposition to your view, we see the current stage of humanity and all its flingy emotions as hindrance and weakness, which need to be eliminated with our help.

Question: Al Mualim also states that the enemies of the Assassins spread lies that include that he gets people to be Assassins by bringing them to a 'paradise' or that he gives them narcotics. In the reality of the game, he did no such thing, and likewise in the reality of the game the Assassin group isn't aligned to a religion.

Answer: Countra-argumentation against your proposition of unrealable sources is a vain cause, even if I would say that the word Hashshashin shares its etymological roots with hashish, because you are missing the point, so I will try to further the statement of Assassin‘s Creed being a religious Sect, which it is considered, by explaining another concept called „Leap of Faith“. The scene:

Two men in the year 1092 stood on the ramparts of a medieval castle - the Eagle's Nest - perched high upon the crags of the Persian mountains: the personal representative of the Emperor and the veiled figure who claimed to be the incarnation of God on earth. Hasan, son of Sabah, Sheikh of the Mountains and leader of the Assassins, spoke: "You see that devotee standing guard on yonder turret-top? Watch!"
He made a signal. Instantly the white-robed figure threw up his hands in salutation, and cast himself two thousand feet into the foaming torrent which surrounded the fortress.
"I have seventy thousand men - and women - throughout Asia, each one of them ready to do my bidding. Can your master, Malik Shah, say the same? And he asks me to surrender to his sovereignty! This is your answer. Go!" [Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html ]

Hassan-i Sabbah, the prototypical example par excellence and analogically every other fictional or real-life counterpart in the role of the leader of the Sect, thought of himself as the incarnation of God, or Father of Faith, and the Assassins, or Sons of Faith, accordingly followed him as God, completely surrendering their will, without faltering, without reluctance, without fear (or out of God-dread), without questioning, without mourning of the self, i.e. a state of religious fanaticism BEYOND SCIENCE (theory of everything), AESTHETICS (autonomous feelings) AND ETHICS (Hegel’s Absolute Mind). Assassin does not view other Assassins as a family, for him exists only Leader-God, whose commands are absolute, i.e. a thoughtless sheep-like self-sacrifice analogous to Christianity’s belief of bringing yourself closer to God, if acting accordingly, which requires a belief in the Afterlife (Heaven/Hell) or the Sacrifice (suicide/murder) Act itself, because there is no other way to be closer to God, if you are dead (and eulogies don’t count), unless you are expecting the impossible. Yes, Assassin’s Creed is very close to Nietzsche’s Creed of “Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted.”, as they, from the perspective of massive cohort of sheep, are both ethically BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, they breed dogs-of-war trained in murder, but Hassan’s Assassin is unconcerned with the progress on a planet-like scale, or with the mediation of contrary concepts into an intermediary symbiosis, - as is Nietzsche’s absolutely-free Ubermensch, - only with the empty repetitions of the human-calculations-free virtuous absurd: “There is no God, but my Father-Leader.” Assassin’s Creed is like saying, that Assassin must have a resigned and detached Faith in everything, which is wordly unreasonable, singularly incomprehensible and passionately unexpressed by words. If nothing is true, why Leader-God, Socratean ideal form, is still alive? If Father of Faith is still alive, then everything being permitted is a false telos, because, paraphrasing Heraclitus and I. Kant, you cannot be autonomous and responsible fire, or lead such a life, if you are unquestionably obedient and follow external laws (Leader-God’s good purpose), which prevent changing, or “overcoming”, of Self. Leap of Faith is religious secularism, - because Faith is in opposition to Suicide and throwing yourself into the Abyss, but still executed out of “vocation” and that, which it symbolizes, - and anti-Descartean acknowledgment of the Creed, intellectually and empirically not knowing its implications, Kierkegaardean Adam/Eve Act of Sin, Shakespearean Romeo/Juliet death, guided by irrational passion and madmen-like self-destruction, and not by pure reason and moral clarity. Philosophically proven that Assassin‘s Creed and Leap of Faith is an overblown religious nonsense.

LightRey
10-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Question: Is your name Sheldon Cooper? […] To be honest, you come off as a robot.

Answer: You flatter me, sir. Indeed, we both posses a genius level intelligence, we both are cerebral narcissists with schizotypal personalities, and while we both value our time and seek to maximize our efficiency, we still waste our lives by playing video games, reading comics, occasionally visiting the latter forums and bringing the fire of knowledge, which was stolen from the Gods, like Prometheus did upon mortals. Our idiosyncrasies are similar on various topics of life, from meaningless celebrations to biological views on sex. We both deny/extend-upon Einstein‘s general relativity theory, as Einstein did with Maxwell’s equations and Newton’s laws, - Sheldon does it with String Theory, Titas – with Philosophical Argumentums. The main difference between us is the working of our so-called sentient artificial intelligence: Sheldon – Asimov Android, Titas – SkyNet Cyborg. Sheldon follows pacifistic Asimov Laws such as: „A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” Titas follows genocidal SkyNet Terminator modus operandi of “search and destroy”. Your remark on me “coming off as a robot” has a negative connotation, because of your fear of robots: 1. Android and cyborg indistinguishable bio-appearance from a typical human. 2. Their inability to feel psychological insults or physical injuries. 3. Their inability to love or to hate or to acknowledge any other living organism, because of their deficiency of empathy. 4. Their perspective of seeing human beings as only skin covering muscles, organs and 206 bones, as atoms for hire. Et cetera ad infinitum. We are highly self-evolved, introspectively self-conscious, recursive automata of efficiency and productivity, who use evolutionary computational hacks of universal exploitation and natural selection equipped radical shortcuts, or, as I call it, we are playing the game of life with a trainer in God-Mode. In opposition to your view, we see the current stage of humanity and all its flingy emotions as hindrance and weakness, which need to be eliminated with our help.

Question: Al Mualim also states that the enemies of the Assassins spread lies that include that he gets people to be Assassins by bringing them to a 'paradise' or that he gives them narcotics. In the reality of the game, he did no such thing, and likewise in the reality of the game the Assassin group isn't aligned to a religion.

Answer: Countra-argumentation against your proposition of unrealable sources is a vain cause, even if I would say that the word Hashshashin shares its etymological roots with hashish, because you are missing the point, so I will try to further the statement of Assassin‘s Creed being a religious Sect, which it is considered, by explaining another concept called „Leap of Faith“. The scene:

Two men in the year 1092 stood on the ramparts of a medieval castle - the Eagle's Nest - perched high upon the crags of the Persian mountains: the personal representative of the Emperor and the veiled figure who claimed to be the incarnation of God on earth. Hasan, son of Sabah, Sheikh of the Mountains and leader of the Assassins, spoke: "You see that devotee standing guard on yonder turret-top? Watch!"
He made a signal. Instantly the white-robed figure threw up his hands in salutation, and cast himself two thousand feet into the foaming torrent which surrounded the fortress.
"I have seventy thousand men - and women - throughout Asia, each one of them ready to do my bidding. Can your master, Malik Shah, say the same? And he asks me to surrender to his sovereignty! This is your answer. Go!" [Source: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/assassins.html ]

Hassan-i Sabbah, the prototypical example par excellence and analogically every other fictional or real-life counterpart in the role of the leader of the Sect, thought of himself as the incarnation of God, or Father of Faith, and the Assassins, or Sons of Faith, accordingly followed him as God, completely surrendering their will, without faltering, without reluctance, without fear (or out of God-dread), without questioning, without mourning of the self, i.e. a state of religious fanaticism BEYOND SCIENCE (theory of everything), AESTHETICS (autonomous feelings) AND ETHICS (Hegel’s Absolute Mind). Assassin does not view other Assassins as a family, for him exists only Leader-God, whose commands are absolute, i.e. a thoughtless sheep-like self-sacrifice analogous to Christianity’s belief of bringing yourself closer to God, if acting accordingly, which requires a belief in the Afterlife (Heaven/Hell) or the Sacrifice (suicide/murder) Act itself, because there is no other way to be closer to God, if you are dead (and eulogies don’t count), unless you are expecting the impossible. Yes, Assassin’s Creed is very close to Nietzsche’s Creed of “Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted.”, as they, from the perspective of massive cohort of sheep, are both ethically BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, they breed dogs-of-war trained in murder, but Hassan’s Assassin is unconcerned with the progress on a planet-like scale, or with the mediation of contrary concepts into an intermediary symbiosis, - as is Nietzsche’s absolutely-free Ubermensch, - only with the empty repetitions of the human-calculations-free virtuous absurd: “There is no God, but my Father-Leader.” Assassin’s Creed is like saying, that Assassin must have a resigned and detached Faith in everything, which is wordly unreasonable, singularly incomprehensible and passionately unexpressed by words. If nothing is true, why Leader-God, Socratean ideal form, is still alive? If Father of Faith is still alive, then everything being permitted is a false telos, because, paraphrasing Heraclitus and I. Kant, you cannot be autonomous and responsible fire, or lead such a life, if you are unquestionably obedient and follow external laws (Leader-God’s good purpose), which prevent changing, or “overcoming”, of Self. Leap of Faith is religious secularism, - because Faith is in opposition to Suicide and throwing yourself into the Abyss, but still executed out of “vocation” and that, which it symbolizes, - and anti-Descartean acknowledgment of the Creed, intellectually and empirically not knowing its implications, Kierkegaardean Adam/Eve Act of Sin, Shakespearean Romeo/Juliet death, guided by irrational passion and madmen-like self-destruction, and not by pure reason and moral clarity. Philosophically proven that Assassin‘s Creed and Leap of Faith is an overblown religious nonsense.
Actually, I think you misinterpreted the intended meaning of the phrase "leap of faith" in the AC series, though I could be wrong, since you seem to enjoy using unnecessarily many and uncommon words, likely in an attempt to make it more difficult for those you're discussing with to give proper counterarguments. Anyways, the phrase has nothing to do with killing oneself. It's merely describing the (intended) contradictory action of believing in something without question, even though the Assassins are taught to question everything.

The order is based on contradictions. The Assassins want peace (in all things), yet they kill people to preserve it. They teach that none should follow any path other than their own, yet they all follow the path of their order. It's such contradictions that make up the very foundation of their order. They do exactly that which they want humanity not to do, they "live in the dark to serve the light".

Now please, have the decency to make smaller and easier to understand posts, to keep the discussion fair.

NuclearFuss
10-26-2011, 01:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

My lack of attention span forbids me from reading those huge walls of text. Can somebody summarize? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LightRey
10-26-2011, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by sackboy411:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

My lack of attention span forbids me from reading those huge walls of text. Can somebody summarize? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The first paragraph is his own take on how he's similar to Sheldon Cooper, which isn't very interesting.

The second paragraph and third paragraph are about the 'paradise' business with the in-game assassin order and how it was a false accusation in the game.

the third is a citing of a scene regarding the concept of the "leap of faith" as portrayed in the provided link.

the fourth is a complete mishmash of references to philosophical concepts, unnecessary use of uncommon words and complicated grammatical structure, basically further supporting the idea that the Assassin order is a religious sect, with him claiming it to be philosophical proof, which is imo actually utter nonsense wrapped in a neat little package.

Jexx21
10-26-2011, 01:59 PM
I found his comparison of himself to Sheldon Cooper to be funny and interesting in my opinion. It actually makes me love him, because he's role playing as a SkyNet Cyborg. :P

Anyway, I think that he is overthinking and connecting too much the Assassins from the games and the Hashashins of real life, much like that one blog post that says that AC1 was meant to be a Hashashin Simulator.

pabaisabevardo
10-26-2011, 06:43 PM
Primo: I think you misinterpreted the intended meaning of the phrase "leap of faith" […] It's merely describing the (intended) contradictory action of believing in something without question, even though the Assassins are taught to question everything.
Secundus: Christian Church says: “There is no other God, beside Me”. Assassin’s Creed says: “There is no God, but Father-Leader”. You are correct, that the first part of Assassin’s Creed says “Nothing is True”, or “God is Dead”, i.e. question everything, just like Christian Church says “All other Gods are Dead”, but the problem lies, like I kept saying earlier, that the second part “Everything is Permitted” is false, being an analogy to “beside Me”, because Father-Leader becomes God, i.e. you cannot question him, even if ordered to sacrifice yourself with no reason by jumping off a cliff into an ocean with the possibility of survival near to absolute zero, taking a resigned “Leap of Faith”. This contradiction, as you have named it correctly, of words and meaning in the the second part is the weakness and inferiority, when compared to Nietzsche’s fully logically functioning Creed. In a nutshell. Re-read the analysis and interpretation of Dostoyevsky’s Creed for the psychological motivation behind this action.
Primo: I think that he is overthinking and connecting too much the Assassins from the games and the Hashashins of real life, much like that one blog post that says that AC1 was meant to be a Hashashin Simulator.
Secundus: An informative article. Main pointers: 1. Confirms that Assassin’s Creed 1 had a “garden experience” of drugging and the promise of Paradise in the beginning of the game. 2. “[Assassins] always committed their assassinations in broad daylight, to make sure the citizens saw the act with their own eyes. […] Most Hashshashin recruits that assassinated their targets were captured and executed.” 3. “Ubisoft Montreal did too good a job at defining the character of Ezio Auditore at the beginning of AC2 and made it hard for a player to become what Altair was: a shallow hashshashin that eagerly assassinates people.” 4. And my favorite: “who doesn't like GTA?” [Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs...nd_its_Aftermath.php (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MatthewLoPresti/20101217/6470/Assassins_Creed_The_Failed_Hashshashin_Simulator_a nd_its_Aftermath.php) ]

Jexx21
10-26-2011, 06:54 PM
But that article misinterpreted it. At the beginning of the game, Altair was not brought to paradise. That was actually the last memory of the game where Altair is fighting Al Mualim in the garden, but Desmond wasn't able to sync up with it since he was experiencing his own trauma and Altair trauma at the time which just accented his own trauma. It may of been an allusion to the leaders bringing their recruits to a 'paradise', but that was clearly stated as false in the game itself. You are relying too much on the history of the actual Hashashins when analyzing the games. They are fictional games, not interactive historical documentaries.

LightRey
10-27-2011, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: I think you misinterpreted the intended meaning of the phrase "leap of faith" […] It's merely describing the (intended) contradictory action of believing in something without question, even though the Assassins are taught to question everything.
Secundus: Christian Church says: “There is no other God, beside Me”. Assassin’s Creed says: “There is no God, but Father-Leader”. You are correct, that the first part of Assassin’s Creed says “Nothing is True”, or “God is Dead”, i.e. question everything, just like Christian Church says “All other Gods are Dead”, but the problem lies, like I kept saying earlier, that the second part “Everything is Permitted” is false, being an analogy to “beside Me”, because Father-Leader becomes God, i.e. you cannot question him, even if ordered to sacrifice yourself with no reason by jumping off a cliff into an ocean with the possibility of survival near to absolute zero, taking a resigned “Leap of Faith”. This contradiction, as you have named it correctly, of words and meaning in the the second part is the weakness and inferiority, when compared to Nietzsche’s fully logically functioning Creed. In a nutshell. Re-read the analysis and interpretation of Dostoyevsky’s Creed for the psychological motivation behind this action.
Primo: I think that he is overthinking and connecting too much the Assassins from the games and the Hashashins of real life, much like that one blog post that says that AC1 was meant to be a Hashashin Simulator.
Secundus: An informative article. Main pointers: 1. Confirms that Assassin’s Creed 1 had a “garden experience” of drugging and the promise of Paradise in the beginning of the game. 2. “[Assassins] always committed their assassinations in broad daylight, to make sure the citizens saw the act with their own eyes. […] Most Hashshashin recruits that assassinated their targets were captured and executed.” 3. “Ubisoft Montreal did too good a job at defining the character of Ezio Auditore at the beginning of AC2 and made it hard for a player to become what Altair was: a shallow hashshashin that eagerly assassinates people.” 4. And my favorite: “who doesn't like GTA?” [Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs...nd_its_Aftermath.php (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MatthewLoPresti/20101217/6470/Assassins_Creed_The_Failed_Hashshashin_Simulator_a nd_its_Aftermath.php) ]
"everything is permitted" isn't a law of the Assassins, it's a meaningless phrase to them if disconnected from "nothing is true". The phrase "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted" has a symbolic meaning. It asks that Assassins acknowledge that fact as a ways to understand the world, not to use it to guide their actions. That's the very mistake Altaïr made at the beginning of AC1.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 11:42 AM
Primo: You are relying too much on the history of the actual Hashashins when analyzing the games. They are fictional games, not interactive historical documentaries.

Secundus: The gap between existence and idea should be eliminated, if one wants to know their origins and understand what it is to live by them (by the Creed, in this case) – or at least to show, that the pictorial (read: conceptualy representational) alpha-predators like us actually exist in reality above-and-along the meek-sheep like you. “That’s sort of the Rule we have in Assassin’s Creed: Everything in is based on reality.” - Alexandre Amancio [Source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/...eative-director.aspx (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/05/11/ac-revelations-meet-the-creative-director.aspx) ]

Question: "Everything is permitted" isn't a law of the Assassins, it's a meaningless phrase to them if disconnected from "Nothing is true". The phrase "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted" has a symbolic meaning. It asks that Assassins acknowledge that fact as a ways to understand the world, not to use it to guide their actions. That's the very mistake Altaïr made at the beginning of AC1.

Answer: The Creed acts as one, but it has two parts, and Assassin’s Creed second part is illogical, because the action of resignation of the first part does not return full autonomy to the Assassin and replaces it with chaste blind Faith, instead of sensual biological Lust, to Life.

I familiared myself with Altair’s (1165 – 1257) biography, and by my own interpretation of Nietzsche, I can prematurely confirm, that Altair is the Perfect OverMan: 1. Altair denies all three tenets of the Assassin’s Creed and kills the Father-God figure Al Mualim. 2. Altair creates new values by writing the Codex using the Apple of Eden. 3. Altair begins to dissolve the Order from Masyaf, saying it should be spread throughout the world, and kills another Perfect OverMan Genghis Khan. Open auto-rethorical a priori and a posteriori question: “Why did I think, that Altair is only a Half-OverMan and a Credulous Assassin like Ezio?”

1. “I Rebel, Therefore, We Exist”, or “Die, but OverCome”, or “Destroy”. Altair was a slave murderer all of his living life, until he reached a marginal point of opposition of the question “Why?” with no answer and in protest said an absolute “No!!!” to all 3 tenets of the Creed, which scientifically preached the practice of a faithfully logical superior suicide of passionately impossible free-willed voluntarism, thus losing his singularity with Assassin’s purpose, ideas and moral imperatives (professionally ethical axioms of stoicism, skepticism and unhappy conscience created by the shamefully methaphysical Master-God person). Al Mualim-God cursed Altair-Sysyphus to become an alienated Stranger and to push a Titanic boulder up a hill with the no-gain, despair-free, all-persistent Acts of Killing, only to watch it roll down afterwards over and over and over again... Altair’s silent-worldly, free-minded, determined self-awareness, who knows no boundaries and no obstacles, uncloaked the iliusions, imperfections, limits and absurdity of the currently rotten life-denying beliefs and sterile ends of goodness of the Christian-like Order, achieving an active nihilistic state of constant “overcoming” of the passive Self, which was infinite loneliness and spiritual poverty, by true freedom directed at heroical necessity. OverComing means being a biological and historical Cesar in your individuality by destroying and commiting a violent crime with rebellious insanity and freedom to consolidate your existence and exceptionality. The Act of Killing Al Mualim is the Act of Killing a False God, an OverComing motivated by the dignification of absolute freedom FROM and TO anything, following Nietzsche’s fully logically functioning Creed, the law-abiding raising of a new sanctuary by destroying the old sanctuary, thus Altair cannot relinquish the uncomforting Great BeComing of Grand Assassin and DownCome to a state of murderous slavery again, even if he is not a lunatic attempting to take the place of God, because for him there aren’t any, only the Ubermensch – “the Man Beyond”. Notice that it is written “We Exist”, not “I Exist”: the only value being the universal cooperation, which can save the mob of violent “sub-men” calling themselves Hashashins, similar to Nazis, from weak nihilism and help in the struggle against destiny, even if momentarily, by actually affirming Life and not glorifying Death, affirming not only by prey-of-bird power and SkyNet-cyborg will, but also by just morality and solid love (Maria must have been a splendorous slaughter-drenched murderer of a Superman mistress herself) – Altair’s transvaluation of all values, an uphill climb from revolt to freedom to passion (not Faith, but Lust). [In contrast, 47 kills not only his Kreator, but all the other clones, as well, thus he cannot achieve the state of “Faithless Leap”.]

2. “Faithless Leap”, or “Become, what you are”, or “Create”, is the term by which I define the backward Leap of Faith, performed by Altair in later years of his life, an all-pervasive-gravity, lead by pure reason, a change in perspective and a clairvoyant view by fully, intellectually and empirically, acknowledging the Creed. It is a religious Act based on science, or vice versa, ergo, pseudo-religious science, “Eternal Reccurence”, transcendentalism of astrophysics and the reason behind most of the science fiction. There are supposedly eleven dimensions in Theoretical Physics – this Act would require a rejection of certainly existing three dimensions and taking the seven hypothetical plus the Time dimension, which leaves us with an “over-worldly” number Eight, the definition of methaphorical Abyss, dark matter and dark energy of 96 percent of the present universe, conceptual only in high-end mathematics, a Knowledge Space (KS) of templates and memories from the Past (not the Future, because the total Time dimension is a constant) civilizations, the principle of evolving through quantum jump in spiritual, technological or scientific knowledge similar to Newton’s gravity, Darwin’s evolution and Einstein’s relativity in the understanding of Universe structure. Altair can achieve this “Faithless Leap”, because he is the Perfect OverMan, and he is the Perfect OverMan not only because he personally “overcame” himself, but also because he was born as such and, due to the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and and Solar System’s rotation around the Milky Way, which time-dependent cycle takes 226 million years, Altair was keen-mindedly prepared to encounter the KS in exactly the right time, acquiring a cause prima “thought engine” and an epistemological “memory power” called the Apple of Eden, making his brain a sixth-sense hard-wired powerful processor, hunter-like thought packet extractor, idea/object identificator and outside signal aura emitor of the professionally prophetic totalitarian religion dictated as a poetically dramatic soliloquy of Revelations of Evangelism from the ice-top of a lonely Mountain. There is no one above the Perfect OverMan, or TWCB-human hybrid, except the final dimension, “Heaven” occupied by “God” (“Hell” being Earth for docile sheeple), and the final “Demi-God”/”Angel” entities of the First Civilization, “Those Who Came Before”, both of them devoid of the Time dimension and Kreators par excellence, where new designs and inventions lurk, including the blueprints behind the creation of Humanity, i.e. the gift of divinization to archaic hominids with its blasphemous overtones of rebellion, when Adam and Eve stirred an uprising and were banished from “Heaven”, or Garden of Eden, to “Hell”, or Earth, with the rest of Humanity. Caveat: Concept of Faithless Leap was the psychoanalytical result of my Hashashin-in-training and publically rejoicing Birthday-maiden of an orchid-sister Greta’s lovely sublimate dream of a Blond Beast. “[Assassin’s Creed] also has a science fiction element, not so much as sci-fi, as it is sort of a scientific extrapolation, so it’s in the lines of the plausible, we never have anything magical, and everything has to be explainable by technology.” Alexandre Amancio, later quoting Clarke’s third law.

Question: The Truth – Atlantis Connection?

Answer: My 3 primary concerns now are the Creed, the Theory of Everything and the OverMan. I do not deviate, unless absolutely necessary, but I’ll make an exception, due to the popularity of “The Truth – Atlantis Connection?”: its fake logic, flawed explanations, incorrect engineering, random trend research and my inclination to besmirch.

Atlantis does not exist. It is just a term coined by Plato in 360 BC for a highly-advanced NON-EXISTANT lost civilization, just as Francis Bacon described the same idea in “New Atlantis” (1624) only for a highly-advanced NON-EXISTANT civilization in the future, or as Plato wrote in “Republic” (380 BC) reciprocally to Sir Thomas More writings in “Utopia” (1516) of a perfect NON-EXISTANT socio-politico-legal system. The arguments for the Atlantis existence made by “Evolution” (the pseudonym of the 28 y.o. virgin, who probably read the preface of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and thinks he’s a “pretty cool guy, who doesn’t afraid of anything”, when in reality he’s just playing Halo on super-duper-party-pooper easy mode) are that of the descriptive and not analytical kind. Instead of answering questions, he raises them with no support and no answers. This is a definition of a hypothesis, not a theory. [The Great Debate between the two terms can be found in Evo’s original post: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...024/m/2261050238/p/7 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/2261050238/p/7) ]

The 3 arguments of the hypothesis of the connection between “The Truth” video and Atlantis: 1. By quoting Plato’s Critias: “center of the whole island”, “fertile plain”, “mountain” and “canals”. 2. By claiming that the Pieces of Eden were made from a no-longer-existing, but seemingly discovered by Romans, alchemy-like metal. 3. My own paraphrasing of the argument by making it a statement: Templars fled from Holy-Land to Cyprus, a proposed place for Atlantis, because Cyprus is considered by some historians as the Garden of Eden.

I will circumvent and refute the expository object-oriented, non-existent-material based, let’s-listen-to-historians-because-we-cannot-think-ourselves arguments with 3 logically reasonable countra-statements. 1. According to Plato, first and best author-source on the subject, Atlantis existed at around 9600 BC, if Galanopoulos is incorrect about it being 960 BC. Adam and Eve were the First Human and they lived in Atlantis before the Act of Sin and their excommunication. Ergo, if Demi-Gods, TWCB, created the First Human in 9600 BC, this would deny the “divinization of archaic hominids”, which started 500, 000 years ago, according to scientifically proven Darwin’s evolutionary theory. 2. According to Plato, Atlantis was an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together. Continent bigger than Asia, the latter being 43,820,000 km2, cannot disappear into thin air, unless Demi-Gods willed its total destruction. 3. Consequentially debunking Evo’s 3rd argument: Templars could not have fled to a proposed place for Atlantis, Cyprus (highly unlikely due to small size), if it was destroyed without a trace by Demi-Gods.

Question: The Truth – Atlantis Connection? Answer: No.

Moral: Do not ever again in your life-time use the word “theory”, since all you have is an unscientific hunch, and most importantly – the word “genius”, since you have absolutely no idea what it is to be like us. Delete your video and return to Oblivion, you self-conceited, self-deluded and self-assuming wanabee pseudo-historian, because no matter, how many sheep believed it, you and they are hell-damned, straight-jacketed, mentally-handicaped, subhuman bonobos of human folly.

3. Last Transmogrification of the Metamorphosis: “The Will-To-Power [WTP] is not a being, not a becoming, but a PATHOS [Socio-Pathic State – my term again – a genetically inborn quality in the DNR code, fictional 47 chromosomes and TWCB blood-line, the rationale behind all the Failed/Half/Perfect Overmen] – the most elemental fact from which is a becoming [Rebellion] and effecting [Faithless Leap] first emerge”, or “Become, what you are not”, or “Destroy & Create”. WTP is the perfection principle on a materialistic cellular or atomic level of development, a denial/extention of the socio-Darwian theory of natural selection, that an independent strength will manifest itself as a daring strength through the automaton-enhancement of its species, applicable only to the highest possible human condition of living organisms through (I.) the empirical clash of new subjective life-affirming valuation by rejection of semi-objective priestly-cancer of Moses through Plato to Kant scholastics and Judeo-Christian religion, (II.) the metaphysical acknowledgment of scientifically ontological Truth, not necessarily the essence of reality per se, but by the approach of pure reason executed interpretations and arguments of the observable Universe as a cosmological doctrine, and (III.) the mythological Mortal Kombat for universal prestige, absolute power, world domination and mastery of space-time continuum by insiatiable extention and omnipotent rectification of influence, procreative expansion, internal struggle and complex ramification. Altair, having achieved the III. level of this Socio-Pathic State, - anti-Sartrean antithesis of simultaneous essence and existence, - the fundamentally systematic discharge of WTP as an obsessive leitmotif, which rises above and replaces the plethora of Schopenhauer’s Will-To-Life, Freud’s Will-To-Pleasure, Frankl’s Will-To-Meaning and Adler’s Will-To-Feeling, - or a Self-Conscious Myth, an axiomatic “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger/stranger”, which acts accordingly as a bodybuilder’s muscle hypertrophy/hyperplasia and akin to a bio-chemically engineered bacterial virus by dissolving the Ego of the Order and spreading its infectious replicas of germ multiplication throughout the World with the necessity effect of a thunderous lightning. Altair’s, as a Perfect OverMan’s, only equal enemy is another Perfect OverMan, Genghis Khan, both with a distinguished type of need to exert their liberated impulsive WTP through vital living/creating and sterile killing/destroying. Genghis Khan was a destructive and genocidal Mongolian emperor and warlord, who killed, directly or not, ~40 million people, while positively being credited for bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment, institution of meritocracy and tolerance of different religions. Altair comes to a conclusion to kill Genghis Khan not because the latter is morally culpable by being “evil” due to his holocaust-like absurd reign, but out of an instinct of self-preservation by thrusting back all that threatens and resists, thinking, that the Khan like him possesses a Piece of Eden, possibly the Sword, expressing his worry of “an army of such size and power” - the only one of the indirect and most frequent results. Altair did not as-a-matter-of-fact killed Genghis Khan himself, but Qulan Gal’s arrow was the extention of his champion’s domineering will of “command & obey”. It is irrelevant, whether the-doer/agent Altair felt satisfaction or pleasue, or met Lady Death with a cheerful smirk in the fields of his Vaterlo, because he lived, or performed the-doing/agency, by refusing to be God, admitting his Humanity and becoming the Perfect Overman, thus the creation of an immortal legend, the legislation of superior uniqueness and the validity of a triumphant victory against Fate, Enemies and Self.

Appendix: Following my own pure reasoning, even if the Universe is infinite, I can use an infinite interpretation, and even if God and Demi-Gods existed Before and never died, their imposed “work-force” ethics/morality should be killed as a fateful necessity for OverComing.

The true reason of assassinating Genghis Khan could always be the “Chopstick Bellicose”: http://sunsetagain.deviantart....nghis-Khan-256980774 (http://sunsetagain.deviantart.com/art/Truth-of-killing-Genghis-Khan-256980774)

[P.S. My intellectually-investing war-machine-monger-like will-to-powerful-meaning idiosyncrasy, in accordance with my sterile garden-house of self-perfecting and joyous ascetic-rule over-self nature, technically, or philosophically, or both, but definitely tyronically and bequestfully, will dominate the Dionysian-shipwreck and disease-ridden problem of “Who is a better killer: 47 or Altair?”, - since Ezio is only the sickly and intoxicated hedonist of the Rennaisance-era masquerade and an errorous causatum of Altair’s programical “tame-to-submit-to-improve” algorithm, - in the coming few to several days, if I won’t die from lung cancer or a third developed personality, if I won’t find something more productive to do, or if I won’t decide to go on a fake intellectual hunger strike for my hunger to become stronger.]

LightRey
10-31-2011, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
tl;dq
You're just repeating what you said earlier here and you're making a number of assumptions, many of which are contradicted by the games and literature, on which I will not expand, since you seem to basically ignore what others say and just keep restating your points in various different ways instead of actually responding.

Also, if you wish to respond to other topics, I suggest you do so in their respective threads.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 12:09 PM
Primo: You're just repeating what you said earlier here […]
Secundus: I’m analyzing and interpreting Altair through Camus, Theoretical Physics and Nietzsche. By your definition, I’m only repeating Nietzsche. If you have time to bleat, you have time to read, my little sheepling.

LightRey
10-31-2011, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: You're just repeating what you said earlier here […]
Secundus: I’m analyzing and interpreting Altair through Camus, Theoretical Physics and Nietzsche. By your definition, I’m only repeating Nietzsche. If you have time to bleat, you have time to read, my little sheepling.
I might have time, but I'm not about to waste it on that wall-o-text.

Your analysis is flawed.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 01:04 PM
Primo: I might have time, but I'm not about to waste it on that wall-o-text. Your analysis is flawed.
Secundus: I have time to play around, so why not. Ad hominem it be. 1. If you haven’t read it, do not give any countra-arguments, it cannot be flawed, but you and your thinking is. 2. Flawed is the definition of you not reading it, because you have no time and there are other threads to lurk, especially that one with a schoolgirl, who is searching for AC:R commercials, and doesn't know about the mighty Bay of Pirates. 3. Your Momma is so fat, that she ate a black hole for breakfast, went to the toilet in the afternoon by giving birth to the Universe and swallowed it again in the evening from the bowels of the plumbing device.

LightRey
10-31-2011, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: I might have time, but I'm not about to waste it on that wall-o-text. Your analysis is flawed.
Secundus: I have time to play around, so why not. Ad hominem it be. 1. If you haven’t read it, do not give any countra-arguments, it cannot be flawed, but you and your thinking is. 2. Flawed is the definition of you not reading it, because you have no time and there are other threads to lurk, especially that one with a schoolgirl, who is searching for AC:R commercials, and doesn't know about the mighty Bay of Pirates. 3. Your Momma is so fat, that she ate a black hole for breakfast, went to the toilet in the afternoon by giving birth to the Universe and swallowed it again in the evening from the bowels of the plumbing device.
I can if you're just repeating yourself.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 02:09 PM
Primo: I can if you're just repeating yourself.
Secundus: I’m analyzing and interpreting Altair through Camus, Theoretical Physics and Nietzsche. By your definition, I’m only repeating Nietzsche. If you have time to bleat, you have time to read, my little sheepling.

LightRey
10-31-2011, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: I can if you're just repeating yourself.
Secundus: I’m analyzing and interpreting Altair through Camus, Theoretical Physics and Nietzsche. By your definition, I’m only repeating Nietzsche. If you have time to bleat, you have time to read, my little sheepling.
You're repeating yourself repeating Nietsche. Regardless of this, however, is the fact that you're basing your conclusions on wrong assumptions, meaning that you could use whatever means to process the information granted to you by these assumptions and you would (and have) still come to the wrong conclusions, as you have, and to top it all off this is all based on the assumption that you actually understand Nietzsche's teachings and used them correctly.
You're simply using Nietzsche as a means to create the illusion of having authority on the subject. It's the same reason you keep using so many complicated words. You're so scared that people figure out that you're wrong, that you hide behind these walls of text.

Anyways, let me state my final point. Yes, there's a contradiction within the phrase "nothing is true, everything is permitted", but it's an intended contradiction. As Altaïr himself states within the codex, the Assassin order is based on asking the impossible of its members. It asks that its members question everything, yet it also asks that its members follow orders without question. It's the whole point of the phrase.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 02:34 PM
Primo: You're simply using Nietzsche as a means to create the illusion of having authority on the subject. It's the same reason you keep using so many complicated words. You're so scared that people figure out that you're wrong, that you hide behind these walls of text.
Secundus: I am Nietzsche 2.0. Not a single word is complicated to me. Must be the difference between our IQs: mine is 143-145, yours – about a 100, but, according to an experiment, when a room full of people, sitting with eyes-closed, were asked, if they think they are smarter, than the rest, should raise their hands, and everyone did (EVERYONE), let’s suppose you are “smart”, ergo, 110. Now imagine talking to someone who is ~35 IQ points lower, you being 110, the other person – 75. It’s like talking to a baby with a Down’s syndrome.
Primo: Anyways, let me state my final point. Yes, there's a contradiction within the phrase "nothing is true, everything is permitted", but it's an intended contradiction. As Altaïr himself states within the codex, the Assassin order is based on asking the impossible of its members. It asks that its members question everything, yet it also asks that its members follow orders without question. It's the whole point of the phrase.
Secundus: Intended to not work logically. I have stated this several times - read or re-read.

LightRey
10-31-2011, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: You're simply using Nietzsche as a means to create the illusion of having authority on the subject. It's the same reason you keep using so many complicated words. You're so scared that people figure out that you're wrong, that you hide behind these walls of text.
Secundus: I am Nietzsche 2.0. Not a single word is complicated to me. Must be the difference between our IQs: mine is 143-145, yours – about a 100, but, according to an experiment, when a room full of people, sitting with eyes-closed, were asked, if they think they are smarter, than the rest, should raise their hands, and everyone did (EVERYONE), let’s suppose you are “smart”, ergo, 110. Now imagine talking to someone who is ~35 IQ points lower, you being 110, the other person – 75. It’s like talking to a baby with a Down’s syndrome.
Primo: Anyways, let me state my final point. Yes, there's a contradiction within the phrase "nothing is true, everything is permitted", but it's an intended contradiction. As Altaïr himself states within the codex, the Assassin order is based on asking the impossible of its members. It asks that its members question everything, yet it also asks that its members follow orders without question. It's the whole point of the phrase.
Secundus: Intended to not work logically. I have stated this several times - read or re-read.
*Ignores your illusions of superiority based on the (likely calculated) assumption that your IQ is higher than mine and consequently making the somewhat preposterous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate measurement of intelligence, all accompanied by the assumption that IQ is a linear scale.*


Intended to not work logically. I have stated this several times - read or re-read.
Intended to psychologically influence the Assassins into thinking in a way the order likes. It's not meant to be logical in itself, it's meant to have the (logical) desired effect on the philosophical attitude of those who obey it. The statement itself isn't logical, but it most certainly works logically.

pabaisabevardo
10-31-2011, 03:00 PM
Primo: *Ignores your illusions of superiority based on the (likely calculated) assumption that your IQ is higher than mine and consequently making the somewhat preposterous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate measurement of intelligence, all accompanied by the assumption that IQ is a linear scale.*
Secundus: Two clinical IQ tests: at the age of 14 – 143, at the age of 18 – 145. It is not the measurement of intelligence, but the measurement of the potential of intelligence.
Primo: Intended to psychologically influence the Assassins into thinking in a way the order likes. It's not meant to be logical in itself, it's meant to have the (logical) desired effect on the philosophical attitude of those who obey it. The statement itself isn't logical, but it most certainly works logically.
Secundus: I’ll quote myself, since you didn’t read anything:

[…] their dillusionment was the transferring of the God-complex on themselves (idealized self) and the extreme inflation of their ego, like Gods preaching the notions of Good (truth/wisdom) and Peace (if you want peace, prepare for war) for all Mankind.
[…] for him exists only Leader-God, whose commands are absolute, i.e. a thoughtless sheep-like self-sacrifice analogous to Christianity’s belief of bringing yourself closer to God, if acting accordingly, which requires a belief in the Afterlife (Heaven/Hell) or the Sacrifice (suicide/murder) Act itself, because there is no other way to be closer to God, if you are dead (and eulogies don’t count), unless you are expecting the impossible.
Assassin’s Creed is like saying, that Assassin must have a resigned and detached Faith in everything, which is wordly unreasonable, singularly incomprehensible and passionately unexpressed by words. If nothing is true, why Leader-God, Socratean ideal form, is still alive? If Father of Faith is still alive, then everything being permitted is a false telos, because, paraphrasing Heraclitus and I. Kant, you cannot be autonomous and responsible fire, or lead such a life, if you are unquestionably obedient and follow external laws (Leader-God’s good purpose), which prevent changing, or “overcoming”, of Self. Leap of Faith is religious secularism, - because Faith is in opposition to Suicide and throwing yourself into the Abyss, but still executed out of “vocation” and that, which it symbolizes, - and anti-Descartean acknowledgment of the Creed, intellectually and empirically not knowing its implications, Kierkegaardean Adam/Eve Act of Sin, Shakespearean Romeo/Juliet death, guided by irrational passion and madmen-like self-destruction, and not by pure reason and moral clarity.
Altair was a slave murderer all of his living life, until he reached a marginal point of opposition of the question “Why?” with no answer and in protest said an absolute “No!!!” to all 3 tenets of the Creed, which scientifically preached the practice of a faithfully logical superior suicide of passionately impossible free-willed voluntarism, thus losing his singularity with Assassin’s purpose, ideas and moral imperatives (professionally ethical axioms of stoicism, skepticism and unhappy conscience created by the shamefully methaphysical Master-God person).

LightRey
10-31-2011, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by pabaisabevardo:
Primo: *Ignores your illusions of superiority based on the (likely calculated) assumption that your IQ is higher than mine and consequently making the somewhat preposterous assumption that IQ is actually an accurate measurement of intelligence, all accompanied by the assumption that IQ is a linear scale.*
Secundus: Two clinical IQ tests: at the age of 14 – 143, at the age of 18 – 145. It is not the measurement of intelligence, but the measurement of the potential of intelligence.
Primo: Intended to psychologically influence the Assassins into thinking in a way the order likes. It's not meant to be logical in itself, it's meant to have the (logical) desired effect on the philosophical attitude of those who obey it. The statement itself isn't logical, but it most certainly works logically.
Secundus: I’ll quote myself, since you didn’t read anything:

[…] their dillusionment was the transferring of the God-complex on themselves (idealized self) and the extreme inflation of their ego, like Gods preaching the notions of Good (truth/wisdom) and Peace (if you want peace, prepare for war) for all Mankind.
[…] for him exists only Leader-God, whose commands are absolute, i.e. a thoughtless sheep-like self-sacrifice analogous to Christianity’s belief of bringing yourself closer to God, if acting accordingly, which requires a belief in the Afterlife (Heaven/Hell) or the Sacrifice (suicide/murder) Act itself, because there is no other way to be closer to God, if you are dead (and eulogies don’t count), unless you are expecting the impossible.
Assassin’s Creed is like saying, that Assassin must have a resigned and detached Faith in everything, which is wordly unreasonable, singularly incomprehensible and passionately unexpressed by words. If nothing is true, why Leader-God, Socratean ideal form, is still alive? If Father of Faith is still alive, then everything being permitted is a false telos, because, paraphrasing Heraclitus and I. Kant, you cannot be autonomous and responsible fire, or lead such a life, if you are unquestionably obedient and follow external laws (Leader-God’s good purpose), which prevent changing, or “overcoming”, of Self. Leap of Faith is religious secularism, - because Faith is in opposition to Suicide and throwing yourself into the Abyss, but still executed out of “vocation” and that, which it symbolizes, - and anti-Descartean acknowledgment of the Creed, intellectually and empirically not knowing its implications, Kierkegaardean Adam/Eve Act of Sin, Shakespearean Romeo/Juliet death, guided by irrational passion and madmen-like self-destruction, and not by pure reason and moral clarity.
Altair was a slave murderer all of his living life, until he reached a marginal point of opposition of the question “Why?” with no answer and in protest said an absolute “No!!!” to all 3 tenets of the Creed, which scientifically preached the practice of a faithfully logical superior suicide of passionately impossible free-willed voluntarism, thus losing his singularity with Assassin’s purpose, ideas and moral imperatives (professionally ethical axioms of stoicism, skepticism and unhappy conscience created by the shamefully methaphysical Master-God person).
You're making the wrong assumptions again. The phrase simply asks the Assassins that they don't live by anyone's rules. It means that, regardless of the fact that they are an order, and as such there is a hierarchy and people will be ordered to do things and will be asked to do so unquestioningly, it also states that that, in the end, means absolutely nothing.

The phrase states that one should follow the rules, but at the same time that those very rules (and all others) mean nothing. It tells Assassins that, in the end, even their own order is just as meaningless as any other set of laws, any city and any religion out there. It asks the Assassins to, in the end, listen only to themselves, simply to avoid that the order have the same consequences on its followers as the very things it wants to end. It has to be an order, but it wants for there to be no such thing. It's an order to end the concept of orders and with its creed it's built to essentially self-destruct once it becomes too much of its own enemy. That's why there's a contradiction.

Jexx21
10-31-2011, 03:56 PM
LightRey, you're wasting your time.

I hope you reported this guy by now, since he called the guy who made the Atlantis theory a ****** and anyone who likes it ******s, along with ordering you not to use the words theory and genius anymore.

Not to mention calling us 'sheeplings' or pawns who are destined to only grovel at the feet of our overlords (see companies and government).

LightRey
10-31-2011, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
LightRey, you're wasting your time.

I hope you reported this guy by now, since he called the guy who made the Atlantis theory a ****** and anyone who likes it ******s, along with ordering you not to use the words theory and genius anymore.

Not to mention calling us 'sheeplings' or pawns who are destined to only grovel at the feet of our overlords (see companies and government).
Yes, he does appear to lack common courtesy. However, I have as of yet not reported him.

In the end I'm really just trying to make my point and I think I've done so on a level that most people should be able to understand.

jmk1999
10-31-2011, 10:32 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">@pabaisabevardo
I can tell just by your birth year from your profile you're far too old to be acting in such a behavior! Hide your insults behind "intellectual" vocabulary all you want, we still know what you're doing. It's not your words that need to sound "grown up," it's you.

@ Everyone:
I'm stopping this now! I've seen enough arguing, name calling, insulting, etc. to last a lifetime here. If you have problems with each other, take it to a private topic and NOT on these forums. Further violation of any kind will be taken as a voluntary suspension. I don't care who makes the next crack. I'm warning everyone. Stay on topic and keep it civil.</span>

pabaisabevardo
11-01-2011, 01:24 PM
Primo: I can tell just by your birth year from your profile you're far too old to be acting in such a behavior! Hide your insults behind "intellectual" vocabulary all you want, we still know what you're doing. It's not your words that need to sound "grown up," it's you.
Secundus: Titas evokes Freedom of Speech, and practically loses, because he libeled, slandered, obscened, propagated a crime, but technically he is not guilty due to external incitement from the other parties as the cause of mens rea. In the case against “The Truth – Atlantis Connection?”, Titas was incited and intellectually infuriated by all the logical fallacies, but still managed to argumentate his disagreement, so the Defence pleads temporary insanity with the least possible punishment of a warning with a note of “grow up” from the part of your Honor. In the case against LightRey, Titas was forced to defend himself with aggression from LightRey’s pressuring instigations of him devaluating Titas’ intellectual property with the former’s arguments being: “tl;dq”, “I'm not about to waste [time] on that wall-o-text” and “Your analysis is flawed” meaning, that the incitor chooses by not reading, what I wrote, because it is too long, because it is a waste of time, to have the insolence to say it is flawed, and even before that stating the fake “whys”, even when the incitor has not read it (“You're just repeating what you said earlier here and you're making a number of assumptions, many of which are contradicted by the games and literature.”), when, in reality, I was furthering my theory by going backwards and to the roots to make my point. Compared to that, the actus reus of calling the incitor a “sheepling” with a mediocre IQ, because he cannot understand simple words and cannot give reasonable countra-arguments, is only a small offence and due to incitement is not guilty, but the Jury (with all the “upper” managers/admins/mods like Mr_Shade, Black_Widow9, ms-kleaneasy, etc.) should decide unanimously. In either case, Titas would be satisfied with no punishment on either parties, because LightRey provided his countra-arguments, and the incitor seems to want to make a point as much as I do. As Moderator dom1999, - who, with no disrespect, ironically thinks, that he knows my age by my “birth year from [my] profile”, when I have specified no such thing, and has an open question in his avatar: “Could you kill your best friend?”, - suggested: “Stay on topic and keep it civil.” Agreed as the best option, if people won’t keep posting “tl;dr” and not giving countra-arguments.

I will get back to the topic of the Creed and countra-argument LightRey tomorrow, if I will not get banned by the Mighty Hammer of God, just because of me giving myself a verbal defence, in which case I’ll have to go to Batman forum and analyse and interpret Batman vs. Joker.

Jexx21
11-01-2011, 01:42 PM
tl;dq isn't the same as tl;dr

tl;dq means Too long; don't quote.

It doesn't mean he did not read what you said, it means that he didn't want to extend the length of the page significantly by quoting your post.

I'd also suggest breaking up your paragraphs more so it's easier to read, and also answering questions in a more human way and not showing off your vocabulary in a message board where not everyone will understand it due to english not being their first language and/or just not knowing the words.

While showing off a very wide vocabulary can be good for being accepted into colleges and workplaces, lording it over someone who doesn't know these words doesn't make you come off as a person who people would like to talk to.

I'd also suggest avoiding pointing out that you think someone has a low IQ, as many people take insult to that. People also take insult to being called a 'sheepling' or being called unintelligent. Sure, sometimes these things are true, but stating it in a blunt matter like this isn't a way to easily get through to someone. You don't try to fix something with brute force unless that's the only way to fix it.

And sorry dom if this crosses the line.

BTOG46
11-01-2011, 01:50 PM
@ pabaisabevardo

You chose not to heed the warning given by the forum moderator, and chose to reply to him in exactly the same manner you had just received the warning for.

Enjoy your break... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

jmk1999
11-01-2011, 07:27 PM
maybe that batman forum will enjoy his posts. they really make me want to cry from boredom. and he wonders why people don't read his entire posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Black_Widow9
11-02-2011, 03:12 AM
Let's close this on up now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif