PDA

View Full Version : How every main assassin broke the tenets of the Creed



dimbismp
08-25-2014, 08:51 PM
In my mind(and i think in most fans' mind) the main characters of the series were maybe not perfect,but surely really accomplished assassins.But is an assassin living by the Creed if he breaks the 3 tenets?Would you want an efficient,deadly assassin or an assassin true to the philosophy of the creed?First,let's remember the three tenets:
1)Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent *
2)Hide in plain sight
3)Never compromise the Brotherhood
Let's see why each assassin isn't perfect at all:

Altair is considered as the most important assassin in history,both by the fans and the brotherhood.But,he broke the assassin laws too.Of course we don't consider the incident at Solomon's Temple,as the whole game has to do about Altair changing because of that.Firstly,Altair consistently broke the second tenet.Most,if not all,his assassinations were executed in plain sight,so that everyone can see,though he has an "excuse"(In more ancient times assassins killed their targets in plain sight to send a message).Still,he broke a tenet.He didn't actually compromise the brotherhood,except from showing the apple to Abbas before Maria's death,which could have resulted in falling in the wrong hands.And i don't remember killing an innocent :nonchalance:
Ezio is undoubtedly a fan favourite,even if we like it or not.But he broke all the tenens.Firstly,he killed many innocents.For example,when he destroyed the chain in Constantinople many might have died due to the fire.Also he was the one who ignited the barrels in Cappadocia,which led in hundreds of innocents dying.These examples are just a few and are both from ACR,a game in which Ezio was supposedly wise.Also,Ezio broke the second tenet too.For example,he marched into the Vatican so that he could kill Rodrigo.Many people,including soldiers,priests and maybe civilians saw him.In ACB he gathers his "Assassins"(well everyone in that game is an assassin) and they fight Cesare and his troops in front of that gate(the "infamous vittoria agli assassini" scene).Finally,he also compromised the Brotherhood.For example,he gave the Masyaf keys to Ahmet,so that he could let Sofia go.This could have resulted in Templars finding the Apple inside the Vault...
Connor is loved by many fans till this day,but also hated by others.One of the things mentioned by Connor fans in the ongoing argument in this forum,is that Connor was true to the Creed.Well, i have heard that a couple of times.First of all,Connor killed innocents.Connor was the one who decided to storm Boston(or was it New York) so that he could find Charles Leeeeee(and instead he killed Haytham).Other smaller incidents are killing some thieves so that he could get the PegLeg trinket,or killing Kanen'tó:kon,although this was justifiable.He didn't hide in plain sight at most occasions,such as at the assassinations of William Johnson,John Pitcairn,Thomas Hickey(justifiable) and of cource Charles Lee.Finally,he compromised the brotherhood,by acting foolishly many times,even though he was the only assassin alive in the North America.What i want to say is that,if he got himself killed,the Assassin Order whould vanish again in that area.
Edward was not an assassin for the most part of ACIV:BF,so i am going to judge him just for what he has done in the final 2 sequences.I don't recall killing an innocent,beside from sinking enemy ships.He didn't break the second tenet when he killed(?) Rogers,because he disguised himself.But he did when he tried to assassinate Torres,but instead he killed El Tiburon.Finally,he didn'y bring any harm to the Creed at that time frame,if i remember correctly.Anyway,i doubt that Edward was introduced to the tenets.Also,it is not "fair" to judge him,as he was an assassin only for 2 sequences :p
Bonus:Arno didn't kill in plain sight (Xavier,Marquis) :p
Every assassin is great though:cool:

*I am not going to consider killing civilians,or guards(who are imo innocent),except from specific situations mentioned
**We can actually judge the assassins as for the first tenet due to the Levantine approach.

SO DO YOU AGREE OR DO YOU DISAGREE?DISCUSS!!!

I hope this doesn't turn into Ezio vs connor thread...

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 08:56 PM
Connor have factually NEVER killed an innocent.

GunnerGalactico
08-25-2014, 09:00 PM
Connor have factually NEVER killed an innocent.

^ I agree with this, but people will say stuff like destroying ships during the naval missions will count as killing civilians.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:03 PM
SO you believe that thief of the side mission was not an innocent?Also,i think that he killd someone at that "museum",but maybe i am wrong...And what about the Boston incident that i mentioned?He was among the masterminds behind the attack.I find it impossible that no civilian was killed

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 09:08 PM
SO you believe that thief of the side mission was not an innocent?Also,i think that he killd someone at that "museum",but maybe i am wrong...And what about the Boston incident that i mentioned?He was among the masterminds behind the attack.I find it impossible that no civilian was killed

The thief wasn't an innocent. And he had men try to kill him as well.

The man at the abandoned mansion or whatever it was, was not an innocent either.

Regarding the Boston Tea Party, or those many examples, he didn't kill any innocents. Guards aren't innocents in the AC universe.

GunnerGalactico
08-25-2014, 09:16 PM
According to Wikipedia, it is stated that Connor never killed any civilians.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Ratonhnhak%C3%A9:ton

PS: Look under the "Personality and Relationships" heading.

Ureh
08-25-2014, 09:16 PM
SO you believe that thief of the side mission was not an innocent?Also,i think that he killd someone at that "museum",but maybe i am wrong...And what about the Boston incident that i mentioned?He was among the masterminds behind the attack.I find it impossible that no civilian was killed

My memory is a bit fuzzy so I can't recall the thief side mission. But as for the museum mission (Castle Edinburgh), he didn't kill anyone. The only people you see are during those flashback vision that Connor gets when he investigates clues. Also the infiltration of Ft George (in New York) was a militarized zone, so there probably weren't any civilians living in there.

aL_____eX
08-25-2014, 09:20 PM
According to Wikipedia, it is stated that Connor never killed any civilians.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Ratonhnhak%C3%A9:ton

PS: Look under the "Personality and Relationships" heading.
Well, that's not true for my Connor. He killed civilians, by accident. Of course.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:23 PM
The thief wasn't an innocent. And he had men try to kill him as well.

The man at the abandoned mansion or whatever it was, was not an innocent either.

Regarding the Boston Tea Party, or those many examples, he didn't kill any innocents. Guards aren't innocents in the AC universe.
I am not referring to the boston tea party,but to incident that happened late in the game,when haytham died.Connor and some other people decided to storm Boston or New York,so that he could find Charles Lee.And the scavengers were completely innocent.Connor killed them just because they reached the place first and they would take the map

GunnerGalactico
08-25-2014, 09:23 PM
Well, that's not true for my Connor. He killed civilians, by accident. Of course.

I'm not so sure about that part, but I kind of agree with most people about destroying ships during naval missions could've resulted in him killing civilians. Wikipedia is referring to it canon-wise.

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 09:26 PM
Connor have factually NEVER killed an innocent.

He bombed a section of New York. He killed that poor guy who had a peg leg map part, where suddenly its Connors.... according to him.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:30 PM
who is innocent and who is not is ALL perspective.

For example, Darby said the guards/soldiers the assassins kill in every game are innocent.

With that logic EVERY assassin broke the tenant.

It all depends on how you percieve innocence.

That's a loophole of the creed.

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 09:33 PM
I am not referring to the boston tea party,but to incident that happened late in the game,when haytham died.Connor and some other people decided to storm Boston or New York,so that he could find Charles Lee.And the scavengers were completely innocent.Connor killed them just because they reached the place first and they would take the map

He didn't kill any innocents during the storm. There were only guards at the fort.

As for the scavenger one, as I said, he had men try to shoot down Connor. The way I see it, Connor had originally chased him for the map, not his life. It's very controversial.


He bombed a section of New York

What mission was this?

GunnerGalactico
08-25-2014, 09:35 PM
who is innocent and who is not is ALL perspective.

For example, Darby said the guards/soldiers the assassins kill in every game are innocent.

With that logic EVERY assassin broke the tenant.

It all depends on how you percieve innocence.

That's a loophole of the creed.

What about the beggars, minstrels and pickpocketers? I've killed a few of those in the game.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:37 PM
What about the beggars, minstrels and pickpocketers?

ministrels are from the deepest pits of hell.

they're the exception.

kill them all you like.

GunnerGalactico
08-25-2014, 09:37 PM
ministrels are from the deepest pits of hell.

they're the exception.

kill them all you like.

My point exactly!

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:39 PM
who is innocent and who is not is ALL perspective.

For example, Darby said the guards/soldiers the assassins kill in every game are innocent.

With that logic EVERY assassin broke the tenant.

It all depends on how you percieve innocence.

That's a loophole of the creed.
mentioned that the guards are not considered innocent.We judge the assassins for killing civilians and 3rd party soldiers,like the thieves mentioned above

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:41 PM
He didn't kill any innocents during the storm. There were only guards at the fort.

As for the scavenger one, as I said, he had men try to shoot down Connor. The way I see it, Connor had originally chased him for the map, not his life. It's very controversial.



What mission was this?
Just rewatched the mission and i dont see that.Connor thinks that the map is his so he chases the man and kills everyone in his path.There is no order to fire at him i think.Still this was no reason to kill them.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:41 PM
mentioned that the guards are not considered innocent.We judge the assassins for killing civilians and 3rd party soldiers,like the thieves mentioned above

the ANIMUS deems that the guards are not innocent.

the ASSASSINS deem the guards are not innocent.

What they deem innocent is not law.

Assassins from another region may find someone who was killed an innocent or vise versa.

Hans684
08-25-2014, 09:42 PM
mentioned that the guards are not considered innocent.We judge the assassins for killing civilians and 3rd party soldiers,like the thieves mentioned above

Doesn't change that they are innocent.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:44 PM
the ANIMUS deems that the guards are not innocent.

the ASSASSINS deem the guards are not innocent.

What they deem innocent is not law.

Assassins from another region may find someone who was killed an innocent or vise versa.
That's what i am trying to say.The assassins broke the tenet by other criteria.If we decided that guards were innocent,we wouldn't be talking about civilians and thieves

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:47 PM
Doesn't change that they are innocent.

IMO they ARE innocent but let's suppose they are not,because civilians are 100% innocent

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 09:47 PM
Just rewatched the mission and i dont see that.Connor thinks that the map is his so he chases the man and kills everyone in his path.There is no order to fire at him i think.Still this was no reason to kill them.

If the player was slow, you can see the other scavengers point their muskets at Connor and try to shoot him.

Yes, there was reason to kill them, but it wasn't justified depending on your view. For example, those guys are pirates. They scavenge, and they're willing to kill Connor for it. Connor on the other hand demanded the map and claims it as his own, and was also willing to kill said scavangers for it. But in any case, they weren't innocents. (especially in the AC universe where anything remotely a threat like thieves are justified)

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:49 PM
That's what i am trying to say.The assassins broke the tenet by ohte criteria.If we decided that guards were innocent,we wouldn't be talking about cicilians and thieves

What I am saying is the tenant regarding innocents is unreliable, worthless and meaningless.

The master assassin in charge dictates who is innocent and who is not.

You can kill someone and all that really matters is if the leader approves/disapproves of it. HE chooses who is innocent and who is not.

And since the world is full of people with different beliefs/perceptions, it's impossible to have one clear definition of innocence that everyone will agree on.

So to Achilles, Connor may have not killed any innocents. But perhaps someone like Al Mualim would disagree.

Basically whether or not you broke a tenant wholey depends on who is in charge and what he defines as innocent and it's different for each assassin region.

See what I'm getting at?

It's pointless trying to draw a solid conclusion to something that is based entirely on perception. (at least in this case)

MakimotoJin
08-25-2014, 09:50 PM
Edward wasn't really an assassin,he never cared about the creed anyway.

Ureh
08-25-2014, 09:50 PM
What mission was this?

Infiltrating Fort George in New York (to reach Lee). Connor helped the Comte de Grasse in Chespeake Bay, so in return he gets some French ships to help him shell part of New York.

Hans684
08-25-2014, 09:51 PM
IMO they ARE innocent but let's suppose they are not,because civilians are 100% innocent

The "IMO" is useless, it's like saying cops in GTA isn't innocent. Guards are armed civilians with a duty to protect other civilians. Their all just as innocent.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:53 PM
Well Connor started the fight.He started chasing the guy.Would you suppose the scavengers would just stare at him?Let's suppose that you go at the market to buy ACU.But there is only one copy left and it is suddenly taken by another guy.Will you chase him and kill him if he doesn't give the copy to you?The example is of course not literal,but...

Anyway,this is turning into "did connor kill innocent people?" thread..

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 09:55 PM
Infiltrating Fort George in New York (to reach Lee). Connor helped the Comte de Grasse in Chespeake Bay, so in return he gets some French ships to help him shell part of New York.

They weren't innocents. The fort was infested with guards, and only guards..

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:56 PM
They weren't innocents. The fort was infested with guards, and only guards..

Guards who have families and a wife waiting back home.

"Mummy, where's pa?"

"I don't know son....I don't know"

*plays on world's smallest violin*

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 09:56 PM
What I am saying is the tenant regarding innocents is unreliable, worthless and meaningless.

The master assassin in charge dictates who is innocent and who is not.

You can kill someone and all that really matters is if the leader approves/disapproves of it. HE chooses who is innocent and who is not.

And since the world is full of people with different beliefs/perceptions, it's impossible to have one clear definition of innocence that everyone will agree on.

So to Achilles, Connor may have not killed any innocents. But perhaps someone like Al Mualim would disagree.

Basically whether or not you broke a tenant wholey depends on who is in charge and what he defines as innocent and it's different for each assassin region.

See what I'm getting at?

It's pointless trying to draw a solid conclusion to something that is based entirely on perception. (at least in this case)
You have a point,but some people are considered innocent worldwide and in alltime periods

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 09:56 PM
Well Connor started the fight.He started chasing the guy.Would you suppose the scavengers would just stare at him?Let's suppose that you go at the market to buy ACU.But there is only one copy left and it is suddenly taken by another guy.Will you chase him and kill him if he doesn't give the copy to you?The example is of course not literal,but...

As I said, whether or not it was justified is another story. And whichever the case was, he wasn't an innocent.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 09:58 PM
You have a point,but some people are considered innocent worldwide and in alltime periods

False.

Some people are considered innocent by the majority, but not everyone.

And as long as that remains true, there will continue to be people who percieve innocence differently.

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:00 PM
The only innocents according to the Assassins are civilians, there's no argument on that--Guards are casualties of war, which is another paradox that the Assassins accept.
Regarding the scavengers, it's perfectly possible that they were Templars but to others saying "it was suddenly his" what was he supposed to say? "Oh goshdarnnit, he came first and now i lost my chance"? "Better we go home, Mr. Faulkner and ignore this haha"? Connor only chased the scavenger, he ordered his mates to shoot at Connor, it was self defense...how about this "Can you please give me this map? I needs the map, partner...pretty please?"

The fort was filled with Templars, it was Haytham's head quarters.

Ezio killed a friggin mentally ill man-child.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 10:03 PM
@Fatal-Feit
He wasn't innocent because he took the map first?Or because he rried to defend himself?Connor would have done the same

@Mayrice
Anyway we are speaking about specific situations and societies.In particular,i don't think that Achilles would have approved killing the soldiers in new york(and maybe civilians too,you never know who was there),or even the scavengers

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:05 PM
The only innocents according to the Assassins are civilians, there's no argument on that--Guards are casualties of war, which is another paradox that the Assassins accept.
Regarding the scavengers, it's perfectly possible that they were Templars but to others saying "it was suddenly his" what was he supposed to say? "Oh goshdarnnit, he came first and now i lost my chance"? "Better we go home, Mr. Faulkner and ignore this haha"? Connor only chased the scavenger, he ordered his mates to shoot at Connor, it was self defense...how about this "Can you please give me this map? I needs the map, partner...pretty please?"

Ezio killed a friggin mentally ill man-child.

hollup hollup hollup.

A man chases you with tomahawk in hand. He is clearly armed and is chasing/yelling at you.

You run away while your mates come in to stop the seemingly crazy man from attacking you.

The men do their best to defend you from the attacker, the attacker kills them in a single swoop (optional objective).

You are terrified for your life, blocking paths and pleading for help.

Connor continues to kill your mates in single swoops, before they can even react.

Connor air assassinates you mid-run.

and you claim that's SELF DEFENSE?

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 10:05 PM
@Fatal-Feit
He wasn't innocent because he took the map first?Or because he rried to defend himself?Connor would have done the same

He wasn't innocent because he's a scavenger, a pirate with friends who are armed and willing to kill.

And for the 5th time, whether or not it was justified is another story. lel

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 10:07 PM
The only innocents according to the Assassins are civilians, there's no argument on that--Guards are casualties of war, which is another paradox that the Assassins accept.
Regarding the scavengers, it's perfectly possible that they were Templars but to others saying "it was suddenly his" what was he supposed to say? "Oh goshdarnnit, he came first and now i lost my chance"? "Better we go home, Mr. Faulkner and ignore this haha"? Connor only chased the scavenger, he ordered his mates to shoot at Connor, it was self defense...how about this "Can you please give me this map? I needs the map, partner...pretty please?"

The fort was filled with Templars, it was Haytham's head quarters.

Ezio killed a friggin mentally ill man-child.
He should have used non lethal takedowns.He shoulfdn't have killed them because they arrived first.Also i don't remember beinh implied that they were templars.
And anyway why are you mentioning ezio?Some people are acting as if i only mentioned connor at the first post...

Megas_Doux
08-25-2014, 10:11 PM
The only innocents according to the Assassins are civilians, there's no argument on that--Guards are casualties of war, which is another paradox that the Assassins accept.
Regarding the scavengers, it's perfectly possible that they were Templars but to others saying "it was suddenly his" what was he supposed to say? "Oh goshdarnnit, he came first and now i lost my chance"? "Better we go home, Mr. Faulkner and ignore this haha"? Connor only chased the scavenger, he ordered his mates to shoot at Connor, it was self defense...how about this "Can you please give me this map? I needs the map, partner...pretty please?"
.

Connor could have just KOed the man, instead he killed him.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:14 PM
Good to know it's just self defense if people try to fight back.

@lorgren

too bad what is considered "a threat to the cause" is also perspective hence making the argument invalid.

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:14 PM
He should have used non lethal takedowns.He shoulfdn't have killed them because they arrived first.Also i don't remember beinh implied that they were templars.
And anyway why are you mentioning ezio?Some people are acting as if i only mentioned connor at the first post...
Sure, he could have but whatever the case, it happened.
I don't remember the fort being implied to have civilians...it's the militarized headquarters of the Templars, who do you think is guarding it? Also, about the scavengers maybe being Templars, the Templars were chasing Kidd for his treasure so it's not a far fetch to think that they'd still be looking for his treasure.

I wasn't talking about you when I mentioned Ezio.


hollup hollup hollup.

A man chases you with tomahawk in hand. He is clearly armed and is chasing/yelling at you.
Had no Tomohawk in hand, he only told him to put that down...the guy tells him to piss off.


You run away while your mates come in to stop the seemingly crazy man from attacking you.

The men do their best to defend you from the attacker, the attacker kills them in a single swoop (optional objective).
What attacker? Connor didnt have a weapon on him and did not threaten him with death or anything, he actually told him to stop.


You are terrified for your life, blocking paths and pleading for help.
That's over dramatic.


Connor continues to kill your mates in single swoops, before they can even react.

Connor air assassinates you mid-run.

and you claim that's SELF DEFENSE?
self defense for both, there was no other way around this situation but this and like I said, they could have been Templar scavengers.

TheMiko19
08-25-2014, 10:15 PM
So yeah, the whole innocence discussion: According to Al Mualim's definition, innocent = a person posing no direct threat to the mission or assassin's well-being.
Guards being threats to both of those renders them no more innocent than the templars they're fighting, because both stand in the way of the "creed's" goalds.

I could discuss AC philosophy all night long. I actually once did, stayed up till 5 AM, just talking about how the creed deteriorated over ages since Altair's times from "give the people wisdom and they shall find their freedom through it" to "give people freedom" and how it ultimately affected everything regarding the reason for their modus operandi and how the writers lost the concept of what the assassins were in AC1, instead turning them from a sophisticated group of pseudo-proto-anarchists into your assembly line-manufactured freedom fighters.

But that's not the topic of the conversation, so yeah: anyone that poses direct threat to the assassins' goals is instantly deemed NOT innocent and available to be murdered. The old man in the solomon's temple was no threat to the cause, yet Altair killed him to avoid being snitched on or something, but it wasn't certain the guy ever meant them any harm, thus Altee's eff up caused a cascade of this creed tenet breaking spree.

EDIT: And I'm not saying whether the assassins' understanding is right or wrong - I'm just saying what it is.

~ Lorgren, aka Miko19

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:21 PM
Connor could have just KOed the man, instead he killed him.
Sure, he could have but it's what happened. He killed the guy. we can argue all day about the morality of it but it's not like they were defenseless.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:21 PM
Sure, he could have but whatever the case, it happened.
I don't remember the fort being implied to have civilians...it's the militarized headquarters of the Templars, who do you think is guarding it?

I wasn't talking about you when I mentioned Ezio.


Had no Tomohawk in hand, he only told him to put that down...the guy tells him to piss off.


What attacker? Connor didnt have a weapon on him and did not threaten him with death or anything, he actually told him to stop.


That's over dramatic.


self defense for both, there was no other way around this situation but this and like I said, they could have been Templar scavengers.

Connor has weapons all over his body and is chasing you. Not only that but hes fiercly yelling at you. That itself is gonna make anybody run out of fear for their life.

Not stopping isn't an excuse to kill.

Not over dramatic. The running man was clearly blocking paths and saying stuff like "please leave me be! I found it" (not word for word but you know what I mean)

And that's NOT self defense. Connor had clear intentions of killing the running man and anyone who got in his way.His mates didnt even get a chance to attack if you did the optional objective. Self defense is only doing as much necessary to preserve your own life. Assassinating the running man (someone who clearly made no effort to attack connor) was not self defense.

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 10:23 PM
Guards who have families and a wife waiting back home.

"Mummy, where's pa?"

"I don't know son....I don't know"

*plays on world's smallest violin*

This is what I say all the time. Same goes for when you pickpocket people.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:24 PM
Yeah I was surprised in AC3 that I had to pickpocket 200 dollars or something total from civilians.

Those are people who are just trying to get by.

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 10:26 PM
Yeah I was surprised in AC3 that I had to pickpocket 200 dollars or something total from civilians.

Those are people who are just trying to get by.

That phased you? That's nothing compared to AC:2-AC:R's guards during side missions. All they ever talked about was their family. Literally, lmao.

Namikaze_17
08-25-2014, 10:27 PM
Edward wasn't really an assassin,he never cared about the creed anyway.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1290449/picard-facepalm-o.gif


I'll have you know that Edward actually understood the Creed the most IMO, not to mention it changed his life the most as well. Not only did the Creed bring him Redemption, it was also his salvation...a second to fix his life and how much the phase actually changed his life and perspective.

I suggest you play the game again to understand the jest of what I'm talking about...pay attention to Edward in the beginning, middle, and end...how he feels about the Assassins at first, and how he feels them at the end. Watch his relationship with Mary & Adewale, watch his "pirate life" fall apart and how the Creed is his chance to fix it all.

And, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:27 PM
@fatal

I remember feeling bad as heck after killing some guards in the Ezio trilogy who were talking about their wives and such.

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 10:29 PM
@fatal

I remember feeling bad as heck after killing some guards in the Ezio trilogy who were talking about their wives and such.

I hope we can go inside

Oh... that wasn't a family quote? I just wrote that quote to remind you of the terrible voice acting?! Preposterous!

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:30 PM
Connor has weapons all over his body and is chasing you. Not only that but hes fiercly yelling at you. That itself is gonna make anybody run out of fear for their life.
You can't see that from the distance Connor was from the man.


Not stopping isn't an excuse to kill.
didn't say it was, I only said that Connor never threatened to kill the man.


Not over dramatic. The running man was clearly blocking paths and saying stuff like "please leave me be! I found it" (not word for word but you know what I mean)
He never said please:p and those blocks could have killed Connor if they fell on him. You're being over-dramatic in the fact that you're mentioning all his puppy lines and ignoring his snide taunts and remarks and telling his mates to shoot Connor. Again, not an excuse to kill--it's a dangerous situation for both where both parties acted appropriately.


And that's NOT self defense. Connor had clear intentions of killing the running man and anyone who got in his way.His mates didnt even get a chance to attack if you did the optional objective. Self defense is only doing as much necessary to preserve your own life. Assassinating the running man (someone who clearly made no effort to attack connor) was not self defense.
Nope, he didn't--he didn't even threaten to kill him once.
They actually do get a chance to attack, point their muskets and even shoot.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 10:32 PM
So at least we all agree that the first tenet is controversial at some occasions.
How about the second and third tenet?Anything to comment/add?

Megas_Doux
08-25-2014, 10:33 PM
He could have KOed the man, instead he killed him. End of story.....

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:34 PM
Ok M.

You pick up a dollar from the floor.

I see you pick up the dollar and yell at you.

You run away with the dollar and I start to chase you. I am covered with a grenade strap and an AK47. I am running fast as heck and yelling at the top of my lungs.

You yell for your mates to stop the crazy-looking, clearly armed person from chasing you.

Your brother and your friend see me and pull out their guns to stop me. I slice their throats with a knife while running by before they can react.

You hop over fences, run between alleyways. Anything to get away from me and my hands covered in the blood of those you spoke with moments ago.

I get closer and closer and closer. Soon enough you find a knife to your neck and you are dead.

but it's all good because I did it out of self defense, amiright???

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:34 PM
So at least we all agree that the first tenet is controversial at some occasions.
How about the second and third tenet?Anything to comment/add?
It is pretty controversial and the games even talk about it. The only innocents to the Assassins are civilians, anyone else is subjective and we could talk all day about it.

Yeah, Connor exposing himself to Hickey in NY is a tenant broken which is hiding in plain sight. I get what he was trying to do but it was still a pretty bad decision that ended him in jail.

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:39 PM
Ok M.

You pick up a dollar from the floor.

I see you pick up the dollar and yell at you.

You run away with the dollar because I start to chase you. I am covered with a grenade strap and an AK47. I am running fast as heck and yelling at the top of my lungs.
No, I don't...I wont run away because running from an AK-47 clad thug is dumb and the guy runs away first, Connor does not chase him until he runs away...



You yell for your mates to stop me.

Your brother and your friend see me and pull out their guns to stop me. I slice their throats with a knife while running by before they can react.

You hop over fences, run between alleyways. Anything to get away from me and my hands covered in the blood of those you spoke with moments ago.

I get closer and closer and closer. Soon enough you find a knife to your neck and you are dead.
You forgot to say that i'm taunting him along the way too...again, not an excuse to kill but it changes the sympathy of the situation slightly.


but it's all good because I did it out of self defense, amiright???
Killing me is not self defense, killing my mates is...like I said, it was self defense in both situations and both parties acted appropriately. This is also all ignoring that they might have been Templars.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:41 PM
So you concede that killing the running man was not self defense.

Good.

That's all that really mattered to me most.

(tho im pretty sure if there was a court case of it, connor would not be able to claim self defense against any of the men)

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:42 PM
So you concede that killing the running man was not self defense.
I never said it was.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:44 PM
And yet (apologies if misinterpreted) you find the killing of the running man justified despite considering the circumstances?

I just can't fathom that, personally.

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 10:49 PM
I think our main concern here is that Connor never freed Mason from the Prison.

Assassin_M
08-25-2014, 10:49 PM
And yet (apologies if misinterpreted) you find the killing of the running man justified despite considering the circumstances?

I just can't fathom that, personally.
Did I say it was justified? No, my only argument was that he's not what the Assassins would deem as innocent. Not to mention that I think they were Templars anyways but that's just me.


I think our main concern here is that Connor never freed Mason from the Prison.
Mason Weems, the first ever rabid fanboy.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:51 PM
Bah, I don't like how in AC being a templar is essenially an a-ok to be killed with no remorse.

But to be fair Ubi does seem to be working to change that.

Shahkulu101
08-25-2014, 10:54 PM
Bah, I don't like how in AC being a templar is essenially an a-ok to be killed with no remorse.

But to be fair Ubi does seem to be working to change that.

Nobody said it was okay, the Assassin's just kill Templar's. It's what they do and they'll always do it...

They are the polar opposite of each other in ideological terms, they aren't going to kiss and hold hands.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:55 PM
Nobody said it was okay, the Assassin's just kill Templar's. It's what they do and they'll always do it...

They are the polar opposite of each other in ideological terms, they aren't going to kiss and hold hands.

Except in Unity. :rolleyes:

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 10:56 PM
Guys im serious, he just left Mason in the prison.

dimbismp
08-25-2014, 10:56 PM
I hope you guys will continue the discussion and expand it by discussing about the other tenets and assassins mentioned.Good night

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 10:57 PM
Mason was probably in prison for a reason.

EmbodyingSeven5
08-25-2014, 10:57 PM
weren't Connor and Edward allowed to kill couriers?

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 10:59 PM
Guys im serious, he just left Mason in the prison.

IIRC, he didn't. He eliminated the guards for Mason to escape. Connor went for Hickey instead of the exit.

Shahkulu101
08-25-2014, 11:01 PM
Except in Unity. :rolleyes:

Meant that in broader terms and you know it. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be surprised if their unity ends in tragedy anyway.


Guys im serious, he just left Mason in the prison.

Pfffft...so what? Mason got out and made a profession out of brown nosing that asshat Washington anyway.

JustPlainQuirky
08-25-2014, 11:02 PM
Meant that in broader terms and you know it. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be surprised if their unity ends in tragedy anyway.

It wouldn't be assassin's creed without some form of tragedy.

pacmanate
08-25-2014, 11:13 PM
IIRC, he didn't. He eliminated the guards for Mason to escape. Connor went for Hickey instead of the exit.

"I will repay the favour when my work here is finished."

Namikaze_17
08-25-2014, 11:14 PM
I never understand the Assassins and the words they preach sometimes...they talk that Humanity should have free will to do as they please, hoping that they can get it right ON THEIR OWN, yet they kill those that are literally trying to make the world a better place. Sure, the Templar's methods aren't always right, but they work...William of Montferrat said it best himself: "Everything I did, I did to prepare them for the NEW WORLD."

Sure, it's seen as "cruel" if you're close-minded like the Assassins that don't see the Bigger picture other than fighting Templars. I ask: what ELSE have the Assassins done to better humanity? At least the Templars are going with the times and evolving the world all while keeping us "entertained." While the Assassins are still secluded in a rot they refuse to get out of. Thank God for Altair! Otherwise, they'll still be in those doing god knows what. ;)

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 11:27 PM
"I will repay the favour when my work here is finished."

Good point...

But maybe he wasn't implying ''freedom'' because Mason could supposedly have escaped. More like, I'll shelter you in my homestead or I'll reward you with money for your services when I meet you outside. Something like that. lel

Shahkulu101
08-25-2014, 11:29 PM
"I will repay the favour when my work here is finished."

Prolly more cut content

Namikaze_17
08-25-2014, 11:33 PM
Anybody know when Weems was released from prison?

I think it was doing the revolution...or perhaps a little after.

SixKeys
08-26-2014, 12:14 AM
Connor have factually NEVER killed an innocent.

Except all those innocent guards when Stephane Chapeau went on a murderous rampage. Connor could have simply knocked them out or held Stephane back, but the full sync required you to perform low-profile assassinations. Also a grenadier on a boat (that required some ridiculously convoluted gameplay planning) when he could have simply snuck on board and gotten out again without killing anyone. Then there's the scavenger who found part of Kidd's map that Connor for some reason claimed was his, which was a bold-faced lie. He was just as much a scavenger as that guy and then he killed him just to get a piece of the map.

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 12:27 AM
Except all those innocent guards when Stephane Chapeau went on a murderous rampage. Connor could have simply knocked them out or held Stephane back, but the full sync required you to perform low-profile assassinations. Also a grenadier on a boat (that required some ridiculously convoluted gameplay planning) when he could have simply snuck on board and gotten out again without killing anyone. Then there's the scavenger who found part of Kidd's map that Connor for some reason claimed was his, which was a bold-faced lie. He was just as much a scavenger as that guy and then he killed him just to get a piece of the map.

Anyone apposing the Assassins aren't considered ''innocent'' in the realm of Assassin's Creed, sadly.

You should follow up on the first few pages.

Namikaze_17
08-26-2014, 12:29 AM
@Fatal

Read my earlier post...that's my response to that notion.

SixKeys
08-26-2014, 12:37 AM
Anyone apposing the Assassins aren't considered ''innocent'' in the realm of Assassin's Creed, sadly.

You should follow up on the first few pages.

Yeah, I somehow missed the fact that this had more than a couple of pages. Must be tired.

Personally I consider guards innocent until they attack you. Except maybe in AC2 and ACB where we had evidence that many of them were corrupt. In AC1, AC3 and AC4 there's no evidence of that.

aL_____eX
08-26-2014, 12:47 AM
Except all those innocent guards when Stephane Chapeau went on a murderous rampage. Connor could have simply knocked them out or held Stephane back, but the full sync required you to perform low-profile assassinations. Also a grenadier on a boat (that required some ridiculously convoluted gameplay planning) when he could have simply snuck on board and gotten out again without killing anyone. Then there's the scavenger who found part of Kidd's map that Connor for some reason claimed was his, which was a bold-faced lie. He was just as much a scavenger as that guy and then he killed him just to get a piece of the map.
Yeeeees. I replayed ACIII last week, and playing this mission I was really wondering why Ubisoft did this to us. I mean where's the value in killing some guards you could actually sneak around? Sometimes the optional objectives forced you to do things and also kill people where it's DEFINITELY NOT necessary at all.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 03:14 AM
Except all those innocent guards when Stephane Chapeau went on a murderous rampage. Connor could have simply knocked them out or held Stephane back, but the full sync required you to perform low-profile assassinations
The thing that makes this whole ordeal seem EVEN MORE idiotic is the fact that Connor is screaming at Stephane to stop the whole way through, so why is killing the soldiers? and why did he tell him that he did well??

masterfenix2009
08-26-2014, 04:26 AM
Just to let you know, I never killed that scavenger, or his friends, while playing as Connor. I knocked them all out.

GoldenBoy9999
08-26-2014, 04:30 AM
I've been wondering if other people kill guards or not because I sometimes find myself wondering if I should change the entire way I play. Sometimes you have to kill them like if you're in a haystack, on roof edge, or near other contextual areas. In the Gamescom demo Arno knocks out some guards and then kills when necessary such as when he performs a double assassination. I don't know if I should keep using my hidden blade or not.

^ I like your thinking. I too killed the guards because some were part of the Borgia and stuff but now in the newer games I was thinking about changing.

Sabuto78
08-26-2014, 05:27 AM
I am not referring to the boston tea party,but to incident that happened late in the game,when haytham died.Connor and some other people decided to storm Boston or New York,so that he could find Charles Lee.And the scavengers were completely innocent.Connor killed them just because they reached the place first and they would take the map "I was here first it's mine" "What you have belongs to me" air assassination!! that opt obj took me a while too sht was annoying

souNdwAve89
08-26-2014, 07:16 AM
I personally play AC as stealthy as possible. Only time I get into a fight is when it's apart of the optional objective. Sometimes I try to avoid guards at all cost, but if I must, I will just choke a guard out instead of killing. I think it makes the game more fun and satisfying when you complete a mission that way.

jeordievera
08-26-2014, 08:45 AM
I've been wondering if other people kill guards or not because I sometimes find myself wondering if I should change the entire way I play. Sometimes you have to kill them like if you're in a haystack, on roof edge, or near other contextual areas. In the Gamescom demo Arno knocks out some guards and then kills when necessary such as when he performs a double assassination. I don't know if I should keep using my hidden blade or not.
Same here, I was thinking about that because you can just knock them out and don't necessarily have to kill them. My assassins are usually bloody mass murderers killing everything and everyone (by accident sometimes civilians) so I was thinking about changing my way of playing as well. Maybe spare as much guards as possible because in the end, they are just doing their job..

GoldenBoy9999
08-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I think I'm going to try knock out more guards because like you said their job is just to keep intruders like me out. Maybe I'll just kill them if I get in combat but sometimes I'll use my fists while fighting.

MakimotoJin
08-26-2014, 06:08 PM
I'll have you know that Edward actually understood the Creed the most IMO, not to mention it changed his life the most as well. Not only did the Creed bring him Redemption, it was also his salvation...a second to fix his life and how much the phase actually changed his life and perspective.

I suggest you play the game again to understand the jest of what I'm talking about...pay attention to Edward in the beginning, middle, and end...how he feels about the Assassins at first, and how he feels them at the end. Watch his relationship with Mary & Adewale, watch his "pirate life" fall apart and how the Creed is his chance to fix it all.

And, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!
Well,I know that the creed changed his life,I meant that in the beginning of the game,where he did most of the "bad stuff",he mostly cared about money instead of the relationship with the creed.
Also,thanks,I'm new here,really shy >.<'

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 06:18 PM
Well,I know that the creed changed his life,I meant that in the beginning of the game,where he did most of the "bad stuff",he mostly cared about money instead of the relationship with the creed.
Also,thanks,I'm new here,really shy >.<'

Don't be shy. We're all friendly here.

Anyway, Edward is fine. The point of his story is to understand the Creed. His journey is the epitome of why the Assassin's Creed is important. It was handled perfectly, IMO.

If you're concerned about the protagonist's relationship with the Creed, that's a problem with Ezio, not Edward. The Creed was only uttered once in AC:2 (and practically at the very end), and simply became a means of recruitment in AC:B. Edward's story had at least delved into its integrity early on.

CoachAssassin
08-26-2014, 06:21 PM
The 3 tenets are a thing the hashashahshahshassins lived by, it's not the same thing others factions of the order live by. Wasn't it the same with poison, the Assasins in Altairs time couldn't use poison but Ezio etc. had no problem with using this.

jayjay275
08-26-2014, 06:53 PM
Connor has never broken any of the tenants.

dimbismp
08-26-2014, 07:05 PM
Connor has never broken any of the tenants.
Most people here believe that Connor,like the other assassins,broke the first tenet.See previous comments.Also,imo:
"He didn't hide in plain sight at most occasions,such as at the assassinations of William Johnson,John Pitcairn,Thomas Hickey(justifiable) and of cource Charles Lee.Finally,he compromised the brotherhood,by acting foolishly many times,even though he was the only assassin alive in the North America.What i want to say is that,if he got himself killed,the Assassin Order whould vanish again in that area."

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:13 PM
Most people here believe that Connor,like the other assassins,broke the first tenet.See previous comments.Also,imo:
"He didn't hide in plain sight at most occasions,such as at the assassinations of William Johnson,John Pitcairn,Thomas Hickey(justifiable) and of cource Charles Lee.Finally,he compromised the brotherhood,by acting foolishly many times,even though he was the only assassin alive in the North America.What i want to say is that,if he got himself killed,the Assassin Order whould vanish again in that area."
No, most people don't believe that Connor broke the first tenant. He never killed civilians, like I said--anything else is speculation or subjective. Connor broke the hiding in plain sight tenant when he exposed himself to Hickey and Lee but he never broke the tenant with Johnson or Pitcairn, that was always the Assassin method--never expose yourself BEFORE you strike--once you strike, it's all fair game and you should escape from sight at once when your target is dead.

Connor also never broke the third tenant--no matter what he did, his actions never brought harm upon the Brotherhood nor their headquarters. The Homestead was always safe and his brotherhood was fine.

pacmanate
08-26-2014, 07:15 PM
Connor also never broke the third tenant--no matter what he did, his actions never brought harm upon the Brotherhood nor their headquarters. The Homestead was always safe and his brotherhood was fine.

Except for that crazy husband and his band of husband fanboiz

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:19 PM
Except for that crazy husband and his band of husband fanboiz
I wonder what reward the husband offered them..

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 07:19 PM
Except for that crazy husband and his band of husband fanboiz

What the what?

aL_____eX
08-26-2014, 07:21 PM
What the what?
I guess he's talking about Ellen's husband who came to the Homestead. Such a stupid mission. To protect her windows and knock them all out.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:21 PM
What the what?
Ellen's husband attacking her home


Such a stupid mission
why?

dimbismp
08-26-2014, 07:21 PM
No, most people don't believe that Connor broke the first tenant. He never killed civilians, like I said--anything else is speculation or subjective. Connor broke the hiding in plain sight tenant when he exposed himself to Hickey and Lee but he never broke the tenant with Johnson or Pitcairn, that was always the Assassin method--never expose yourself BEFORE you strike--once you strike, it's all fair game and you should escape from sight at once when your target is dead.

Connor also never broke the third tenant--no matter what he did, his actions never brought harm upon the Brotherhood nor their headquarters. The Homestead was always safe and his brotherhood was fine.
Well,some believe it at least

aL_____eX
08-26-2014, 07:23 PM
why?
Not because of what was behind it, but because of gameplay mechanics. They never attacked you directly (just fought the other people from the Homestead), but then one started to move to the window or door and you had to take him out. And the same game again like 5 times.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:25 PM
Well,some believe it at least
If we go with what people believe and not believe, it'd be a mess. I can believe that the 100% sync optional objectives is BS and just consider that Connor knocked out those scavengers for example--lets remain in the realm of objectivity and what the Order deems innocent--civilians and Connor never killed those.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:26 PM
Not because of what was behind it, but because of gameplay mechanics. They never attacked you directly (just fought the other people from the Homestead), but then one started to move to the window or door and you had to take him out. And the same game again like 5 times.
Why is that stupid? that happens all the time in forced combat sequences...I liked the sense of urgency with the windows and doors. To each their own i guess.

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 07:26 PM
Well,some believe it at least

Because they're misinformed.


I guess he's talking about Ellen's husband who came to the Homestead. Such a stupid mission. To protect her windows and knock them all out.

That wasn't Connor's doing, though. Was it?

dimbismp
08-26-2014, 07:28 PM
Because they're misinformed.
It is not misinformation,it is what we fans believe,like M said

aL_____eX
08-26-2014, 07:33 PM
Why is that stupid? that happens all the time in forced combat sequences...I liked the sense of urgency with the windows and doors. To each their own i guess.
It felt scripted and that's what I didn't like. They didn't attack you but one went for the window, you took him out, they didn't attack but one went for another window/door, you took him out, ...

pacmanate
08-26-2014, 07:39 PM
That wasn't Connor's doing, though. Was it?

Indirectly, he took her in.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:42 PM
Indirectly, he took her in.
Assassins help and protect people.

LatinaC09
08-26-2014, 09:07 PM
No offense to anyone but why does every single thread turn into a Connor discussion?

All of the assassins broke the creed "law" in some way. Some more than others. They're only human and I think that's just one of the points of the series after all, there's a big grey area.

Namikaze_17
08-26-2014, 09:35 PM
Well,I know that the creed changed his life,I meant that in the beginning of the game,where he did most of the "bad stuff",he mostly cared about money instead of the relationship with the creed.
Also,thanks,I'm new here,really shy >.<'

All's good mate. ;) I apologize by how I may have sounded...I'm really nice when you get to know me. And sometimes it just irks me when people say such things about Edward and the other Kenways while not giving their stories, perspectives, and tragedies a great deal of thought you know? And don't be shy...
^.^ us here in the forums don't bite...that is unless you press the wrong buttons.

pacmanate
08-26-2014, 09:55 PM
No offense to anyone but why does every single thread turn into a Connor discussion?


Sucks doesn't it, blame his fans.

dimbismp
08-26-2014, 10:04 PM
Sucks doesn't it, blame his fans.
To me it feels weird that they are still stuck in Connor,even 2 years after release.No one for example makes a random thread an "Edward" one,or even an "Ezio" one.As for not getting a proper closure,i don't believe Altair fans complained so much during the AC1-ACR period.I mean,hadn't it been for ACR,Altair would nothave a closure at all.
I am not a Connor hater btw

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 10:11 PM
To me it feels weird that they are still stuck in Connor,even 2 years after release.No one for example makes a random thread an "Edward" one,or even an "Ezio" one.As for not getting a proper closure,i don't believe Altair fans complained so much during the AC1-ACR period.I mean,hadn't it been for ACR,Altair would nothave a closure at all.
I am not a Connor hater btw

They all had closure except for Connor. And Unity takes place right after AC:3, so.

Regarding the other Connor threads, what threads? Most of them are started from people who does not like Connor. lel

MakimotoJin
08-26-2014, 10:28 PM
Don't be shy. We're all friendly here.

Anyway, Edward is fine. The point of his story is to understand the Creed. His journey is the epitome of why the Assassin's Creed is important. It was handled perfectly, IMO.

If you're concerned about the protagonist's relationship with the Creed, that's a problem with Ezio, not Edward. The Creed was only uttered once in AC:2 (and practically at the very end), and simply became a means of recruitment in AC:B. Edward's story had at least delved into its integrity early on.
Oh,I get it.Well,talking about understanding the creed,I wonder what could've happened to make Shay go to the other side.I mean,the Assassin's point of view shows that the Templars are the "bad" guys.They must've done something real bad.

pacmanate
08-26-2014, 11:11 PM
To me it feels weird that they are still stuck in Connor,even 2 years after release.No one for example makes a random thread an "Edward" one,or even an "Ezio" one.As for not getting a proper closure,i don't believe Altair fans complained so much during the AC1-ACR period.I mean,hadn't it been for ACR,Altair would nothave a closure at all.
I am not a Connor hater btw

Neither am I.

But "Closure" is preprogrammed bull. We don't need closure on any Assassin. We just need to know the parts of their live that help us in the modern day.

Reliving memories was never to perv on an ancestors entire life.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 11:13 PM
Reliving memories was never to perv on an ancestors entire life.
Yes it is, blame Ubisoft, not the fans...I don't want to see Connor's entire life but asking for an experience similar to Ezio's an Altair where we see their deaths is MORE than fair because Ubisoft made it the standard.

Kakuzu745
08-27-2014, 09:56 PM
Yes it is, blame Ubisoft, not the fans...I don't want to see Connor's entire life but asking for an experience similar to Ezio's an Altair where we see their deaths is MORE than fair because Ubisoft made it the standard.

Not even that...after Ezio and Brotherhood one would even think the assassin deserves a mid entry to narrate some random story that happened to the guy.

I think every fan has the right to want a trilogy now or at least some sort of closure.

That being said...it is annoying how many conversations become an argument about Connor.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 10:10 PM
Not even that...after Ezio and Brotherhood one would even think the assassin deserves a mid entry to narrate some random story that happened to the guy.

I think every fan has the right to want a trilogy now or at least some sort of closure.

That being said...it is annoying how many conversations become an argument about Connor.
agreed and agreed.

DavisP92
08-27-2014, 10:15 PM
I'm so happy that finally someone mentions how every one of the assassins sucked (when comparing them to their own creed). Although the Abbas part is the only one that i don't agree with. You can't compromise the brotherhood if the brotherhood is what wanted the apple. And at that time Abbas. And for the killing in plain sight, that was how the order did it. So he didn't break the creed for that either. If anything, i'd say that Altair is the only one that didn't break the creed