PDA

View Full Version : The Assassins and Edward.



DinoSteve1
01-04-2014, 07:11 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the Assasin's judgement of Edward in the begingining was rather harsh, yes he was greedy and bit of an *******, but to blame the Assassins current situation wholly on Edward seems wrong, had Edward not killed Warpole the Templers could have wiped out the Assassins without them knowing they where ever betrayed, in fact it is probably because of Edwards inteference that the Templers can't turn there whole attention to the Assassins afterall they have a hard time dealing with him alone.

imdreamin
01-04-2014, 07:53 AM
Hmm i dont know Yes Duncan Walpole was going to betray them with or without Edwards help but as you can imagine the Assassin Brotherhood is does not take very kindly to treachery. He did kill Walpole but in the end he did finish Walpole's mission to give the Templars the locations of the Assassin Bureaus. And i think the biggest thing they held over him was the killing of their brothers in Havana. Actually I can give you an example of how strict the Assassins could be: Do you remember in ACI when Altair did not follow orders. Al Mualim actually wanted to kill him. With that in mind i have to say the Assassins took it rather easy on Edward. He finished Walpole's treacherous mission, he killed the Assassins in Havana and for a short time he protected Roberts from the Assassins. He did escape later but still.....
Anyway even though the Assassins are considered the good guys they are very strict considering treachery and killing of innocents and their brothers so i think they were kind of soft on Edward. I mean in the end Edward did fix his mistakes and re-payed them in a way.

DinoSteve1
01-04-2014, 08:02 AM
Yes he did kill the Assassin's in Havana, but he was merely defending himself the Assassins attacked first, at that point he barely new what a Templer and a Assassin was, if you where attacked you'd do the same.

imdreamin
01-04-2014, 08:13 AM
Yes but do you think that the Assassins care. What they saw was an ignorant man who wanted his gold and stopped them from getting to the Sage. You see its not about logic or how he did not know its about point of view. The Assassin saw a bad man who gave away important information stopped them from getting to the Sage and killed their brothers. Its about seeing it through their eyes.

LoyalACFan
01-04-2014, 09:02 AM
Well, he stuck his nose in business he knew nothing about, and sold a map of Assassin bureaus to people who obviously wanted them dead, just to get his payday without thinking about the ramifications of his actions. He was definitely a scumbag in the beginning. I think it was only right for the Assassins to be pissed at him, and not want him showing his face in Tulum again.

Fatal-Feit
01-04-2014, 11:40 AM
I thought the scolding was underwhelming. I mean for one, he totally screwed them, caused a massacre of assassins, and did so with the intention of only gold in mind. They were pretty darn tolerable to let him live.

roostersrule2
01-04-2014, 02:58 PM
They should have killed him.

18th Century Assassins are pussies, Achilles and his team were wiped out, the Caribbean ones were too nice and Connor has no village.

ze_topazio
01-04-2014, 03:13 PM
If they killed Edward out of spite and for revenge they would lose all credibility, Edward was not an Assassin/Templar and knew nothing about them, he gave a bunch of maps to some random men and killed attackers in self defense, so much for the Assassins wisdom if they judged and condemned him, a civilian.

roostersrule2
01-04-2014, 03:17 PM
If they killed Edward out of spite and for revenge they would lose all credibility, Edward was not an Assassin/Templar and knew nothing about them, he gave a bunch of maps to some random men and killed attackers in self defense, so much for the Assassins wisdom if they judged and condemned him, a civilian.Like Savonarola? Or the rogue thieves? They both did crimes (in a way) against the Assassins and they were killed.

He also compromised the brotherhood and if you will kill one of your own if they do that you'd defs kill an outsider.

ze_topazio
01-04-2014, 03:32 PM
Savonarola was a mad man enslaving an entire city in a bizarre theocratic dictatorship, he needed to go down, same reason why Cesare later was marked for death, Ezio didn't like them dictators, i don't really remember those rogue thieves.
The thing is, there is a difference between someone who is purposely, or not, harming the Assassins and someone like Edward who unknowingly did some harm in the past but presents no threat in the present.

adventurewomen
01-04-2014, 03:43 PM
Savonarola was a mad man enslaving an entire city in a bizarre theocratic dictatorship, he needed to go down, same reason why Cesare later was marked for death, Ezio didn't like them dictators, i don't really remember those rogue thieves.
The thing is, there is a difference between someone who is purposely, or not, harming the Assassins and someone like Edward who unknowingly did some harm in the past but presents no threat in the present.
I agree, but we also must remember the reason why Ezio didn't like dictators it's because those dictators plotted & killed his father and brothers those dictators where also after Ezio. That is what inspired his revenge in the Ezio trilogy.

-----------------------

Edward in the start of AC4 had no idea who the Assassins were so this explains why he defended himself and killed some Assassins he didn't truly understand the Assassin Order then. It was only after he witnessed and learnt from the Assassins that he then understood what they stand for by the end of AC4.

Hrafnagud72
01-04-2014, 09:08 PM
If they killed Edward out of spite and for revenge they would lose all credibility, Edward was not an Assassin/Templar and knew nothing about them, he gave a bunch of maps to some random men and killed attackers in self defense, so much for the Assassins wisdom if they judged and condemned him, a civilian.

Read the creed again. It reads "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent." It says nothing about templars or assassins or civilians. Those that are not considered an innocent ultimately deserve death. And Edward was certainly no where near innocent. And while the term innocent and what is decided as innocent is subjective, I think we can all agree that selling out some people's hiding spot knowing full well that you are condemning them to die for some gold is a scumbag move and not deserving of the title innocent.

Hans684
01-04-2014, 09:22 PM
It's ironc to since the assassin has killed a lot of people like templars, random guards etc without giving a fair trial. In short, they deserv death as much as the people they claim deserve it if we go by their creed. Even theire creed have turned their backs on them. Yet they fight, they resist. Why?

"What follows are the three great ironies of the Assassin Order: (1) Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means. (2) Here we seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to a master and set of rules. (3) Here we seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet we are practitioners ourselves." ~ Alta´r Ibn-La'Ahad's Codex

When Desmond Miles was rescued by the Assassins, he assumed they were the "good guys", but Shaun Hastings advised him to "not get carried away", reminding him their function was to kill people. Rebecca Crane acknowledged that "it's not ideal. And taking a life is never easy. But sometimes there's no other way. Sometimes, Desmond, people have to die for things to change."

When the Assassins in the FBI began holding Nikolai Orelov's family hostage to make him give up his secrets, he asserted to his son Innokenti Orelov "These are not honourable men, Kenya. They are killers. They live by old laws which apply only to them and then call themselves heroes."

The Assassins also cooperated with dubious figures such as members of the House of Medici or Vladimir Lenin, or would spare the likes of Tomas de Torquemada, simply because they were not Templars. Vali cel Tradat left the Assassins before the Templars because they did not try to stop the Ottoman Empire's conquest of his native Wallachia.

In 1511, Ezio Auditore da Firenze caused a riot that reduced the entire market district outside of the gates to Constantinople's arsenal to ruins, simply to infiltrate the arsenal and eavesdrop on information. Later still, Ezio knowingly and deliberately caused a massive explosion in the underground city of Cappadocia, indirectly killing or injuring a large portion of the population, simply to cover his escape.

Connor single-handedly assured the inevitability of his people's diminishment and the American Revolutionary War by eliminating Johnson and John Pitcairn.

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

For those who question the wiki: Fun Fact: It's comfirmed that Ubisoft even use it even trough they have an encyclopedia of their own(source: Q&A in Assassin's Creed Initiates with Darby)

Put's a lot of shades of gray regard the assassins, i lost count at 50.

LoyalACFan
01-05-2014, 04:54 AM
They should have killed him.

18th Century Assassins are pussies, Achilles and his team were wiped out, the Caribbean ones were too nice and Connor has no village.

To be fair, I think Mary's high opinion of Edward was the only thing that kept Ah Tabai from killing him.

dbzk1999
01-05-2014, 05:02 AM
Savonarola was a mad man enslaving an entire city in a bizarre theocratic dictatorship, he needed to go down, same reason why Cesare later was marked for death, Ezio didn't like them dictators, i don't really remember those rogue thieves.
The thing is, there is a difference between someone who is purposely, or not, harming the Assassins and someone like Edward who unknowingly did some harm in the past but presents no threat in the present.

Assassins creed two discovery is a good example of that also Ag tabai admitted that edawrd was was forgiven for killing the brothers and in havana

dbzk1999
01-05-2014, 05:13 AM
Read the creed again. It reads "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent." It says nothing about templars or assassins or civilians. Those that are not considered an innocent ultimately deserve death. And Edward was certainly no where near innocent. And while the term innocent and what is decided as innocent is subjective, I think we can all agree that selling out some people's hiding spot knowing full well that you are condemning them to die for some gold is a scumbag move and not deserving of the title innocent.
U remember masun the Templar traitor in the end al Muslim still offered him the chance o repent and he betrayed them for Templars just had to throw that out there sorry for the double post

Tysodie
01-05-2014, 05:28 AM
To be fair, I think Mary's high opinion of Edward was the only thing that kept Ah Tabai from killing him.

Bingo. Mary specifically says in the book "These men wanted you dead for consorting with Templars. I talked them out of it"

salman147
01-05-2014, 09:29 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the Assasin's judgement of Edward in the begingining was rather harsh, yes he was greedy and bit of an *******, but to blame the Assassins current situation wholly on Edward seems wrong, had Edward not killed Warpole the Templers could have wiped out the Assassins without them knowing they where ever betrayed, in fact it is probably because of Edwards inteference that the Templers can't turn there whole attention to the Assassins afterall they have a hard time dealing with him alone.

U would realise if he did that in real life to your family or relatives.The assassins consider their companions as brothers and sisters.And what happened in the game is an exact copy of what happened in AC1 with Altair...

RoBg03
01-05-2014, 06:37 PM
The assassins are very contradictory. i think the whole assassin concept kinda got away from ubi as the games progressed tbh. they're not a whole lot better than the templar in the end. they value freedom over life, which is backwards because killing someone because he believes in order over chaos is just denying someone their freedom of free thinking and opinion. the deeper this series goes, the more i've really felt myself agreeing more with the templar. the place i would depart with them is their interest in using POE to control people to reach thier goals. the assassins aren't much better though, as they somewhat arrogantly think they are the only ones who should 'protect' the POE and thus humanity. they like to say they don't kill innocents, but slaughter simple guards and enlisted men who have nothing to do with the conflict in order to overhear a conversation or other mundane tasks. this is where i thought edward was a bit of a breath of fresh air. he wasn't hand cuffed by the dogmatic rules and beliefs of the assassins. he took an objective view of the templar and eventually figured that they had to be stopped, not simply because they were templar, but because they were in the wrong. i liked how he 'didn't have that conviction in his heart'. he looked at it objectively, and made his choices based on his expieriences . even by the end of the game he's unsure what he'll do in the future. made for a better character i think.