PDA

View Full Version : Who is your favorite (main) villain in any AC game?



king-hailz
05-22-2014, 02:47 PM
Thought this could be fun... and I would like to know your views.

Also this only includes the main villains of each major game and DLC, and because of this there is no haytham! Sorry.

Markaccus
05-22-2014, 02:55 PM
For me, no contest. Cesare Borgia. Simply put, I actually hated him with a passion, which made ACB So much more enjoyable. Having a bad guy that i actively wanted to hunt down like a dog and kill was excellent. I felt a genuine thrill as I watched the twisted evil phsycho plummet to his doom after throwing him off that wall. For a main enemy to engage the player that much it takes a really well written story and characrer background. Well done to Ubisoft on that one.

king-hailz
05-22-2014, 02:59 PM
Vote for it then.

Markaccus
05-22-2014, 03:05 PM
Vote for it then.

I have, now. For some reason my phone logged me out :/

I should add i have not played TOKW, ACL OR FC.i do intend to play the second 2 there, but i am not really bothered about TOKW because i found AC3 a bit dull. Cant imagine anyone beating cessa though :D

Farlander1991
05-22-2014, 03:11 PM
Governor Torres the main villain of AC4? Can't say I agree with that. This is all up to interpretation, but I consider the main antagonist to be Black Bart. He's the one who's got presence the whole game, he's Edward's natural Shadow archetype (i.e. everything Edward could've been), he's the one player/character constantly hunts (for different reasons at different times, though). He's the one whose Creed was at its biggest conflict with Edward's forming life view (because it was essentially the one Edward was following, being a pirate and all that, but not the one his heart wanted to follow). Killing Torres last is just tying lose ends and showcasing Edward's overall character arc, but Black Bart - he is the villain.

Had he been there I'd definitely vote for him. But with this selection, I'm not sure. I guess Al Mualim, have to think about it.

Aphex_Tim
05-22-2014, 03:14 PM
Duccio.

oliacr
05-22-2014, 03:17 PM
From this list, I put my vote on Prince Ahmet from ACR.

Megas_Doux
05-22-2014, 03:33 PM
All the Pazzi´s, Barbarigos and Borgia´s were AWFUL, what a cartoonish set of antagonists. I´ve seen better, more structured and with a "higher" purpose in a scooby doo episode, especially Cesare.... His mere presence was SO annoying that I almost had to mute the TV.

Since there is no Haytham, I´ll to have say either Prince Ahmet or Al Mualim.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-22-2014, 03:35 PM
Hmmm... Have to say Charles Lee. Showed respect for Haytham and eventually his "last" respects for Connor, and that gained my respect in the long run because I hated him for being a ***** in the beginning and almost throughout the game.

Markaccus
05-22-2014, 03:42 PM
All the Pazzi´s, Barbarigos and Borgia´s were AWFUL, what a cartoonish set of antagonists. I´ve seen better, more structured and with a "higher" purpose in a scooby doo episode, especially Cesare.... His mere presence was SO annoying that I almost had to mute the TV.

Since there is no Haytham, I´ll to have say either Prince Ahmet or Al Mualim.

Historically, the borgias were a bunch of nutters. Morally, they were akin to the hillbillies from the film "Deliverance". A game will always exaggerate facts and add poetic licence, but as real-life historical villains, the Borgias were almost cartoonish in their antics, and the biggest nutter was indeed Cesare. Thats probably why i enjoyed having him as a villain.

Kirokill
05-22-2014, 03:46 PM
Cesare ruined everything for both sides.

But I voted for Ahmet/Ahmed, things he done, and things Ezio done in ACR... I liked seeing him thrown off the cliff though.

Megas_Doux
05-22-2014, 03:49 PM
Historically, the borgias were a bunch of nutters. Morally, they were akin to the hillbillies from the film "Deliverance". A game will always exaggerate facts and add poetic licence, but as real-life historical villains, the Borgias were almost cartoonish in their antics, and the biggest nutter was indeed Cesare. Thats probably why i enjoyed having him as a villain.

Cesare was a HUGE wasted opportunity, historically he was pretty smart man that excelled in both strategy and close combat. I wished for him to be somewhat of a nemesis to Ezio, someone who could truly put Ezio to a test, instead ALL we got, was a whinny overreacted character yealing "GUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADS!!!!!!!" everytime he appeared on screen, UGH!

I-Like-Pie45
05-22-2014, 03:53 PM
King Desmond

Markaccus
05-22-2014, 03:55 PM
Cesare was a HUGE wasted opportunity, historically he was pretty talented in both strategy and close combat. I wished for him to be somewhat of a nemesis to Ezio, someone who could truly put Ezio to a test, instead ALL we got, was a whinny overreacted character yealing "GUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADS!!!!!!!" everytime he appeared on screen, UGH!

Yes, they did tend to focus on his madness, rather than his ruthless efficiency and military prowess, but that was probably due to the subject of the game. They could have found a better voice actor to play him though. "ASSASSINO!!! GET HEEEM!"

Jexx21
05-22-2014, 03:56 PM
seeing as you only have 9 villains here, you should edit the poll so that haytham is included and replaces torres with Black Bart

jayjay275
05-22-2014, 05:16 PM
"Charles Lee, why'd you ask?"

Will_Lucky
05-22-2014, 05:33 PM
I liked Haythem, but he isn't on the list. Elsewhere I've found the villians generally poor.

Al-Mualim was great, a real thin link in terms of his philosophy and actions. Defeated because he didn't underestimated Altair.

Rodrigo and Cesare, truth be told I don't even consider them Templars, the Templars don't even consider them Templars. Rodrigo was just power hungry, nothing more. Cesare represented nothing of the skills and abilities he was historically said to possess.

Prince Ahmet was good he understood the Templar philosophy and that of the Assassins very well, but I don't think we really got the chance to see enough of him. Not to mention his entire plan depended on accessing the Library without knowing what was within to save him and lets face facts that was a poor plan in itself with no back-up whatsoever. He was finished the moment Ezio delayed him.

Charles Lee, Christ now there is a man who was historically destroyed. Lets not even go into this one.

Madeleine de L'Isle just wasn't seen enough simple as. Not enough of her to judge properly at least.

Governor Torres. Not bad really I quite liked him. Don't know enough of his historically though to judge his actions but I thought he was alright but he just doesn't stand out.

Can't judge the last one as I've not played Freedom Cry.

Shahkulu101
05-22-2014, 05:37 PM
Who's Prince Ahmed? Not sure I remember him.

Ahmet was cool though.

Will_Lucky
05-22-2014, 05:50 PM
Who's Prince Ahmed? Not sure I remember him.

Ahmet was cool though.

Hmm I did notice that while I was typing and forgot to correct it...stupid Will.

Shahkulu101
05-22-2014, 06:02 PM
Hmm I did notice that while I was typing and forgot to correct it...stupid Will.

I actually didn't notice the mistake in your post, I was referring to the error in the poll option. :p

Will_Lucky
05-22-2014, 06:10 PM
I actually didn't notice the mistake in your post, I was referring to the error in the poll option. :p

Wait, that means I got it right the first time round? God I thought something was up while I spelled it the first time round...now to edit that post again.

Edit: This will learn me for waking up three hours earlier.

Hans684
05-22-2014, 06:12 PM
I'd don't really know, I like AM, PA, HK and Torres. All for different reasons.

Shahkulu101
05-22-2014, 06:14 PM
My favourite is Black Bart. He is not an option despite being AC4's main villain. Fix this.

Kirokill
05-22-2014, 06:15 PM
Who's Prince Ahmed? Not sure I remember him.

Ahmet was cool though.

I wonder why it's like that in the game.
The name is both written and pronounced with "d" in the end...

Jexx21
05-22-2014, 06:17 PM
I just realized that ACR and AC4 have the same problems: their villains aren't really expanded upon aren't given proper development (barring Black Bart in AC4). They're both written by Darby McDevitt.

I think Darby needs more practice in villain exposition.

Will_Lucky
05-22-2014, 06:21 PM
I just realized that ACR and AC4 have the same problems: their villains aren't really expanded upon aren't given proper development (barring Black Bart in AC4). They're both written by Darby McDevitt.

I think Darby needs more practice in villain exposition.

I just think its a problem with the games in general to be honest. I've never really considered a villian other than Haythem...well very good to be honest. The games have tended to get the Protagnoist and some of their allies right, but when it comes to the villains I've found all of them to lack depth or the necessary historical accuracy.

SixKeys
05-22-2014, 06:29 PM
Al Mualim. I still love his philosophical discussions with Altaïr. Such a cool voice, too.

Cesare and King Washington were fun in an over-the-top way.

Jexx21
05-22-2014, 06:41 PM
I just think its a problem with the games in general to be honest. I've never really considered a villian other than Haythem...well very good to be honest. The games have tended to get the Protagnoist and some of their allies right, but when it comes to the villains I've found all of them to lack depth or the necessary historical accuracy.

haytham*

and the villain exposition in the non Darby games was fine in my experience.

Megas_Doux
05-22-2014, 06:48 PM
Al Mualim. I still love his philosophical discussions with Altaïr. Such a cool voice, too.



Al Mualim went from a ominous like grand master of a mysterious order in AC I to, my Grandpa in ACR.....

LoyalACFan
05-22-2014, 08:11 PM
I feel like Haytham should be the choice for AC3 instead of Lee, but lacking him, I went with Al Mualim.

GunnerGalactico
05-22-2014, 08:18 PM
I'm going with Al Mualim, I like his wisdom and he is an interesting character even though he turned out to be a villain.

My second choices are Governor Torres and King Washington.

Locopells
05-23-2014, 12:30 AM
Governor Torres the main villain of AC4? Can't say I agree with that. This is all up to interpretation, but I consider the main antagonist to be Black Bart. He's the one who's got presence the whole game, he's Edward's natural Shadow archetype (i.e. everything Edward could've been), he's the one player/character constantly hunts (for different reasons at different times, though). He's the one whose Creed was at its biggest conflict with Edward's forming life view (because it was essentially the one Edward was following, being a pirate and all that, but not the one his heart wanted to follow). Killing Torres last is just tying lose ends and showcasing Edward's overall character arc, but Black Bart - he is the villain.

Had he been there I'd definitely vote for him. But with this selection, I'm not sure. I guess Al Mualim, have to think about it.

Agreed, I'd probably've done the same.


Cesare was a HUGE wasted opportunity, historically he was pretty smart man that excelled in both strategy and close combat. I wished for him to be somewhat of a nemesis to Ezio, someone who could truly put Ezio to a test, instead ALL we got, was a whinny overreacted character yealing "GUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADS!!!!!!!" everytime he appeared on screen, UGH!

Wondered how long it would be before that came up...

King Washington for me. Not necessarily the best villain, but definitely the 'ultimate' one - gains the most power from a POE, and seriously pisses me off into the bargain...

JustPlainQuirky
05-23-2014, 12:49 AM
All the main villains from the games I've played tend to suck so far.

Though I hear Ceasare is a good villain.

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 12:59 AM
All the main villains from the games I've played tend to suck so far.

Though I hear Ceasare is a good villain.
lol, he's the worst villain

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-23-2014, 01:08 AM
King Washington for me. Not necessarily the best villain, but definitely the 'ultimate' one - gains the most power from a POE, and seriously pisses me off into the bargain...

Washington was boss lol :P

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 01:09 AM
GIVE ME CHARLES LEE's dogs

SixKeys
05-23-2014, 01:54 AM
Torres was by far the weakest. He's completely forgettable and never once poses much of a threat. He seems more clueless than anything most of the time. He's the Templar Grandmaster and doesn't realize he's been followed by two assassins when he meets up with Laurens Prins, Prins actually has better senses. He seems to have been put in the game more as a red herring than an actual villain.

JustPlainQuirky
05-23-2014, 02:30 AM
@Jexx

rly? why? :confused:

@sixkeys

Darby said Edward was the true villain of AC4 :rolleyes:



edit:

can't believe Charles Lee is winning. He didn't even feel like a villain to me. Just some dude who Connor is pissed at for choking him.
Felt silly.

Assassin's Creed villains tend to suck IMO. Unless Haytham counts.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-23-2014, 02:37 AM
@Jexx

rly? why? :confused:

@sixkeys

Darby said Edward was the true villain of AC4 :rolleyes:



edit:

can't believe Charles Lee is winning. He didn't even feel like a villain to me. Just some dude who Connor is pissed at for choking him.
Felt silly.

Assassin's Creed villains tend to suck IMO. Unless Haytham counts.

Yeah, if Haytham was a choice, he would've won by a long shot.

And lol at who Darby said the real AC4 villain was, almost makes sense when you think about it. *cough*pirate*cough*

And Mualim and Lee are neck and neck now O_O interesting...

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 02:43 AM
Torres was by far the weakest. He's completely forgettable and never once poses much of a threat. He seems more clueless than anything most of the time. He's the Templar Grandmaster and doesn't realize he's been followed by two assassins when he meets up with Laurens Prins, Prins actually has better senses. He seems to have been put in the game more as a red herring than an actual villain.
They didn't make it clear enough, but Torres knew that he was leading Edward to Prins.. because Edward was forcing Torres to... if you don't remember, Edward took him hostage in the mission before it.

AC4 actually suffers from bad story execution just like AC3. Really hope that Unity turns that trend around. The stories themselves have been getting better though, they just need to add more villain exposition, or specifically, they need to do that in cutscenes, as there were a lot of times where the villains would be walking and talking with you stalking, and that isn't really the best time to actually learn more about anything in relation to the story besides mission details.

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 02:51 AM
can't believe Charles Lee is winning. He didn't even feel like a villain to me. Just some dude who Connor is pissed at for choking him.
Felt silly.

- Threatened to kill 4 year old Connor (who the hell threatens a 4 year old)
- Incited the Boston Massacre
- Turned the people of his tribe against him, forcing him to kill his best friend
- Threatened to destroy everything Connor cared about

Although, this behavior was all most likely to manipulate Connor, except for the middle two. Charles Lee most likely was a master manipulator and his goal with threatening a four year old most likely was to strike fear in the Mohawk peoples so that they would stay away and not be an impediment to the Templar cause. His goals with threatening to destroy everything that Connor cared about was most likely to have Connor do something that would get himself killed. However, both these plans obviously went awry and Charles Lee created the very thing he did not want to.

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 03:32 AM
Da hell is Haytham?

Looks like there's still hope for this place after all...

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 03:52 AM
I don't see how Charles Lee is winning. You know he's a bad dude from the get go and you know exactly where you stand with him. It's very cut and dry black and white. But Al Mualim was like a father figure to Altaïr, and he manipulated him into doing his bidding like a lapdog. And then turns around and tries to kill him after admitting that he already tried to brainwash him before. That's pretty damn evil, and all after pulling the horribly cruel joke of stabbing Altaïr in the guts and letting him think he was dead, and then the added humiliation of making him earn back his rank only to ultimately trick him into betraying his own brotherhood without even knowing. This is the same man that practically raised Altaïr and was the person he trusted most.

There's really nothing more evil than that. Just his manipulation and betrayal alone(not only to Altaïr but to all of his followers) makes Al Mualim the most evil villan by far

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 04:39 AM
You know he's a bad dude from the get go
Not really, at the beginning he was a very earnest and polite individual. He was genuinely keen on knowledge and training and was a loyal soldier, sure there were hints of a superiority complex here and there but It's the stupid twist at the start of sequence 5 that came COMPLETELY out of no where and contradicted what he said to Haytham at the beginning that really made him come off as an a-hole.

I-Like-Pie45
05-23-2014, 04:48 AM
Not really, at the beginning he was a very earnest and polite individual. He was genuinely keen on knowledge and training and was a loyal soldier, sure there were hints of a superiority complex here and there but It's the stupid twist at the start of sequence 5 that came COMPLETELY out of no where and contradicted what he said to Haytham at the beginning that really made him come off as an a-hole.

After Haytham reject his love for tiny woman, Lee go mad! Oh no!

That is why Lee hate native

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 05:24 AM
Not really, at the beginning he was a very earnest and polite individual. He was genuinely keen on knowledge and training and was a loyal soldier, sure there were hints of a superiority complex here and there but It's the stupid twist at the start of sequence 5 that came COMPLETELY out of no where and contradicted what he said to Haytham at the beginning that really made him come off as an a-hole.

Well I didn't really count the Haytham sequences because he isn't your Villan/nemisis in that part if the game. Of course he is a kiss *** to his boss. Haytham is the friggin grand master Charles was always a suck up and craved attention(even in real life) and was willing to play both sides for it. Especially if it meant power/influence/respect.

I only based what I said earlier on the game when you play as Connor. Counting the Haytham sequences isn't fair because Charles isn't going to be a **** to his own boss. And he also wouldn't even be a villan from that Templar perspective. So my point still stands. When you play as a Templar he's a super nice polite guy. And then when you play as Connor he is an evil jerk. But either way he is fully consistent either or. From a Templar perspective he couldn't be nicer. And from an Assassin view pure evil. Haytham still thuroghly trusts him at the end of the game so he is the same Charles from haythams viewpoint throughout the game. And Tward Connor he is evil throughout the game.

So either way I still say he is very cut and dry/ black and white because you know exactly where you stand with him the entire time. No betrayal to his own friends no sneakiness. It is all just a matter of perspective and what side you are on if Charles is a nice dude or a complete ***. And for that reason you can't count the Haytham sequences for this because this is about villains and from that perspective/ for those sequences he is not your enemy

jona137911
05-23-2014, 05:42 AM
Césare Borgia is bloody full blown sociopath. Did I mention he bangs his sister and killed his own father and brother?

Sigv4rd
05-23-2014, 06:02 AM
Horses. Horses have been the greatest adversary since day one! Only Edward was able to avoid their evil...

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 06:04 AM
Well I didn't really count the Haytham sequences because he isn't your Villan/nemisis in that part if the game. Of course he is a kiss *** to his boss. Haytham is the friggin grand master Charles was always a suck up and craved attention(even in real life) and was willing to play both sides for it. Especially if it meant power/influence/respect.

I only based what I said earlier on the game when you play as Connor. Counting the Haytham sequences isn't fair because Charles isn't going to be a **** to his own boss. And he also wouldn't even be a villan from that Templar perspective. So my point still stands. When you play as a Templar he's a super nice polite guy. And then when you play as Connor he is an evil jerk. But either way he is fully consistent either or. From a Templar perspective he couldn't be nicer. And from an Assassin view pure evil. Haytham still thuroghly trusts him at the end of the game so he is the same Charles from haythams viewpoint throughout the game. And Tward Connor he is evil throughout the game.

So either way I still say he is very cut and dry/ black and white because you know exactly where you stand with him the entire time. No betrayal to his own friends no sneakiness. It is all just a matter of perspective and what side you are on if Charles is a nice dude or a complete ***. And for that reason you can't count the Haytham sequences for this because this is about villains and from that perspective/ for those sequences he is not your enemy
That doesn't make sense when applied to Haytham and Pitcairn , though...if your point stands, it should apply to everyone else..Haytham and Pitcairn were honorable when they weren't enemies and when they were. Hickey was a vain jock from both perspectives too.

It's not really about perspectives, Charles was genuinely a nice guy...he even saved Ziio from wolves.

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 06:05 AM
Did I mention he bangs his sister
People seem to always bring that point up when saying Cesare is a cool villain....how does THAT make him a cool villain?

I-Like-Pie45
05-23-2014, 06:10 AM
That doesn't make sense when applied to Haytham and Pitcairn , though...if your point stands, it should apply to everyone else..Haytham and Pitcairn were honorable when they weren't enemies and when they were. Hickey was a vain jock from both perspectives too.

It's not really about perspectives, Charles was genuinely a nice guy...he even saved Ziio from wolves.

That was before he realized that she was to be the father of Haytham's child instead of him


People seem to always bring that point up when saying Cesare is a cool villain....how does THAT make him a cool villain?

Because if you want to show that a villain is bad but don't want to go through all the trouble of actually writing them to be convincing villains just go the lazy route: just toss in some incest, pedophilia, implied homosexuality, and all those other societal taboos and the game writes itself from there! Or just have them kill dog

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 06:13 AM
That was before he realized that she was to be the father of Haytham's child instead of him
But Charles became his own enemy then, since he helped Haytham find ze small indien women.



Because if you want to show that a villain is bad but don't want to go through all the trouble of actually writing them to be convincing villains just go the lazy route: just toss in some incest, pedophilia, implied homosexuality, and all those other societal taboos and the game writes itself from there! Or just have them kill dog
and whining "it's MINE ALL MINE"?

Shahkulu101
05-23-2014, 06:17 AM
"I WILL NOT DIE BY THE HANDS OF MAN!"

"THEN I LEAVE YOU TO FATE."

Omg so kewl nd deap

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 06:24 AM
I remember Cesare's 'main' quote that was featured in several ACB trailers (which is not whole, I think they removed 'if I want to take', at least in a few instances) - "If I want to live, I live. If I want you to die, YOU DIE". Honestly, it's such an awesome line. Doesn't have as much gravitas in the game itself, though, since the context of the conversation doesn't paint Cesare as being as awesome.

I think you can find in Cesare a great (if somewhat one-dimensional and power-hungry) villain, you just have to cut some lines there and there and there.

HercRembrandt
05-23-2014, 06:27 AM
It's a little unfair to say Cesare's relationship with his family was lazy game writing. Because, y'know, the guy wasn't invented by Ubisoft. The Borgias were a pretty special bunch of people.

If anything, that's why he was chosen to be the villain. And possibly the Borgias were one of the reasons for Renaissance Italy as a setting in the first place.

Shahkulu101
05-23-2014, 06:30 AM
I remember Cesare's 'main' quote that was featured in several ACB trailers (which is not whole, I think they removed 'if I want to take', at least in a few instances) - "If I want to live, I live. If I want you to die, YOU DIE". Honestly, it's such an awesome line. Doesn't have as much gravitas in the game itself, though, since the context of the conversation doesn't paint Cesare as being as awesome.

I think you can find in Cesare a great (if somewhat one-dimensional and power-hungry) villain, you just have to cut some lines there and there and there.

Yes you'd expect those words to be uttered in a more gripping scenario - rather than shoving an apple in some fat blokes mouth. Reminded me of The Biggest Loser (okay not really).

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 06:37 AM
It's a little unfair to say Cesare's relationship with his family was lazy game writing. Because, y'know, the guy wasn't invented by Ubisoft. The Borgias were a pretty special bunch of people.

If anything, that's why he was chosen to be the villain. And possibly the Borgias were one of the reasons for Renaissance Italy as a setting in the first place.
If it's the point of focus in the villain's antagonism (instead of his military genius and tactician intelligence) then yes, it IS quite sub-par

Hope is waning...Cesare has 5 votes

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 06:53 AM
That doesn't make sense when applied to Haytham and Pitcairn , though...if your point stands, it should apply to everyone else..Haytham and Pitcairn were honorable when they weren't enemies and when they were. Hickey was a vain jock from both perspectives too.

It's not really about perspectives, Charles was genuinely a nice guy...he even saved Ziio from wolves.

I never said the same applies to Pitcain and Haytham or any of the others because they aren't Charles Lee. I only was referring to Charles not the others. Charles is his own thing. He is a man of absolutes. The type of man who is devoutly loyal to his friends. And savagely cruel to his enemies and people that stand in his way. So if you are on his good side you see all the good in him(Haytams point of view). And if you are an enemy or stand im his way you meet Charles' dark side and he burns your village and murders your friends and tries to get you hung. Charles' friends suit his lust for power and influence thus he is a good man to them. The people that would try and stop him however meet a very different man.

The other Templars are more devoted to their causes and do not hate their enemies Pitcairn for example truely believes he is doing the right thing trying to negotiate or end a revolt before it gets out of control. He even tries to explain himself to Connor because he doesn't understand why Connor is being so foolish as to stop him because he feels he is doing the right thing so much that he tries to convince Connor that it is in the best interest of both of them. A simmilar story goes for William Johnson and his land deal. But IMO these two were the most devout Templars besides Haytham himself who was also very true to his beliefs.

Hickey was only interested in money he even admits that. And Benjamin Church was only interested in putting in his lot with the side he thought would prevail even if it meant disobeying the Templars. If anything he was either a coward or a devout loyalist rather than a loyal Templar. Neither of those two were good Templars and thus why Hickey is never really likable and Haytham openly hunts church later on. His attitude for church changes in the story unlike Charles who he still likes.

I don't know why you were applying what I said about Charles to all of the Templars. That's way too much of an ofversimplification and generalization. All Templars do not have to fit an archetype. They are each unique with their own personalities and convictions(one of the things I really liked about AC 3).

But what I said specifically about Charles still holds true he is very straightforward. If you are on his side and help him it's all sunshine and roses couldn't be a nicer guy. But get in his way and he's ruthless. When it comes to Charles(and Charles only) it really is a matter of perspective. But in each viewpoint he is consistent. Either good if you are a Templar. Or evil from the assassins. Choose one perspective and there is 0 change from beginning to end. The change is only seen when you swap points of view. Charles character is pretty flat really(at least based only on the games and not any books which I haven't read). If you suit his interests you're fine. If you don't he's a **** to you. Charles always puts Charles first. Even when it seems like he isn't he's only kissing *** for his own benefit(ie to be haythams favorite and thus next in line for grand master).

He is sly and manipulative, but he is loyal however and doesn't betray his own like Al Mualim did. And for that reason Al Mualim is worse than Lee IMO

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 07:10 AM
I never said the same applies to Pitcain and Haytham or any of the others because they aren't Charles Lee. I only was referring to Charles not the others. Charles is his own thing. He is a man of absolutes. The type of man who is devoutly loyal to his friends. And savagely cruel to his enemies and people that stand in his way. So if you are on his good side you see all the good in him(Haytams point of view). And if you are an enemy or stand im his way you meet Charles' dark side and he burns your village and murders your friends and tries to get you hung. Charles' friends suit his lust for power and influence thus he is a good man to them. The people that would try and stop him however meet a very different man.

The other Templars are more devoted to their causes and do not hate their enemies Pitcairn for example truely believes he is doing the right thing trying to negotiate or end a revolt before it gets out of control. He even tries to explain himself to Connor because he doesn't understand why Connor is being so foolish as to stop him because he feels he is doing the right thing so much that he tries to convince Connor that it is in the best interest of both of them. A simmilar story goes for William Johnson and his land deal. But IMO these two were the most devout Templars besides Haytham himself who was also very true to his beliefs.

Hickey was only interested in money he even admits that. And Benjamin Church was only interested in putting in his lot with the side he thought would prevail even if it meant disobeying the Templars. If anything he was either a coward or a devout loyalist rather than a loyal Templar. Neither of those two were good Templars and thus why Hickey is never really likable and Haytham openly hunts church later on. His attitude for church changes in the story unlike Charles who he still likes.

I don't know why you were applying what I said about Charles to all of the Templars. That's way too much of an ofversimplification and generalization. All Templars do not have to fit an archetype. They are each unique with their own personalities and convictions(one of the things I really liked about AC 3).

But what I said specifically about Charles still holds true he is very straightforward. If you are on his side and help him it's all sunshine and roses couldn't be a nicer guy. But get in his way and he's ruthless. When it comes to Charles(and Charles only) it really is a matter of perspective. But in each viewpoint he is consistent. Either good if you are a Templar. Or evil from the assassins. Choose one perspective and there is 0 change from beginning to end. The change is only seen when you swap points of view. Charles character is pretty flat really(at least based only on the games and not any books which I haven't read). If you suit his interests you're fine. If you don't he's a **** to you. Charles always puts Charles first. Even when it seems like he isn't he's only kissing *** for his own benefit(ie to be haythams favorite and thus next in line for grand master).

He is sly and manipulative, but he is loyal however and doesn't betray his own like Al Mualim did. And for that reason Al Mualim is worse than Lee IMO
Your tone was rather broad when speaking about it but anyways...

You're saying that Charles would only be evil to you if you stand in his way, well how did a 5 year old Connor stand in his way? Why didn't he apply the same tactic of interrogation when he met Ziio for example? why didn't he express the racially driven hate that he has for the Mohawk earlier? We can't JUST apply Connor's point of view because there are situations that happen to be similar and occur from both point of views but Charles has a COMPLETELY different character, it has NOTHING to do with perspectives or his treatment of fellow comrades, it's about substantial character qualities that Charles possesses and completely loses when we switch to Connor. It's a part of the character that you can't just ignore because YOU think it's unfair...that doesn't make any sense.

but fine, lets talk about it from Connor's point of view then...Charles chokes a kid and insults his entire life..oooooh, what an a-hole..he's so evil but THEN, Connor and Charles share a drink before the latter's demise as a gesture from Charles to Connor that he has won and "here's to my death and your victory" he even felt pity for Connor as he lay below his feet and asked why he persists...he could have killed but he did not.
What's interesting about the Connor-Lee feud is that BOTH hate each other's guts but they're both honorable enough to share a drink together. sure, Altair and Al-mualim had a father son relationship but that's arguably a cliche relationship of love > hate..the relationship between Connor and Charles is far from being a generic B&W tale of good and evil.

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 07:16 AM
Yes you'd expect those words to be uttered in a more gripping scenario - rather than shoving an apple in some fat blokes mouth. Reminded me of The Biggest Loser (okay not really).

Well, honestly, I'm fine with shoving an apple in some fat blokes mouth, in principle. But in the context of 'I am an awesome powerful guy' rather than 'I am a spoiled brat'. Rodrigo was THE main antagonist of AC2, somebody we hunted and hated, who eluded us and was ahead of us, and that scene where they talked was supposed to be 'holy **** Cesare dealt with him like he's a punk'. It also could be slightly re-arranged to show how he believes that nothing can kill him.

Imagine if Cesare didn't go on a *****y rant, some lines cut there and there. Imagine when Lucrezia runs in to say that the Pope intends to poison him, Cesare didn't actually bite any apple. Imagine after hearing this, Cesare takes the apple and says, 'If I want to take, I take', then bites it off demonstratively on purpose, and continues, 'if I want to live, I live', and then shoves it in the Pope's mouth and yells 'IF I WANT YOU TO DIE, YOU DIE!!!!'. Pretty much the same lines of dialogue, but some rearranged actions and suddenly instead of an act of desperation this becomes act of open defiance to the Pope and fate.

LoyalACFan
05-23-2014, 07:45 AM
Well, honestly, I'm fine with shoving an apple in some fat blokes mouth, in principle. But in the context of 'I am an awesome powerful guy' rather than 'I am a spoiled brat'. Rodrigo was THE main antagonist of AC2, somebody we hunted and hated, who eluded us and was ahead of us, and that scene where they talked was supposed to be 'holy **** Cesare dealt with him like he's a punk'. It also could be slightly re-arranged to show how he believes that nothing can kill him.

Imagine if Cesare didn't go on a *****y rant, some lines cut there and there. Imagine when Lucrezia runs in to say that the Pope intends to poison him, Cesare didn't actually bite any apple. Imagine after hearing this, Cesare takes the apple and says, 'If I want to take, I take', then bites it off demonstratively on purpose, and continues, 'if I want to live, I live', and then shoves it in the Pope's mouth and yells 'IF I WANT YOU TO DIE, YOU DIE!!!!'. Pretty much the same lines of dialogue, but some rearranged actions and suddenly instead of an act of desperation this becomes act of open defiance to the Pope and fate.

That would have been a much cooler way to handle the scene, but by that point I think it was too late to salvage Cesare as a character. He had already been established as a whiny, spoiled brat with no real power beyond what he had inherited from Rodrigo. If he had been more of a threat in the game, and if we had ever really felt as though he had a shot at usurping power after Rodrigo's death, it would have worked. But hell, we had spent the entire game up until that point undermining his rule right under his nose. By the time he returned to Rome, we had completed dozens of missions dedicated to taking him down; cutting off his funding, expelling his French allies, and killing his lieutenants left and right. He was utterly impotent by the time he killed his father, and the whole next sequence was dedicated exclusively to showing us just how screwed he was. If he had been defiant instead of desperate in the apple scene, I feel like he would have felt even lamer since he was obviously completely f**ked. At least the way they portrayed him was more like a cornered animal, instead of a delusional nobody.

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 07:56 AM
He had already been established as a whiny, spoiled brat with no real power beyond what he had inherited from Rodrigo.

Well, of course to make that work it would require to change Cesare's portrayal beforehand, in pretty much the whole game, but I think it's mostly a matter of cutting some lines and changing his attitude in cutscenes.


If he had been defiant instead of desperate in the apple scene, I feel like he would have felt even lamer since he was obviously completely f**ked. At least the way they portrayed him was more like a cornered animal, instead of a delusional nobody.

Don't necessarily agree. The point of that scene could be, 'you ****ed things up, old man (Because Cesare for the most part was absent from Rome while we were removing everything), and I'm going to get it all back on track'. It might seem delusional, but it also might seem like he knows what he's doing, again, it all depends on the portrayal. Really, all he needs is the Apple and he can get things rolling again, so it's not much of a stretch for him to make a comeback out of all of this.

But, yeah, the way Cesare's portrayed now, making him defiant for that one scene won't work at all.

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 08:05 AM
@assassin M. I aplologise if I sounded confusing but I didn't mean to generalize.

And yes I am saying Charles is only evil because you stand in his way. And yes 5 year old Connor does stand in his way because Charles was leading an attack on the village(under orders from is boss George Washington). If Connor were left free he could potentially have warned the village warriors of the danger. And I think you are over generalizing again when you say he has a "racially driven hate" for the Mohawk. Nowhere does he go on a rampage exclusively killing Mohawk(unless ordered to do so by Washington). And if he hated the Mohawk racially then why did he work with them later in the game and why would they trust him? And add to that the real life Lee was married to a Mohawk woman. And since we don't see his wife or family in AC3 it's safe to assume the same is true in the game. When he is ranting on about Connors people he refers to how they "live in the dirt" "desperately hold on to the old ways" "blind to the true ways of the world".

He is not saying he "hates" them but he is elaborating the very principal I am talking about. Charles interests are with the Templars and the Colonies. The expansion of the colonies and the Templars power are parts if his goals. He speaks of the "wiser of your kind bow at our feet and beg for mercy". He is talking about the natives that accept British/Templar power thus why he is working with Connors friend later in who decides to fight with the British. While at the time where he strangles Connor his tribe chose no side in the war, opposed colonial expansion and authority, and protected the Precurser site from all who saught it. Connors tribe was in Charles' way as I said before thus the savagery evil and anger. And he strangles Connor because he asked for the location of the village and Connor spit in his face and struggled and refused to tell. So Connor was standing in Lees way by opposing and not giving him info. Thus why he lashes out on Connor.

When Lee met Ziio he did not do the same for the simple reason that his boss was there and his boss had the hots for her. You don't beat up your bosses girlfriend if you want to keep his favor. And also Ziio wasn't really in his way and he wasn't the decision maker on that mission Haytham was the highest ranking man there and Lee would not disrespect his authority by making an executive decision like that.

So once again the evidence shows that Lee doesn't have some kind of dramatic shift when we switch to Connor he is the same man he had always been it only Appears different because this is the first time we are introduced to this aspect of his character/personality because before that poit we only viewd him through the eyes of a man on his good side. And as for the drink at the end. You said it yourself Connor and Lees relationship is not B&W(as in Connor=good Lee=evil). Lee is not pure evil. He believes in what he does and is passionate about it. And from the Templar view(Haythams sequences) that is good and honorable. But from Connors point of view it is very bad. Lee has enough honor to realize and aknowledge when he'd been bested. And when he said he pitied Connor at the shipyard he is talking about how pointless his struggle is and why he is bothering to oppose him. Lee was frustrated with Connor for standing in his way. And during that speeh Lee has a gun pointed at Connor, and likely would have finished him when he was done had Connor not shot him. But when he has a drink with Connor he is simply accepting defeat and paying his respects for Connor only because he is finished. There was nothing left for Lee and there was nothing for Connor to stand in the way of anymore. Lee was a man on honor and pride and was from day one to the very end. The goodness or badness of him is purely a matter of how you want to look at it. Thus why he is consistently good from haythams point of view(even in haythams last moments he praises him). And evil to Connor. Do you see what I mean? There really is no change of character at all. And if you choose a side to look at him (for the purpose if this thread Connors specifically because it's about villains) his behavior does not change from either perspective. Only what you see and the goodness/right or wrong of his actions is different from the two views. To the Templars he is a good man and to Connor he is evil. Those views never change. His character doesn't change. He'd be a hero if we played the game as him and pursued Templar goals. He's Connors antithesis. He's his equal. A Templar mirror of him(even down to the Haytham father figure) and blind pursuit and lack of mercy tward those they see as enemies. Conner could just as easily be Lee if we played as a Templar. The drink is poetic aknowledgement of their parallelism. Despite their hatred of eachother for antogonizing the other. They can respect and understand in that moment how the other feels. It is a somber moment. Because the hero of one cause dies and the other succeeds. But neither cause is really "evil"

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 08:15 AM
@assassin M. I aplologise if I sounded confusing but I didn't mean to generalize.
No harm done, thank you for clarifying.


And yes I am saying Charles is only evil because you stand in his way. And yes 5 year old Connor does stand in his way because Charles was leading an attack on the village(under orders from is boss George Washington). If Connor were left free he could potentially have warned the village warriors of the danger. And I think you are over generalizing again when you say he has a "racially driven hate" for the Mohawk. Nowhere does he go on a rampage exclusively killing Mohawk(unless ordered to do so by Washington). And if he hated the Mohawk racially then why did he work with them later in the game and why would they trust him? And add to that the real life Lee was married to a Mohawk woman. And since we don't see his wife or family in AC3 it's safe to assume the same is true in the game. When he is ranting on about Connors people he refers to how they "live in the dirt" "desperately hold on to the old ways" "blind to the true ways of the world".
Woah woah, Lee never attacked the village, neither on his own nor on orders from GW, Lee had nothing to do with it at all.

That's actually why his comments are so confusing in the first place because they clash with his RL counter part AND what he said to Haytham earlier in the game about war.


He is not saying he "hates" them but he is elaborating the very principal I am talking about. Charles interests are with the Templars and the Colonies. The expansion of the colonies and the Templars power are parts if his goals. He speaks of the "wiser of your kind bow at our feet and beg for mercy". He is talking about the natives that accept British/Templar power thus why he is working with Connors friend later in who decides to fight with the British. While at the time where he strangles Connor his tribe chose no side in the war, opposed colonial expansion and authority, and protected the Precurser site from all who saught it. Connors tribe was in Charles' way as I said before thus the savagery evil and anger. And he strangles Connor because he asked for the location of the village and Connor spit in his face and struggled and refused to tell. So Connor was standing in Lees way by opposing and not giving him info. Thus why he lashes out on Connor.
Lee never asked Connor about the location of his village prior to Connor spitting on him...Lee only asked when he started choking the kid and he didn't even give Connor a chance to reply because he couldn't...he was being strangled to death and Lee was ranting.


When Lee met Ziio he did not do the same for the simple reason that his boss was there and his boss had the hots for her. You don't beat up your bosses girlfriend if you want to keep his favor. And also Ziio wasn't really in his way and he wasn't the decision maker on that mission Haytham was the highest ranking man there and Lee would not disrespect his authority by making an executive decision like that.
Haytham was not really involved romantically with Ziio at that point nor was there any indication of such a relationship and in regards to decision making, Charles took the initiative numerous times when he was Haytham without Haytham's consent...like kicking the locked door to Church's house or ordering Hickey to show respect to Haytham. what Lee could have done is pounce the lady and start interrogating her violently, most likely then Haytham would have stopped him but my point stands..


So once again the evidence shows that Lee doesn't have some kind of dramatic shift when we switch to Connor he is the same man he had always been it only Appears different because this is the first time we are introduced to this aspect of his character/personality because before that poit we only viewd him through the eyes of a man on his good side. And as for the drink at the end. You said it yourself Connor and Lees relationship is not B&W(as in Connor=good Lee=evil). Lee is not pure evil. He believes in what he does and is passionate about it. And from the Templar view(Haythams sequences) that is good and honorable. But from Connors point of view it is very bad. Lee has enough honor to realize and aknowledge when he'd been bested. And when he said he pitied Connor at the shipyard he is talking about how pointless his struggle is and why he is bothering to oppose him. Lee was frustrated with Connor for standing in his way. And during that speeh Lee has a gun pointed at Connor, and likely would have finished him when he was done had Connor not shot him. But when he has a drink with Connor he is simply accepting defeat and paying his respects for Connor only because he is finished. There was nothing left for Lee and there was nothing for Connor to stand in the way of anymore. Lee was a man on honor and pride and was from day one to the very end. The goodness or badness of him is purely a matter of how you want to look at it. Thus why he is consistently good from haythams point of view(even in haythams last moments he praises him). And evil to Connor. Do you see what I mean?
like I said, it doesnt really seem to be about PoVs at all, just a drastic change in character.

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 09:05 AM
M. Your telling me that Lee and his men show up near the village armed with guns. Lee is a military man during the 7 years war this is said in game and in real life. Ok add to the fact that the other Templars say "we have some questions for your elders" and Lee asks for the location of the village. Then mysteriously the village is on fire only a little while later? And even later we learn Washington ordered the attack that burned Connors village. 1+1=2. And all of that evidence VERY strongly implys that Lee was the man leading the assault that burned Connors village. Thus why Connor hates him so much and is obsessed with finding and killing Lee. I don't know how you can say anything else. If what you say is true then Connor would have just killed Washington. Normally I understand what you mean you're a pretty smart guy and I respect your thoughts but as for this I think your dead wrong Lee had to have something to do with the village all the evidence points to it

And as for Connor ok even if he couldn't answer he wasn't making an effort to. He was just trying to escape and run off and running off would ruin lees movement on the village by warning them. And he had spit in his face before that and tried to escape before he put him against the tree so Lee was probably very frustrated and angry with the lack of cooperation and the spitting in his face. Conner was in his way/ slowing his progress. And Lee doesn't like people in his way

And as a person with some military background opening a door for a superior without being ordered to is courtesy. And doing it with a forced entry is called taking point(a point man) and it's so your superior doesn't get killed opening the door. And telling Hickey to show respect is just another example of both Lees military discipline and desire to please his boss. All those actions were just *** kissing. Neither is taking initiative. It's just common practice and courtesy. Haytham was going to find another way in to Churches house but Lee ever the one to look better to his boss cleared an entrance for him. Lee never once over stepped his bounds in front of Haytham. And wouldn't do so. It isn't his place to violently interrogate anyone with his superior(who has more of a right to ask the questions) right beside him. There is nothing to show he would just violently assault someone with Haytham there to call the shots. And you were right about the Ziio thing I forgot thanks. But the point is still the same. His boss was there. He didn't want to look bad in front of him.

So all of those points still stand minus a few corrections to the details I forgot about and some clarifying. But the major points of each still hold true. So I honestly do not see a character shift. Other than that you don't see his bad side until then because you don't experience him around his enemies until that point and you just happen to play as his enemy. There is nothing to suggest that he wasn't always like that to his enemies and people in his way. And there is evidence that he is still a good guy in the eyes of the Templars(from Haythams speeches and conversations with Connor). So evidence stands showing that there never was a character shift. We were only introduced at that point to an aspect of his personality we had not yet seen. Nothing suggests that part of his personality wasn't always there. We just hadn't seen it until then. It's like Bioshock Infinate when you get to Colombia and everything seems so nice and beautiful and peaceful. And then you go to the carnival and realize there's public stoning of interracial couples and realize WOAH ****s ****ed up here. That's exactly the same thing as when we see lees bad side in that scene

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 09:14 AM
Thus why Connor hates him so much and is obsessed with finding and killing Lee. I don't know how you can say anything else. If what you say is true then Connor would have just killed Washington.

Connor is obsessed with finding and killing Lee because he THINKS that's what happened. That 1+1=2 you mentioned (Lee with gun + burned village = Lee attacked the village). But it wasn't. That was the whole point, to create this confusion both in Connor and in the player (otherwise it wouldn't have worked). And him NOT killing Washington is one of the points of his character arc and the character himself. That it shouldn't be about revenge, but that the goal is higher. In the end, he hunts Lee not because Lee burned his village - but because Lee's a Templar who still poses a danger.

(Also, there's no evidence pointing to Lee being responsible for burning the village, just conjecture - that's not evidence, that's PoV)

Locopells
05-23-2014, 09:15 AM
Horses. Horses have been the greatest adversary since day one! Only Edward was able to avoid their evil...

And Ezio in ACR...

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 10:02 AM
(Also, there's no evidence pointing to Lee being responsible for burning the village, just conjecture - that's not evidence, that's PoV)

But there is a pile of evidence to support the conjecture. Lee specifically asks where the village is. And Hickey says "we have some questions for your elders" in a very sarcastic and ominous tone. So they make it very clear that is where they are headed. Almost all of the men in the game and in real life served in the French and Indian War fighting for the Colonists/British. Add the fact that these men are armed(they're going to go have a peaceful chat in the village? So they all brought a rifle? Seems legit) and coincidentally during that very conflict they served in. Now add the fact that Washington ordered the attack(A high ranking colonial officer during the war, the same side as Lee). Hmmmm????? Then just a short wile after all that the village is burning. The only revelation later is that Washington was ultimately responsible for issuing the order. But Lee was the one to carry it out. Lee was a Templar but his day job was British soldier and he was at war with Connors tribe. It's the only thing that makes sense.

It may be conjecture but it has an awful lot of evidence to support it. To say he didn't do it is also conjecture and there is little to no factual evidence to support that argument.

What's the alternative? That Lee and his guys snuck into the village for a peaceful powwow and left just in time for Washington's troops to show up?(who just happened to fight on the same side of the war as Lee and his men btw). And that Connor was in a mini coma long enough for all that to happen? Are you kidding? Not even in the worst soap opera could that be the case. And there is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim if so it's very little.

Lee had to have been involved some how it doesn't add up otherwise. To claim he didn't is even more outrageous conjecture and can't be backed up. It's denial, high hopes, or fairy tales

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 10:40 AM
Lee had to have been involved some how it doesn't add up otherwise.

No, it doesn't add up if Lee WAS involved.
1. Lee doesn't know where the village is, and then soon it's suddenly ablaze? So he had enough time to find the village, regroup the forces, burn the village, AND take out all the forces away so there'd be no trace of any British troops? It makes more sense if Washington knew of the village and ordered an attack, while Lee and co. haven't (and that the events happened somewhat in parallel). Just because they're in the same army doesn't mean Lee had any close connection to Washington to know what scouting information he's got.
2. Lee and co. had questions, but they burned the village instead? What? Why? Of course they've got weapons with them - they want to know more about the Precursor site and need extra leverage to the people who would just send them away otherwise because it's secret.
3. If they were searching for the Precursor site (which was beyond the 'door' as we know, but the Templars thought that they still hadn't found it), as Haytham says - what point is there in burning the village dedicated to its protection? They'll get no information afterwards.
4. If we're to presume that Lee got into the village with the British forces, got the information they needed, then burnt it, then why wasn't that information acted upon in all the years? Haytham either would've continued searching for the Precursor site or would know for sure that it's a bust.
5. If we're to presume that Lee got into the village, DIDN'T get the information they needed, what was the point of burning the village? Again, as I said in point 3. - the village is dedicated to protecting knowledge about the Precursors, it makes no sense for the Templars to allow for the only people they could get information from at one point get possibly executed fully (the village was rebuilt, of course, but setting it ablaze means a possibility of everybody with knowledge dying).
6. Which brings to another point - if Templars KNEW about the order, why the **** did they allow it to happen? Because, again, it's not good for Templar goals for the village to be burned.

It doesn't make sense for Lee to be responsible for attack on the village.

The alternative, btw, is that Lee and co. don't find the village until it was too late, or don't find it at all. Why do you presume that Lee ever got to the village that day?

Sushiglutton
05-23-2014, 11:49 AM
I feel like my intellect is too lazy, because I don't remember a thing about the plot after I finish the games lol. Cool to see you guys break it down.

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 01:21 PM
Your tone was rather broad when speaking about it but anyways...

You're saying that Charles would only be evil to you if you stand in his way, well how did a 5 year old Connor stand in his way? Why didn't he apply the same tactic of interrogation when he met Ziio for example? why didn't he express the racially driven hate that he has for the Mohawk earlier? We can't JUST apply Connor's point of view because there are situations that happen to be similar and occur from both point of views but Charles has a COMPLETELY different character, it has NOTHING to do with perspectives or his treatment of fellow comrades, it's about substantial character qualities that Charles possesses and completely loses when we switch to Connor. It's a part of the character that you can't just ignore because YOU think it's unfair...that doesn't make any sense.

but fine, lets talk about it from Connor's point of view then...Charles chokes a kid and insults his entire life..oooooh, what an a-hole..he's so evil but THEN, Connor and Charles share a drink before the latter's demise as a gesture from Charles to Connor that he has won and "here's to my death and your victory" he even felt pity for Connor as he lay below his feet and asked why he persists...he could have killed but he did not.
What's interesting about the Connor-Lee feud is that BOTH hate each other's guts but they're both honorable enough to share a drink together. sure, Altair and Al-mualim had a father son relationship but that's arguably a cliche relationship of love > hate..the relationship between Connor and Charles is far from being a generic B&W tale of good and evil.
AC3's story is really a lot deeper than many people think, or even care to know. However, often times when I try to explain this I get told off and people say "we shouldn't have to look deep into a story to understand it." Sure, AC3 had horrible execution, but looking deep into a story is something that should be done.

Locopells
05-23-2014, 01:24 PM
Agreed, although I wish some people (critics mostly) seem to only try and do that for something like Battleship, which you're supposed to unplug your brain for and enjoy the ride...

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 01:29 PM
M, in regards to Charles, I really do think that the racism that Charles showed towards the Mohawk people was just to manipulate Connor into doing what he wanted... although that obviously didn't work.

GunnerGalactico
05-23-2014, 01:30 PM
AC3's story is really a lot deeper than many people think, or even care to know. However, often times when I try to explain this I get told off and people say "we shouldn't have to look deep into a story to understand it." Sure, AC3 had horrible execution, but looking deep into a story is something that should be done.

Well said :)

LoyalACFan
05-23-2014, 01:45 PM
AC3's story is really a lot deeper than many people think, or even care to know. However, often times when I try to explain this I get told off and people say "we shouldn't have to look deep into a story to understand it." Sure, AC3 had horrible execution, but looking deep into a story is something that should be done.

Absolutely, but if we have to examine it deeply and thoroughly to merely understand certain plot events at face value, then it's simply sloppily told. There were a few major things in AC3 that just flat didn't make sense until I replayed the game (namely the Boston Massacre and Lee's personality shift) and even now they're a little murky and uncertain.

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 01:54 PM
As I said, AC3 had terrible execution.

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 02:17 PM
AC has got a problem with well-told stories, to be honest. Assassin's Creed IV so far has got the most well-crafted story in the whole series.

I love AC1 story, but it's poorly paced as hell and is the heaven of exposition dumps.
The nicely structured AC2 story gets broken down with pointless filler in Venice and pacing problems in the second half.
ACB doesn't know what a character arc is. Or a proper villain.
ACR has a beautiful story, actually, but full of "eh?" moments (the painting mission, the boss mission, some others).
And AC3 has something really incredible hidden beneath the 'holy **** we need to put easter eggs for all the historical characters and these events and whatnot'. But again, poor pacing.

AC4, on the other hand, has wonderful pacing. Historical events that don't clash with story. Each character gets a set-up and a resolution, even if it's a minor one (i.e. no things like in AC2 where there's like, 'oh, here's Ugo, you have to gain his trust in this one sequence and then never see or hear from him again' or 'Where the **** has Rosa disappeared?', for example, and no things like in AC3 with 'who the **** is Lafayette and how do we know him?'). A wonderful character arc. A theme of finding your place in this world that runs through the story and the characters. It's not as philosophical as AC1, not as ambiguous as AC3, and yes it's not flawless (I do think that the Nassau sequences in the middle could be a little bit better integrated into the overall plot, but I don't consider that too big of a flaw, overall it still works - they're not as out of place as a few of the Venice sequences in AC2), and maybe it's not the best AC story, but I believe it's the best told AC story so far.

Jexx21
05-23-2014, 02:28 PM
AC4 suffers from a lack of good villain exposition however, barring Black Bart (who wasn't even a Templar). However, in hindsight, this may have been on purpose, or due to some of the villain exposition being contained in the stalk while they walk and talk sequences (which is a poor way to provide exposition). AC4 also suffered from poor exposition of the Assassin allies in my opinion, especially I feel like Edward knows them from before we start their side mission lines and we have no idea who they are.

AC4 was very much focused on the pirates.

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 02:38 PM
AC4 suffers from a lack of good villain exposition however, barring Black Bart (who wasn't even a Templar).

Black Bart is the main villain of AC4, though. Not any of the Templars. Both Templars and Assassins have enough exposition to serve their purpose in the game. Again, AC4 is not about Assassins vs. Templars directly - it's about finding your creed to follow.


AC4 also suffered from poor exposition of the Assassin allies in my opinion, especially I feel like Edward knows them from before we start their side mission lines and we have no idea who they are.

Allusions to knowing somebody from before the timeline of the game (and he only knows Rhonna) doesn't necessarily mean bad exposition. There is a problem, however, that if you don't complete the side missions, you don't get introductions to two of the Bureau leaders, which may make some things look weird (like Rhona's hug)

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-23-2014, 02:43 PM
AC3's story is really a lot deeper than many people think, or even care to know. However, often times when I try to explain this I get told off and people say "we shouldn't have to look deep into a story to understand it." Sure, AC3 had horrible execution, but looking deep into a story is something that should be done.

Agreed. Very well said!

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 03:58 PM
Thank you Farlander for explaining and sorry Bmark for not continuing, I went to sleep.


AC3's story is really a lot deeper than many people think, or even care to know. However, often times when I try to explain this I get told off and people say "we shouldn't have to look deep into a story to understand it." Sure, AC3 had horrible execution, but looking deep into a story is something that should be done.
indeed it should and the hypocrisy lies in the fact that when people tell Ezio off as simply a "womanizing joker" they'll be like "oh nooooeeezzz, that's an oversimplification, you have to look deeper"


M, in regards to Charles, I really do think that the racism that Charles showed towards the Mohawk people was just to manipulate Connor into doing what he wanted... although that obviously didn't work.
I never actually thought about that point and it's a really good one because it makes sense. Charles NEVER brings Connor's race up ever again when they meet later in life and he never expresses the disgust he does BEFORE meeting Connor.

I'd replay the game and further think about it but the PS3 is dead so i'll just have to watch a few cutscenes on YT instead x|

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 04:56 PM
@Farlander1991 AC3 is a bit of a pain when it comes to this kind of thing It has such a deep and beautiful story that was just unfortunately too much for one game, so when everything was edited down, or cut out for times sake, it resulted in a fairly choppy mess with a few plot holes, however a few of the plot holes can be filled by using the information given in the story by the characters, what they say, their actions/reactions, and looking at the events based on the real life historical actions of the people.

Now in the case of Lees involvement I still hold firm that it is the most viable theory based on what is said in the game, character actions, and history.


1. Lee doesn't know where the village is, and then soon it's suddenly ablaze? So he had enough time to find the village, regroup the forces, burn the village, AND take out all the forces away so there'd be no trace of any British troops? It makes more sense if Washington knew of the village and ordered an attack, while Lee and co. haven't (and that the events happened somewhat in parallel). Just because they're in the same army doesn't mean Lee had any close connection to Washington to know what scouting information he's got.
What evidence do you have to say Lee and his men, are not part of the main force? There could well be more soldiers in the surrounding area we do not see acting on Lee's order. They could well have been given the general location of the Village when ordered to attack it. Don't believe this version? Historically in the 1700s the vast majority of scouting for a field army was done by one of two types of soldier, Cavalrymen, and Rangers. Cavalry would scout on horseback and ride back to camp with intel, cavalry is used specifically for its speed. Rangers on the other hand can be ruled out because none of the men had a historic connection to the rangers, and none don their infamous berets. So these men were on foot, so they are infantry, thus most likely a part of the attacking force. So given two options of either a foot scouting force or the main assault, either way that is very involved in burning the village, either through physically burning it or providing the intel back to Washington(which is unlikely considering the time that would take Conner would need a mini coma)
And as far as finding the Village, it was literally like 100yards away. 5 seconds of stumbling through the woods and they undoubtedly would have found it, especially if there are more troops in the area, and if they took them by surprise with enough men it would not have taken long to lite the village and withdraw his men, it would likely be a smaller raiding party, and not an entire field army for a small village like that. And they obviously intended some kind of harm to the village to all be carrying weapons.
And they could not have been acting on their own as Templars, but as soldiers, for the simple fact that Haytham later says that he decided to give up the pursuit of the precursor site(more on this in another answer)


2. Lee and co. had questions, but they burned the village instead? What? Why? Of course they've got weapons with them - they want to know more about the Precursor site and need extra leverage to the people who would just send them away otherwise because it's secret.
Where does it say they want info on the precursor site? There's nothing to back that up. Haytham later in the game learned about the village burning and act stunned and confused, He says "we decided to stop pursuing the precursor site, and focus on other endeavors". He says "I gave no such order" when Connor accused him of being responsible for some kind of Templar attack. So that rules out an attempt by the Templars to get information about the Precursors, and I already went over earlier how Lee is not the type to disobey orders from Haytham, and if he isn't then Pitcairn and Johnson definitely would not(IMO they were the most loyal Templars and truly believed in their cause).
So if it was not Haytham's order, and its not Rouge Templars(Cuz haytham would have been pissed if it was). Then what does that leave us. For what other reason would they be in the forests, during a war, with guns, pursuing a target that was an enemy to the British in the conflict? The only thing left is Washington's order. All of these men were British soldiers during that war, and Lee was an officer, if haytham didn't do it, what motive would lee have to burn it? Other than the fact that it was a WAR and Conner's tribe was the ENEMY.
It doesn't say anywhere they were after precursor info, when they said "we have some questions for your elders" it could literally mean anything. And they way they say it sounds rather sarcastic like some kind of cruel taunt toward Conner. They could have asked for surrender, for them to join the British, for warriors, for intel on Native or French positions. While they could have sought that info also because there is nothing saying they hadn't, however it is extremely highly unlikely due to what we later learn from Haytham in the game(and even if they had learning it was a dead end could have pissed Lee off enough to burn the village). Leaving the most likely motive simply following washingtons orders in a military operation. However Conner doesn't realize this until much later at Valley Forge. He goes through his life up to that point thinking it was only a Templar plot, and learns it was more than that, and Washington was truly responsible.


3. If they were searching for the Precursor site (which was beyond the 'door' as we know, but the Templars thought that they still hadn't found it), as Haytham says - what point is there in burning the village dedicated to its protection? They'll get no information afterwards.
Once again simple. It wasn't about that. It was just soldiers executing an order. They were ordered to destroy the Village that's why they did it. Nothing more nothing less. Haytham was even confused about this until he explained that it was Washington. Sure the TEMPLARS had no interest in burning the village but the BRITISH ARMY did, and these men just happened to be involved with both. And since it wasn't of interest to the Templars to do it, and it wasn't ordered by Haytham, that leaves only the British Army as a logical reason to do it.


4. If we're to presume that Lee got into the village with the British forces, got the information they needed, then burnt it, then why wasn't that information acted upon in all the years? Haytham either would've continued searching for the Precursor site or would know for sure that it's a bust.
Once again no evidence that they were asking about the precursors. Even if they were there is also nothing to say he got the info he needed(another reason for him to get Pissed enough to burn it). They may well have learned it was for sure a bust. They may have sought completely different info. It is made to make you think that the Templars acted alone(thus conners revenge), but we learn later it was a part of something bigger than that, and wasn't just a Templar hunt for the village. But either way they were still bound to attack the village. Don't believe it? then tell me some other reason a bunch of known British soldiers were in the forest with guns hunting for a place that we learn later was a military target by order of Washington, all while they had no reason to be searching for it as Templars. Your story doesn't add up.


5. If we're to presume that Lee got into the village, DIDN'T get the information they needed, what was the point of burning the village? Again, as I said in point 3. - the village is dedicated to protecting knowledge about the Precursors, it makes no sense for the Templars to allow for the only people they could get information from at one point get possibly executed fully (the village was rebuilt, of course, but setting it ablaze means a possibility of everybody with knowledge dying).
Because he was ordered to do it. It was his duty as a soldier. The natives were his enemy and he attacked the village as ordered. He had no motive as a Templar. But since his day job is Soldiering then the only motive he needs is that he was simply ordered to do so. Haytham didn't want to go after the site because it was a bust. So Lee had no use for the people of the village, and on top of that they were an enemy to the crown(perceived as so anyway) and he was ordered to attack. I don't see any reason for him not to burn the village given that info(which is historically what Washington ordered done to native villages his nickname to the natives was their word for "burner of villages").


6. Which brings to another point - if Templars KNEW about the order, why the **** did they allow it to happen? Because, again, it's not good for Templar goals for the village to be burned.
Once again as I said in point 5, the Templars had given up their hunt for the precursors. Haytham and co. felt it was just a dead end wild goose chase/fairytale. They thought it was a lost cause anyway and was no longer a practical aim for their order. After the Braddock sequence Haytham and Co. decide to pursue their aims by the traditional means of influence and manipulation. Thus why they get important positions in the British and Colonial structures, to maintain influence, they no longer need magic powers or POEs and no longer actively seek them in America anyway.

So the villagers are of no use to Lee or the Templars. So they allow it to happen simply because they were told to attack it. At that point in time that village is of no more significance to the Templars than any other Lee and Co. act upon it purly as soldiers, they have no reason as Templars, and the villagers would have been no use to them anyway. So he really didn't care if they burned they weren't after that anymore so they were no different from any other Natives they were fighting in the War.

So it still makes a lot of sense for Lee to be responsible for the attack, and even if he wasn't directly(which is very unlikely) his scouting would have resulted in the same so he would still be responsible.


The alternative, btw, is that Lee and co. don't find the village until it was too late, or don't find it at all. Why do you presume that Lee ever got to the village that day?
Once again there is even far fewer evidence to support any of this. I just explained every reason to believe they made it to the village and burned it. And the village was only a few 100 yards/meters away so if he never found it he is by far the worst soldier I've ever heard of since Land Navigation is kind of their thing(even if it wasn't on Army business he would still have that training to utilize).

I don't know why you assume he is looking for precursor info, or that it was strictly him and the Templars doing it when that is completely contradicted by Haytham later on. The only viable theory is that the village was burned by the British army, either with Lee involved(as a scout or something) or leading the assault. The Templars had no use for the village or its people anymore so its not unlikely if they were ordered to burn it they'd just burn it.


Thank you Farlander for explaining and sorry Bmark for not continuing, I went to sleep.
Its fine M. This is actually a very interesting debate, and you and Farlander bring up a lot of good points. But I still think you two are wrong. Maybe its just a matter of how you want to see it, and how you interpreted the evidence, but to me it just seems like everything points to Lee burning that village.

Assassin_M
05-23-2014, 09:51 PM
I think the book explicitly mentions that Lee had nothing to do with the attack and that he and the party gave up on their search for Connor's village to find the precursor site, during that time Haytham was away in Europe and Pitcairn was busy in Canada I think. The book also states that the templars were looking for the site and didnt follow Haytham's orders because he wasnt there and sought to do something instead of just sitting around.

JustPlainQuirky
05-23-2014, 10:06 PM
I read the book. I can confirm what Assassin_M states is true.

Farlander1991
05-23-2014, 10:32 PM
Bmark, I really am baffled by what evidence you speak of. It's still conjecture. There's no real evidence one way or another (in the game, that is). But a few points:
a) Frontier map in the Animus simulation (and it is a simulation, after all, and in real world case - a game) is not up to scale, the real distances are much larger.
b) The way Haytham says about ordering to not look for the Precursor site implies that Charles and co. didn't listen to him - they were still searching for it.
c) Even though supplementary material and not in the game, but Forsaken proves that. But Forsaken may not really count if we speak of games only (i.e. existence of some info in a book doesn't excuse flaws present in the game)
d) If not about the Precursor site, what questions would Charles and co. have to the elders?

We look at it from different angles. You look at it from a very historical perspective. I look at it from a storytelling/story-structuring perspective.

There's no real evidence to support your interpretation, and though in the game there's also no evidence for mine, to me personally there's no sense in yours from a storytelling point of view.

From a storytelling point of view Lee not having anything to do anything with the attack makes for a better arc for Connor. The whole point of the Washington betrayal is to have the character Connor hates most to not actually have done the thing he hates him for. Because this way Connor transcends the simple desire of revenge, he has to make a choice for a higher purpose - not exacting revenge on the real person responsible because this person (at least by Connor's beliefs) leads a nation to a better future is that higher purpose. And killing Lee stops being about revenge, and transforms into a duty for a higher purpose. Having Lee being responsible for the attack removes all that.

Also from a storytelling point of view, we don't have to forget about motivation. What is Lee's motivation to burn the village? There really is none. Neither personal, nor for the Templar goal - and it's the Templar goal that's more important for Lee as a character than the British army goal, as that's where his main allegiance lies. There's no point and purpose in burning it for the Templar goals EVEN if they weren't searching for the Precursor site. Also, the whole thing with buying off the land years later seems very weird in this situation. Do the Templars feel guilty about burning the village and want to protect them from other colonist attacks? It just adds unneded layer of sociopathy.

There was also some other point I wanted to write but I had to go away from the computer for a long time while writing this post, and now that I came back I kinda forgot. Maybe will remember later.

But the overall point is, your interpretation may make sense from a historical point of view and I don't argue with that, as of what a certain person in a certain position in a certain situation could've done, you bring up a lot of good arguments for that. But it doesn't really make sense from a storytelling point of view.

DumbGamerTag94
05-23-2014, 10:42 PM
I think the book explicitly mentions that Lee had nothing to do with the attack and that he and the party gave up on their search for Connor's village to find the precursor site, during that time Haytham was away in Europe and Pitcairn was busy in Canada I think. The book also states that the templars were looking for the site and didnt follow Haytham's orders because he wasnt there and sought to do something instead of just sitting around.

Oh. Well that's just dumb. Why would they leave out something important like that and put it in a stupid book that most people won't read? And what poor storytelling on the books authors part. Well Haytham was gone and we got bored so we decided to go hunting for no reason for something we gave up on years before. So we looked for a village and couldn't find it even though it was only 30 feet away and moments after we were there it was on fire and could be seen from a ways away and the smoke even farther. But we couldn't find it and yeah btw we didn't have anything to do with the burning even though we were probably supposed to since were soldiers and all. But ohhhhhh wellll (cue Bennie hill music)

What are these Templars tweedle see and tweedle dumb and the three stooges? That's piss poor writing there and really explains nothing other than "nope wasn't us". I hate the stupid books and comics. I guess you are right though M. Even if it is stupid. I guess forsaken just lazily swept that issue under the rug without explaining much. Lame. Well you were right I apologize.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-23-2014, 11:19 PM
Ah, no spoilers for books yet, plz >_< *pretends I didn't read anything*

Locopells
05-24-2014, 12:27 AM
I read the book. I can confirm what Assassin_M states is true.

Ditto.


Ah, no spoilers for books yet, plz >_< *pretends I didn't read anything*

Oops, sorry!

I-Like-Pie45
05-24-2014, 01:24 AM
Snape kills Dumbledore

Jexx21
05-24-2014, 01:26 AM
Dumbledore kills Harry Potter

I-Like-Pie45
05-24-2014, 01:27 AM
Это, это моя компромисс!

JustPlainQuirky
05-24-2014, 02:59 AM
Just beat AC1 and I lost my interest in Al Mualim once he threw in that maniacle laugh.

So far the main villains in AC3 and AC4 have been terrible and the one in AC1 was meh.

Let's see if AC2-ACR have better ones.

SixKeys
05-24-2014, 03:04 AM
Let's see if AC2-ACR have better ones.

Prepare for disappointment.

ACHILLES4713
05-24-2014, 03:23 AM
I picked Al Mualim and, I think overall he's still my favorite villain. I also really liked Prince Ahmed. I wish there would have been more interaction between him and Ezio in ACR.

DinoSteve1
06-11-2014, 08:25 AM
So who are they?

Cesare Borgia would be mine, granted he not the most dynamic or well written of the antagonists, but there is something rather enjoyable in watching a character who is evil just to be evil.

marvelfannumber
06-11-2014, 08:26 AM
We already have a thread for this....

DinoSteve1
06-11-2014, 08:27 AM
Really where?

Legendz54
06-11-2014, 08:29 AM
I like the more complex gray area ones and then there is just the sick ****s that enjoy killing that i also liked and found scary.

Haytham
shakhulu
Lee
Torres
Al mulaim

killzab
06-11-2014, 08:32 AM
Haytham, just a great character all around.

And I loved Roberts, he should have been the last target we kill.

Shahkulu101
06-11-2014, 08:32 AM
Shahklulu isnt quite gray area...he tortures Ottomans because he has a fetish for suffering...

Legendz54
06-11-2014, 08:34 AM
Shahklulu isnt quite gray area...he tortures Ottomans because he has a fetish for suffering...

Yea i know thats why i said then there is the ones that i like that enjoy the killing in my previous comment. edited it.

Shahkulu101
06-11-2014, 08:37 AM
Yea i know thats why i said then there is the ones that i like that enjoy the killing in my previous comment.

Ah, right.

Too early in the morning. Although I must admit Shahkulu is probably one of my favourite protagonists - he just looks and sounds kinda badass. And his name's awesome, which is why I took it lol

Legendz54
06-11-2014, 08:38 AM
Hahaha yea when I thought he was dead and he got back up and grabbed you i **** brix.

LoyalACFan
06-11-2014, 08:55 AM
In terms of writing and character, Haytham by a mile.

In terms of design and archetypal villainy, you can't get better than Shahkulu. Dude was like a 16th century Darth Vader.

roostersrule2
06-11-2014, 10:24 AM
I loved take care Garnier and Shakalackakulu.

But Haymitch takes the cake.

RinoTheBouncer
06-11-2014, 11:08 AM
Haytham Kenway and Al-Mualim. Those people weren’t just evil, they just had different aims, conflict of interests, that’s why we’re in conflict with them. They weren’t doing that just for personal gains like Cesare, for example and I have nothing against Cesare but I believe that the two I mentioned have much more depth to their existence and they actually convince you of their theories, not just one of those villains who keep talking about how inferior everyone else that you’re like “just shut up and die, already”.

Al-Mualim was the starter of the debate regarding the "who’s right and who’s wrong, Assassins or Templars?” debate and Haytham even empowered the discussion. I’d be really happy to see more like those too. A villain who says “HERE I AM” and that’s with his personality and ideas, not just how brutally he/she tortures people.

marvelfannumber
06-11-2014, 11:16 AM
Really where?

*ahem*

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/666119-who-is-your-favourite-villain-in-assassins-creed-Forums

Edit: In fact it turns out we have 3 now including this *gulp*.

Man I am tired, accidentally double posted instead of editing.... :nonchalance:

Locopells
06-11-2014, 12:05 PM
Fixed.

Merged this with the newer one - that one hasn't been touched in two years, I'd forgotten it even existed...

RinoTheBouncer
06-11-2014, 12:09 PM
Al-Mualim and Haytham Kenway who’s absent from the poll for some reason...

Shahkulu101
06-11-2014, 02:02 PM
you can't get better than Shahkulu

I am pretty flawless

roostersrule2
06-11-2014, 02:09 PM
How could I forget Duccio.

It's in his name.

DinoSteve1
06-11-2014, 03:47 PM
Al-Mualim and Haytham Kenway who’s absent from the poll for some reason...
tbf if you go by the poll then op is correct Haytham isn't really a villain, but the question I asked earlier was Antagonist and he is definitely one of them.

RinoTheBouncer
06-11-2014, 03:52 PM
tbf if you go by the poll then op is correct Haytham isn't really a villain, but the question I asked earlier was Antagonist and he is definitely one of them.

Haytham was a playable character at the start and the way he was towards Connor was more of a love/hate relationship. It’s like he loved his son but he couldn’t bring himself to admit it, he loved him for his conviction and he loved him for being his son yet at the same time, he hated him for being the obstacle standing in his way and hate how he forced him to become his enemy even though he doesn’t want to be. I guess there’s a lot that was omitted from the game or lets say, should’ve been added to further explore the father-son relationship.

To me, Haytham is not evil, he’s not a villain but he’s an antagonist as you said and I believe he’s a bigger one than Charles Lee. I think he should’ve been on the list but he’s definitely not a typical bad guy. That’s what I loved about the game. We saw things from two perspectives.

DinoSteve1
06-11-2014, 04:20 PM
I always thought there relationship was quite simple, did he love him yes but the difference in there beliefs was to vast an obstacle for that love to overcome, Haytham at one point even says hes trying to save Conor from his beliefs.

poptartz20
06-11-2014, 04:53 PM
Ahh... AC3. The muddled favorite of mine. But that's for another time.

umm... Thinking about this list I think I would have to Go with Cesare Borgia. Simply because AC2-ACB was all aboutg and bad and no Gray areas. And he was just flat out a bad guy with no real morals, and just evil for the sake of being evil. ha! I'm surprised Washing is on the list, only because that was a DLC alternate reality villain, so I don't technically see him as a "villain" lol. Oh well!

adventurewomen
06-11-2014, 04:55 PM
I can't vote multiple choice so I'll go for Al Mualim, Rodrigo & Cesare, Charles Lee, King Washington (ToKW) & Madeleine de L'Isle (AC Liberation)

Kakuzu745
06-11-2014, 10:43 PM
Cesare Borgia is definitely first, then Al Mualim and then Charles Lee.

I actually hated Cesare with such passion.

Ureh
06-12-2014, 01:55 AM
Al Mualim, that guy got me good. Nearly got away with it too.

Legendz54
06-12-2014, 03:03 AM
Haytham was a playable character at the start and the way he was towards Connor was more of a love/hate relationship. It’s like he loved his son but he couldn’t bring himself to admit it, he loved him for his conviction and he loved him for being his son yet at the same time, he hated him for being the obstacle standing in his way and hate how he forced him to become his enemy even though he doesn’t want to be. I guess there’s a lot that was omitted from the game or lets say, should’ve been added to further explore the father-son relationship.

To me, Haytham is not evil, he’s not a villain but he’s an antagonist as you said and I believe he’s a bigger one than Charles Lee. I think he should’ve been on the list but he’s definitely not a typical bad guy. That’s what I loved about the game. We saw things from two perspectives.


Only If Connor read that Damn Journal before fighting his father he might have showed sympathy.. I actually think Haytham wasn't going to kill Connor when he was choking him, He saved him from being hung before and i think he would of tried to further try and convert his son to the Templars instead of killing him.

JustPlainQuirky
06-12-2014, 03:05 AM
The only correct answer is Haytham.

Every other villain from the games I've played kinda sucked.

Haven't gotten to Revelations yet.

DinoSteve1
06-12-2014, 03:15 AM
Haytham is not a Villain.

JustPlainQuirky
06-12-2014, 03:25 AM
Shhhhhhh....

It's the only way I can say AC has had a good villain from my experience.

DinoSteve1
06-12-2014, 03:31 AM
Ok I retract my statement he is dastardly.

Legendz54
06-12-2014, 03:32 AM
The best villain of all time is the chicken from despicable me 2 ok?

Jexx21
06-12-2014, 06:11 AM
how is cesare winning

well he was good at making you hate him

like evil delsin rowe

JustPlainQuirky
06-12-2014, 06:15 AM
I still haven't voted.

I honestly can't pick one I like.

I like cesare because he was hilariously evil but still...

Markaccus
06-12-2014, 08:48 AM
I still haven't voted.

I honestly can't pick one I like.

I like cesare because he was hilariously evil but still...

He was cool and calculatingly evil to begin with, the hilarity entered later after he was slightly poisoned and consumed by the apple, and the voice actor kind of gets carried away into a world of slavering whiney shouting.

Giv-a me the apple. Its-a mine, not yours. whatsamadda you? Et.c.

pirate1802
06-12-2014, 03:51 PM
Cesare Bogria hands down.

Ureh
06-12-2014, 05:58 PM
Then I leave you in the hands* of fate. *lets go bye bye*

Dome500
06-13-2014, 12:10 AM
Al Mualim I think.

A shame you haven't included multiple villains of one franchise. I would have chosen Haytham.
But since he is not here:

Al Mualim as the wise master who guides you and secretly manipulates you, who teaches you but wants to control you, who is wise but despite all his wisdom didn't have the willpower to resist using the apple, is IMO the best of all those villains.

Let's face it, aside from Haytham there were few villains which were really interesting or unique, there was rarely a villain who was not a power-hungry cliche or a misguided fanatic.
And among all these I think Al Mualim was the one who had the most depth. Among other reasons also because AC1 had a very strong story and the story was the main strength of the game.

This guy basically lead the Assassins, he forced Umar to sacrifice himself to make his mistake right, he was a Templar, split from them because he didn't want to share the power and started an underground war with them. He revived an ancient order, trained people, promised villages protection and established a powerful brotherhood made of religiously misguided killers just to have enough power to get the apple.

He raised Altair, was his father figure, manipulated him, scolded him, humiliated him, but still, he taught him lessons which - seen by themselves - were wise and useful and made Altair the man he was in AC1. He tried to control him but failed, then he tried to kill him but underestimated him.

The master/teacher (manipulator) beaten by the pupil (and his own arrogance and hunger for power).

He did a lot of good for the wrong reasons.

IMO he is the most interesting and philosophical Assassin (and Templar (and Villain)) in Assassins Creed only surpassed by Altair.

DinoSteve1
06-13-2014, 12:15 AM
As I said before Haytham was not a Villain.

raytrek79
06-15-2014, 01:10 AM
No Robert De Sable? Surprised. I love me some Thomas Hickey, but from the choices; Cesare Borgia

dbzk1999
06-15-2014, 05:53 AM
he forced Umar to sacrifice himself to make his mistake right.

He didn't make must sacrifice himself in fact he was pretty much refusing to do it it was umar who decided to own up to his mistake (he wanted to find another way but both him and umar accepted that there wasn't another way)