PDA

View Full Version : Your favorite ''death speech''?



CoachAssassin
08-30-2014, 03:16 PM
Since we aren't going to get them anymore, which one was your favorite?


Mine is pretty clear :P

http://i.imgur.com/Kzv8Ny2.jpg

marvelfannumber
08-30-2014, 03:25 PM
What, no Benjamin Church? Aw come awhn that was my favorite death speech!

Can't win 'em all I guess =/

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-30-2014, 03:29 PM
So many polls today :p

Tied a bit between Haytham's, Al Mualim's and Connor's.

I'll have to go with Haytham. It was extremely sad, though he was dying and was still proud of his son.

I also like Hickey's and Church's. Very powerful.

straty88
08-30-2014, 03:53 PM
Went with Haytham. Such a sad scene and having read Forsaken also adds to it for me. Although I do think there should be more AC1 options in this poll. :P

Aphex_Tim
08-30-2014, 04:02 PM
Thomas Hickey. Why is he not in the poll? :(

GunnerGalactico
08-30-2014, 04:04 PM
I voted Haytham, that scene was both sad and deep.

JustPlainQuirky
08-30-2014, 04:09 PM
Cesare's was pretty hilarious.

Haytham is awesome, but wasn't a fan of his last words.

hmmm...

I choose...


Connor's ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)





You know it's coming ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

marvelfannumber
08-30-2014, 04:11 PM
Connor's ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

You know it's coming ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)



Hell yeah, I wanna play as old man Shay, they can totally make him look just like he did in my fanart. I wanna see some Cane vs. Tomahawk action!

RinoTheBouncer
08-30-2014, 04:28 PM
“Strength Altair” - Maria Thorpe

Xstantin
08-30-2014, 04:57 PM
I really liked Johnson's one. The scene was neat because it pretty much highlighted where the story was going imo. Also "May the Faceless One grant you the peace" line.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 05:56 PM
Connor didn't **** up with Johnson's kill. Well, unless you're sided with the Templars.

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

Hands down, Haytham. His chemistry and interactions with Connor (and Forsaken) that led up to the following kill was very emotional. Also, I hate how AC:3 forces you to press the X button during cut-scenes to kill certain people. It's torture, yo.

CoachAssassin
08-30-2014, 06:03 PM
Connor didn't **** up with Johnson's kill. Well, unless you're sided with the Templars.

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

Hands down, Haytham. His chemistry and interactions with Connor (and Forsaken) that led up to the following kill was very emotional. Also, I hate how AC:3 forces you to press the X button during cut-scenes to kill certain people. It's torture, yo.

Legends say that if you don't press X, after 24 hours Haytham will hug connor and they will be all cool and kill Lee together.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 06:25 PM
Somewhere out there, a fan girl is attempting it.

Hans684
08-30-2014, 06:25 PM
"It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm." ~ Benjamin Church.

One if many but it puts the A vs T to question, who is truly right? It's why I love it.

CoachAssassin
08-30-2014, 06:28 PM
Somewhere out there, a fan girl is attempting it.

Mayrice is at 4 hours atm.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 06:33 PM
Rumor has it, she haven't taken her eyes off the screen. Not even for a second.

Aphex_Tim
08-30-2014, 06:43 PM
Legends say that if you don't press X, after 24 hours Haytham will hug connor and they will be all cool and kill Lee together.

But what if you don't press X to kill Lee?
They just become the three best friends ever?

Hans684
08-30-2014, 06:59 PM
But what if you don't press X to kill Lee?
They just become the three best friends ever?

They have children and both share their animal obsession.

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 07:26 PM
Some of those have NO place in a poll about best death speeches.

Leondros: Does nothing for internal conflict or character progression. Just shows how much more human Ezio is "yeah yeah, rest in peace, what the **** ever"
Cesare: A child whining
Vieri: yeah...Ezio be mad yo...how awesome
Maria Thorpe: Really? from ALL of the others in AC I, you choose this?
Al-mualim: Nothing really interesting there apart from Al-mualim's surprise at his own defeat

Those should have been replaced with:
Manuel Paliologos: The family of the Templars is always one, no matter the nationality, religion, gender or color.
Garnier De Naplous: You just gotta watch it yourself
Thomas Hickey: Soldier vs Scoundrel, Principle vs Pleasure
Jubair Al Hakim: The hypocrisy of the Assassins
Benjamin Church: No single path is good and does no harm

I also don't see how Connor screwed up nor how the speech with Johnson had this element as its main "moral lesson" I see it as Johnson foreseeing the colonists' turning against each other and against the natives when there's no more enemy left to fight, basically the cynicism of the Templars at its best--he was not wrong.

voted for Haytham.

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-30-2014, 07:38 PM
Yeah, I still don't think Connor messed up with the Johnson assassination.

If there was one he messed up on, it would have been John Pitcairn's.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 07:44 PM
Connor didn't mess up with any of his assassinations. John PItcairn would set the Assassins and rebels all the way back to square one.

Hans684
08-30-2014, 07:46 PM
Connor didn't mess up with any of his assassinations. John PItcairn would set the Assassins and rebels all the way back to square one.

Depends on the objective, after killing John and William he doomed his people.

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-30-2014, 07:50 PM
Connor didn't mess up with any of his assassinations. John PItcairn would set the Assassins and rebels all the way back to square one.

When I say messed up, in other words, Pitcairn didn't technically have to die since he wasn't looking to kill Adams and Hancock. He was just looking to parley.

Unless he really was looking to kill them, but we'll never know.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 07:53 PM
Depends on the objective, after killing John and William he doomed his people.

[EDIT]

Technically, yes. But if anything, he and the rebels shouldn't have done anything then. If the Templars ruled America, they planned on giving everyone the ''freedom'' they think they want, except not on paper. Connor, the natives, and the rebels don't want that. They want real freedom. Pitcairn was the Templars' last attempt before trying to take down Washington after being aware of their near victory.

William was another example of what they don't want. Even if they were unharmed or left alone as Johnson supposedly promised, they weren't free. They were still owned by a white english man.


When I say messed up, in other words, Pitcairn didn't technically have to die since he wasn't looking to kill Adams and Hancock. He was just looking to parley.

Unless he really was looking to kill them, but we'll never know.

Whichever the case was, he was in it for the crown. If the crown won, everything would go back to the way it was, (except with more enforced laws and stuff) and the Templars would have full control of everyone.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 07:56 PM
Yeah, all these AC2/ ACB "Templars" shouldn't really be here.

Not exactly the best IMO.

But my fav is Jubair...

"Am I not unlike those precious books you seek to save? A source of Knowledge with which you disagree, yet you are rather quick to steal my life."

Pure Gold!!!

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 08:02 PM
Depends on the objective, after killing John and William he doomed his people.
Just because the Templars said it, does not mean it's true. So what if Johnson said that he was going to protect his people? He was shooting them when they refused to sell their lands. So what if Pitcairn said he wanted to Parlay with Adams and Hancock? He would'v most likely used force or torture to get them to lay down their arms. Pitcairn did not exactly show the friendliest face as he entered Lexington when he was looking to "parlay".

Connor's actually saved his people from a MUCH worse fate--true, their lands are gone but they're alive and they have new homes.

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 08:03 PM
also, inb4 "ohmagosh, anozer thread turned into a Curner thread"

Megas_Doux
08-30-2014, 08:04 PM
I voted for Haytham´s, however I would like to add Torres saying to Edward " You wear your convictions well. They suit you...", I love that whole scene in general.

"You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, yet dulled beyond reason and sapped of all spirit. So, aye... with everything I've seen and learned in these last years, I do believe it."

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 08:17 PM
"I would've succeeded if you let me played me part."
"Part of the puppeteer!"
"Better we hold the strings than another!"
"No! The strings should be severed! All should be Free!"

"There is no True path through life that's right, fair, and does no harm. Think on that if you're work alone benefits the Greater Good...you're enemy would beg to differ."

I-Like-Pie45
08-30-2014, 08:31 PM
"Yay you are dead and I am one step closer to revengeance!"

"Oh Ezio I am dead! I am so bad cause I am Templar! Now here is next person you must kill to get closer to revengeance!"

"Requiescat in Pace!"

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-30-2014, 08:34 PM
Johnson:

Connor: Ensured an end to your schemes. You sought to claim these lands for the Templars...
William: Aye. That we might PROTECT them! Do you think that good King George lies awake at night hoping that no harm comes to his native subjects? Or that the people of the city care one whit about them? Oh, sure, the colonists are happy to trade when they need food or shelter or a bit of extra padding for their armies. But when the walls of the city constrict - when there's crops that need soil - when there's... when there's no enemy to fight - we'll see how kind the people are then.
Connor: The colonists have no quarrel with the Iroquois.
William: Not yet. But they will. 'Tis the way of the world. In time, they'll turn. I... I could have stopped it. I could have saved you all...
Connor: You speak of salvation, but you were killing them.
William: Aye. Because they would not listen! And so, it seems, neither will you.
Connor: May the Faceless One grant you the peace you claimed to seek.

Pitcairn:

John: Kill them? Are you mad? I wanted only to parlay. There was so much to discuss. To explain... But you've put and end to that now.
Connor: If you speak true then I will carry your last words to them.
John: They must lay down their arms. They must stop this war!
Connor: Why them and not the Redcoats?
John: Do you not think we asked the same question of the British? These things take time. And it would have succeeded, had you let me play my part.
Connor: The part of the puppeteer.
John: Better we hold the strings than another.
Connor: No. The strings should be severed. All should be free.
John: And we should live forever on castles in the sky. You wield your blade like a man, but your mouth like a child. And more will die now because of that...
Connor: It is better to have faith in something, than none at all...

Hickey:

Connor: You chose to side with men who would rob us of our humanity simply because it was more profitable?
Thomas: Wot else is there? I'm not some blind fool who'd give up all I've got on principle. What IS principle anyway? Can ya bring it to the bank? Don't look at me like that. We're different, you and I! You're just some blind fool who's always chasin' butterflies. Where as I'm the type of guy who likes to have a beer in one hand and a titty in the other. Thing is, boy, I can have what I seek. Had it, even. You? Your hands will always be empty.

Church:

Benjamin: Are these the same men and women who fight with muskets forged from British steel? Who bind their wounds with bandages sewn by British hands. How convenient for them. We do the work. They reap the rewards.
Connor: You spin a story to excuse your crimes. As though you're the innocent one and they the thieves.
Benjamin: It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm. Do you truly think the Crown has no cause? No right to feel betrayed? You should know better than this, dedicated as you are to fighting Templars – who themselves see their work as just. Think on that the next time you insist your work alone befits the greater good. Your enemy would beg to differ – and would not be without cause.

Haytham:

Haytham: Don't think I have any intention of caressing your cheek and saying I was wrong. I will not weep and wonder what might have been. I'm sure you understand. Still, I'm proud of you in a way. You have shown great conviction. Strength. Courage. All noble qualities. I should have killed you long ago.

Biddle:

Nicholas: Is that why you hunted me? Because you thought me an enemy to the cause? You're every bit the fool I was told.
Connor: You brought pain and suffering upon innocent people for nothing but personal gain.
Nicholas: Pain. Suffering. I set them free. Weeded out the dissenters and empowered the Patriots. So what if I was named Admiral. The Revolution needs one and I was the best man for the job. The only man. If not for me, the Continental Navy would remain but a handful of rafts. For all your vision, you Assassins are blind to the truth.
Connor: Enough.
Nicholas: Wait. Let the Randolph die with me. Don't take her as a prize. Please. Please. I want no quarter, just to sink with my ship.

Still kind of wished Lee had a final speech too, but his ending scene was still just as perfect.

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 08:38 PM
"Yay you are dead and I am one step closer to revengeance!"

"Oh Ezio I am dead! I am so bad cause I am Templar! Now here is next person you must kill to get closer to revengeance!"

"Requiescat in Pace!"
such pholosophy
much deepth
wow

Megas_Doux
08-30-2014, 08:38 PM
Just because the Templars said it, does not mean it's true. So what if Johnson said that he was going to protect his people? He was shooting them when they refused to sell their lands. So what if Pitcairn said he wanted to Parlay with Adams and Hancock? He would'v most likely used force or torture to get them to lay down their arms. Pitcairn did not exactly show the friendliest face as he entered Lexington when he was looking to "parlay".

Connor's actually saved his people from a MUCH worse fate--true, their lands are gone but they're alive and they have new homes.

They could have been lying, it was pretty tough situation for the natives indeed. However, a pretty important part of the story in regards of its grey morals was to suggets that siding with the patriots was no better that with the temnplars....

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 08:45 PM
They could have been lying, it was pretty tough situation for the natives indeed. However, a pretty important part of the story in regards of its grey morals was to suggets that siding with the patriots was no better that with the temnplars....
Oh of course, I don't deny that there was a grey area, it's why I love the story. The thing about the Templars in AC III is that, sure...their goal was noble but the means was brutal..it's the brutality of the Templars that makes the whole thing grey. You can see good in what they want to do and in their words because they were honorable men but the brutality is what the Assassins fight against--ensuring control is brutal.

Connor's realization that his people will never be safe is really what personifies this. in hindsight, sure..we knew from the beginning that his people would never be safe because that's history and how it happened but for Connor? it's different. He's IN the situation.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 09:02 PM
"What of you Edward? Have you found the peace you seek?"

"I'm not aiming as high as that, for what peace but a confusion between two wars?"

"Ah, so you're a stoic then! She might've had for had a use for you after all."

^ This speech is epic and sad as it shows Edward coming to terms with himself and the Assassin Vs Templar war, but also how little he really meant in terms of "What of you Edward? Have you found the peace you seek?"



"You'd side with men who would rob us of our Humanity simply because it was more profitable!?"
"What else is there? I'm not some blind fool who'd give up all I got based on principle. What is principle anyway? Can ya bring it to the bank?

^ I really like this Comparison as it shows how much Connor sacrificed in exchanged for nothing in Contrast to Hickey who didn't give a **** about any of that, and chose to live a carefree but dangerous life style...and he really came more happy than Connor ever did.

SlyTrooper
08-30-2014, 09:10 PM
Haytham... obviously.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/5e62481a5aa8b6ff94a7f469d3d9302d/tumblr_mszr8hdjgH1s4vchao1_500.gif

Hans684
08-30-2014, 09:13 PM
Just because the Templars said it, does not mean it's true. So what if Johnson said that he was going to protect his people? He was shooting them when they refused to sell their lands. So what if Pitcairn said he wanted to Parlay with Adams and Hancock? He would'v most likely used force or torture to get them to lay down their arms. Pitcairn did not exactly show the friendliest face as he entered Lexington when he was looking to "parlay".

Connor's actually saved his people from a MUCH worse fate--true, their lands are gone but they're alive and they have new homes.

That can be said about both orders. He choose violence as a last option before getting assassinated(read below). By buying the land no one wound get hurt or driven out, because it would be his land. A colonial going agains that and attacking someones land is properly considered a crime during the time. It's not like Connor started the war in the first place, but he did. The first thing we see at Lexington is Pitcain telling them to surrender, then a random shoot triggering the battle(not gonna speculate since it won't get anywhere). And before Pitcairn went to Lexington we prepared an army, we where going the midnight ride warring the British is comming. Not friendly either, both sides where armed and ready to kill. Torture and force is not Templar exclusive, the Assassins have done it to.

Or he doomed them, they where forced to leave by the "friendly" patriots fighting for their own land and freedom. Right after they drive the natives away and start slavery, so freedom, much independence, wow. Then there is the war after that again agains the natives...


Technically, yes. But if anything, he and the rebels shouldn't have done anything then. If the Templars ruled America, they planned on giving everyone the ''freedom'' they think they want, except not on paper. Connor, the natives, and the rebels don't want that. They want real freedom. Pitcairn was the Templars' last attempt before trying to take down Washington after being aware of their near victory.

Indeed they shouldn't, because of what they did he was forced to negotiate with the navies. They stopped him from owning the land, stopped him from keeping out out of others hands because on paper it would be his land. There was no suggestions of him wanting to use an AOE method to have a dark and robotic control unlike Al Mualim, to end all conflicts. He was only to own the land, they where free in their current but conflicted situation. Haytham's idea was to guide and control, not mind control. The Assassins even partly use such ideas by showing human flaws so we might improve without the need of control, so they guide as well.


William was another example of what they don't want. Even if they were unharmed or left alone as Johnson supposedly promised, they weren't free. They were still owned by a white english man.

Technically, yes. But their land was still considered colonial land that no one owned so anyone could buy it and force them out without caring. With William owning the land that wouldn't happen. He would own the land so no could take it away from him and the natives that live there.
He was forced by Connor & Co. to use force since they stopped him from getting the land in a non-violent way. His first method was non-lethal, Washington was wiling to burn his people down more than one, his first option was lethal. I'd say William is better in this case.

GunnerGalactico
08-30-2014, 09:15 PM
Haytham... obviously.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/5e62481a5aa8b6ff94a7f469d3d9302d/tumblr_mszr8hdjgH1s4vchao1_500.gif

Why...are...you...talking...so...slow?

Sorry, couldn't resist :p

Hans684
08-30-2014, 09:22 PM
Why...are...you...talking...so...slow?

Sorry, couldn't resist :p

Are you touched in the head?

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 09:23 PM
Why...are...you...talking...so...slow?

Sorry, couldn't resist :p

"What do you want?"

*Pants* "Well your name for one?"

Assassin_M
08-30-2014, 09:29 PM
That can be said about both orders. He choose violence as a last option before getting assassinated(read below). By buying the land no one wound get hurt or driven out, because it would be his land. A colonial going agains that and attacking someones land is properly considered a crime during the time. It's not like Connor started the war in the first place, but he did. The first thing we see at Lexington is Pitcain telling them to surrender, then a random shoot triggering the battle(not gonna speculate since it won't get anywhere). And before Pitcairn went to Lexington we prepared an army, we where going the midnight ride warring the British is comming. Not friendly either, both sides where armed and ready to kill. Torture and force is not Templar exclusive, the Assassins have done it to.
I never said that it cannot be said by both orders, it's the whole paradox of the Assassins that Altair talked about and embraced. it's what makes the story grey. Sure, no one would drive the natives out but what if one of the natives steps out of line? what if Johnson comes up with another "project" and the natives refuse? he'd threaten them, just as he did when they refused to sell their lands to him. Connor did not exactly assassinate Johnson as he was peacefully negotiating, he assassinated him as he was threatening to shoot the natives--how many was he gonna shoot before he "saved" them? Again, Connor never started the war...Just because Haytham says it does not mean it's true and when Pitcairn died, the war had already started, so no, Connor did NOT start any wars. it had already started.
Oh no, that's the thing we see with Pitcairn..we see Pitcairn marching with a force of hundreds of redcoats with guns telling the rebels to surrender--he's the one who claimed to wanting to parlay, HE's the one with the burden of friendliness and again, he does through Lexington and causes a lot of death on his way to concord.
How is a warning not friendly?? British coming with guns, people must be warned, how is this not "friendly" heck, it's a defensive from the aggressor.


Or he doomed them, they where forced to leave by the "friendly" patriots fighting for their own land and freedom. Right after they drive the natives away and start slavery, so freedom, much independence, wow. Then there is the war after that again agains the natives...
never said the patriots were friendly either, they betrayed Connor. Again, he saved them from a FAR worse fate--they're away from their lands, sure but they're still alive. The war with the other natives is just normal human behavior that Connor acknowledges--Humanity is flawed but he holds on to hope that they'll be better.


Indeed they shouldn't, because of what they did he was forced to negotiate with the navies. They stopped him from owning the land, stopped him from keeping out out of others hands because on paper it would be his land. There was no suggestions of him wanting to use an AOE method to have a dark and robotic control unlike Al Mualim, to end all conflicts. He was only to own the land, they where free in their current but conflicted situation. Haytham's idea was to guide and control, not mind control. The Assassins even partly use such ideas by showing human flaws so we might improve without the need of control, so they guide as well.
"Give me your lands, or i'll kill you all" Such freedom.


Technically, yes. But their land was still considered colonial land that no one owned so anyone could buy it and force them out without caring. With William owning the land that wouldn't happen. He would own the land so no could take it away from him and the natives that live there.
He was forced by Connor & Co. to use force since they stopped him from getting the land in a non-violent way. His first method was non-lethal, Washington was wiling to burn his people down more than one, his first option was lethal. I'd say William is better in this case.
Buying a land without people's consent is non-lethal, sure and when they refused, William resorted to violence...you just can;t go around it...you can't kill the people you want to save when they refuse to give you their home. "Oh hey, can I just buy your home? you can still live in it but it'll be in my name" "why?" "so I can keep you safe" "well, no thank you" "*raises gun in your face* give me your home or i'll kill you" PLEASE justify this.

Fatal-Feit
08-30-2014, 09:34 PM
Indeed they shouldn't, because of what they did he was forced to negotiate with the navies. They stopped him from owning the land, stopped him from keeping out out of others hands because on paper it would be his land. There was no suggestions of him wanting to use an AOE method to have a dark and robotic control unlike Al Mualim, to end all conflicts. He was only to own the land, they where free in their current but conflicted situation. Haytham's idea was to guide and control, not mind control. The Assassins even partly use such ideas by showing human flaws so we might improve without the need of control, so they guide as well.

That is where the story becomes controversial. In your opinion, what the Templars originally had going was right. And it was arguably more peaceful than the revolution. Less conflict, less bloodshed. But for said others, it weren't. It wasn't the freedom they want. There was poverty, taxes, etc, etc. Connor, himself, have gown up experiencing first hand what it was like with his land being bullied and all.


Technically, yes. But their land was still considered colonial land that no one owned so anyone could buy it and force them out without caring. With William owning the land that wouldn't happen. He would own the land so no could take it away from him and the natives that live there.
He was forced by Connor & Co. to use force since they stopped him from getting the land in a non-violent way. His first method was non-lethal, Washington was wiling to burn his people down more than one, his first option was lethal. I'd say William is better in this case.

Let's propose William did manage to buy the land. He was still a Templar who certainly had more objectives than buying the natives' land. One way or another, Connor had to kill him. And with him dead, the natives would have been driven out, regardless.

SlyTrooper
08-30-2014, 09:51 PM
That is where the story becomes controversial. In your opinion, what the Templars originally had going was right. And it was arguably more peaceful than the revolution. Less conflict, less bloodshed. But for said others, it weren't. It wasn't the freedom they want. There was poverty, taxes, etc, etc. Connor, himself, have gown up experiencing first hand what it was like with his land being bullied and all.



Let's propose William did manage to buy the land. He was still a Templar who certainly had more objectives than buying the natives' land. One way or another, Connor had to kill him. And with him dead, the natives would have been driven out, regardless.

I hate the Assassins sometimes. Just putting that out there. People say they want to brainwash everybody, but that was only the ambition of the modern Templars. What the modern Templars need is to be destroyed & rebuilt.

Namikaze_17
08-30-2014, 09:56 PM
I don't see how people thought they were gonna be alright...

Whether Connor/ Colonists or Templars/ British would've won, the natives were f***ed.

Hans684
08-31-2014, 12:21 PM
That is where the story becomes controversial. In your opinion, what the Templars originally had going was right. And it was arguably more peaceful than the revolution. Less conflict, less bloodshed. But for said others, it weren't. It wasn't the freedom they want. There was poverty, taxes, etc, etc. Connor, himself, have gown up experiencing first hand what it was like with his land being bullied and all.

That's why I supported his first methods, they where peaceful until someone destroy his plans. He didn't want to kill anyone, he even said the killing is not the awnser. It was his last resort. British control =/= Templar control, the Brits king still has most control so if he says "taxes", it's going to be taxes. If he support slavery there is going to be slavery. Poverty is the effect of taxes so that's the kings fault. Templars are something of their own, British, Americans, Caribbean. It's all labels, it doesn't matter where they are from. How is a peaceful way with less conflict and bloodshed worse if their still free but controlled, something they already was under the king and when the patriots won. There is always control. His land was bullied by Washington, do you think Washington would have attached them if William owned the land? William has control over dome redcoats, is British. So attacking his land would be like attacking the king.


Let's propose William did manage to buy the land. He was still a Templar who certainly had more objectives than buying the natives' land. One way or another, Connor had to kill him. And with him dead, the natives would have been driven out, regardless.

Just read all my replays, not gonna repeat anymore.


I never said that it cannot be said by both orders, it's the whole paradox of the Assassins that Altair talked about and embraced. it's what makes the story grey.

Their equal on that front.


Sure, no one would drive the natives out but what if one of the natives steps out of line? what if Johnson comes up with another "project" and the natives refuse? he'd threaten them, just as he did when they refused to sell their lands to him. Connor did not exactly assassinate Johnson as he was peacefully negotiating, he assassinated him as he was threatening to shoot the natives--how many was he gonna shoot before he "saved" them?

Johnson's first method was non-lethal, so if he got the land(by buying it) and Connor didn't/couldn't not stop it. He would still use non-lethal methods, he was forced to negotiate since he failed(due to Connor & Co's involvement) buy the land peacefully. He tried 2 times without threatening, first by buying it and second with negotiation but the natives didn't want someone owning the colonial land that on pepper no one owned. So he turned to force, force was his last resort. And it's by that point I agree with you since treating and killing them is bad. I don't support that but his peaceful methods. He himself said war is not the awnser(but right before killing them). If he was that psychopath people brand him, then he wouldn't even tried to do it peacefully at first.

True Connor didn't but Johnson never wanted to kill them, as said he was forced since all other peaceful options failed because of Connor & Co's involvement. As for how many, I'm pretty sure he was talking with some of the native leaders, so if he had to kill he'd only need to kill them but as said one his killing start I don't support anymore.


Again, Connor never started the war...Just because Haytham says it does not mean it's true and when Pitcairn died, the war had already started, so no, Connor did NOT start any wars. it had already started.

Fair enough.


Oh no, that's the thing we see with Pitcairn..we see Pitcairn marching with a force of hundreds of redcoats with guns telling the rebels to surrender--he's the one who claimed to wanting to parlay, HE's the one with the burden of friendliness and again, he does through Lexington and causes a lot of death on his way to concord.
How is a warning not friendly?? British coming with guns, people must be warned, how is this not "friendly" heck, it's a defensive from the aggressor.

This is the point where we come to speculation, now why would he take an army with him? Because their prepared an army before he arrived? Possible. Because he didn't trust them either? Possible. Because the patriots and redcoats is in conflict? Possible. For his own safety? Possible. Both sides preparing an army is not friendly by either side, both is ready to kill. As for what that happened when the battle is triggered, I don't support the brutality he did. When things reach a curtain level like with Johnson's killing I don't support anymore.


never said the patriots were friendly either, they betrayed Connor. Again, he saved them from a FAR worse fate--they're away from their lands, sure but they're still alive. The war with the other natives is just normal human behavior that Connor acknowledges--Humanity is flawed but he holds on to hope that they'll be better.

They betrayed him, burned down his village, tried to do it a second time, kicked his people out of their land, slavery and then the war after that. Can you please tell me about that worse fate?
Indeed it is but if they never where kicked out it wouldn't have happened, sure Templars are brutal at times(just as the Assassins) but calling one bad for doing the same is hypocritical and double standard. Remember Stock?


"Give me your lands, or i'll kill you all" Such freedom.

*Le me going to buy land peacefully that no one owners on paper to keep it and it's people safe*

*Le people send a member to destroy my source of income*

*Le me try to negotiate*

*Le people don't accept*

*Le me give last chance*

*Le people still don't accept*

(Moment I don't support Johnson anymore) *Le Johnson raises his guns and start treating and killing*

*Le Connor assassinate Johnson*


Buying a land without people's consent is non-lethal, sure and when they refused, William resorted to violence...you just can;t go around it...you can't kill the people you want to save when they refuse to give you their home. "Oh hey, can I just buy your home? you can still live in it but it'll be in my name" "why?" "so I can keep you safe" "well, no thank you" "*raises gun in your face* give me your home or i'll kill you" PLEASE justify this.

Read above. And no I'm not justifying his killing, I'm saying why he was forced to kill and who that's also responsible. It's not only just Johnson's fault. It's like saying "you are not responsible for the action of other men". Even when you either dragged the person into the mess or your actions have impact on the person your after and their actions by letting their first methods fail. Cause and action.

Kakuzu745
09-01-2014, 05:29 AM
Al Mualim...Leandros is cool too

travilanche
09-01-2014, 05:57 AM
Is there some reason that Thomas Hickey isn't on this list? His was for sure the best. Poll Invalid.

Fatal-Feit
09-01-2014, 06:10 AM
Is there some reason that Thomas Hickey isn't on this list? His was for sure the best. Poll Invalid.

10/10


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7XPYY4kRRM

Assassin_M
09-01-2014, 07:22 AM
That's why I supported his first methods, they where peaceful until someone destroy his plans. He didn't want to kill anyone, he even said the killing is not the awnser. It was his last resort. British control =/= Templar control, the Brits king still has most control so if he says "taxes", it's going to be taxes. If he support slavery there is going to be slavery. Poverty is the effect of taxes so that's the kings fault. Templars are something of their own, British, Americans, Caribbean. It's all labels, it doesn't matter where they are from. How is a peaceful way with less conflict and bloodshed worse if their still free but controlled, something they already was under the king and when the patriots won. There is always control. His land was bullied by Washington, do you think Washington would have attached them if William owned the land? William has control over dome redcoats, is British. So attacking his land would be like attacking the king.
Washington attacked Connor's village BECAUSE he thought they were British, I hardly think he wouldn't attack if Johnson controlled it.


Their equal on that front.
I never said they're not.


Johnson's first method was non-lethal, so if he got the land(by buying it) and Connor didn't/couldn't not stop it. He would still use non-lethal methods, he was forced to negotiate since he failed(due to Connor & Co's involvement) buy the land peacefully. He tried 2 times without threatening, first by buying it and second with negotiation but the natives didn't want someone owning the colonial land that on pepper no one owned. So he turned to force, force was his last resort. And it's by that point I agree with you since treating and killing them is bad. I don't support that but his peaceful methods. He himself said war is not the awnser(but right before killing them). If he was that psychopath people brand him, then he wouldn't even tried to do it peacefully at first.
It doesnt matter if it's a last resort, it's still an option and like I said, so long as that exists, you can expect it to happen ANY TIME, including after he takes control--it does not matter if he was peaceful at the beginning, he was still FORCING himself on people who do not agree to his wishes--it does not matter that he's a Templar or promises to make it safe--he's brutal and forceful.
The example I said is perfect for this.


True Connor didn't but Johnson never wanted to kill them, as said he was forced since all other peaceful options failed because of Connor & Co's involvement. As for how many, I'm pretty sure he was talking with some of the native leaders, so if he had to kill he'd only need to kill them but as said one his killing start I don't support anymore.
wanted or not, it was an option and he resorted to it--that's the thing, when it exists, then it negates any peaceful endeavor sought out before.
Sure, kill a few native leaders and then take lands, then other natives will disagree so kill more natives and more natives and more and more until all bow down.


This is the point where we come to speculation, now why would he take an army with him? Because their prepared an army before he arrived? Possible. Because he didn't trust them either? Possible. Because the patriots and redcoats is in conflict? Possible. For his own safety? Possible. Both sides preparing an army is not friendly by either side, both is ready to kill. As for what that happened when the battle is triggered, I don't support the brutality he did. When things reach a curtain level like with Johnson's killing I don't support anymore.
There were SO many other ways he could have approached. For one, the rebels prepared a militia because of the news that Pitcairn was marching an army to arrest Patriots and root out all of their weapons and supplies--had Pitcairn sent a peaceful envoy beforehand and showed a gesture of friendliness, then none of this would have happened--the patriot commanders themselves ordered their officers not to fire unless fired upon.


They betrayed him, burned down his village, tried to do it a second time, kicked his people out of their land, slavery and then the war after that. Can you please tell me about that worse fate?
Indeed it is but if they never where kicked out it wouldn't have happened, sure Templars are brutal at times(just as the Assassins) but calling one bad for doing the same is hypocritical and double standard. Remember Stock?
The thing is, it was British soldiers that burned down Connor's village, not colonists. The second time failed and Connor saved his people--no, they migrated and left their lands so the congress took it.
Slavery had nothing to do with Connor's people. it was the colonists and every other nation in the world, it's not exclusive to the colonies. No one knows if Connor's people took part in the war of 1812, not to mention that the war of 1812 was not too destructive to the Mohawk people in general. Like I said, had his tribe stayed, they may have had a FAR worse fate...see trail of tears--that's not to mention that the wars may have actually been started by the British Templars, who knows?? maybe they attempted to retake the colonies.

I never said the Assassins were good and the Templars were bad--I said that what Connor did was ultimately better for his people had they stayed and George Washington proved to be a much better leader than he was a soldier and he attempted many times to help the natives.


*Le me going to buy land peacefully that no one owners on paper to keep it and it's people safe*

*Le people send a member to destroy my source of income*

*Le me try to negotiate*

*Le people don't accept*

*Le me give last chance*

*Le people still don't accept*

(Moment I don't support Johnson anymore) *Le Johnson raises his guns and start treating and killing*

*Le Connor assassinate Johnson*
Again, the presence of a threat with violence negates everything.




Read above. And no I'm not justifying his killing, I'm saying why he was forced to kill and who that's also responsible. It's not only just Johnson's fault. It's like saying "you are not responsible for the action of other men". Even when you either dragged the person into the mess or your actions have impact on the person your after and their actions by letting their first methods fail. Cause and action.
I'm sure you can also find an excuse if someone barges in, tries to buy your home without your consent, then try to "negotiate" buying your home, then raise a gun to your face when you refuse.

Farlander1991
09-01-2014, 08:14 AM
Washington attacked Connor's village BECAUSE he thought they were British, I hardly think he wouldn't attack if Johnson controlled it.

Well, let's not forget that part of Templar's plan was to not have Washington alive in the first place ;) :p

Namikaze_17
09-01-2014, 08:25 AM
Well, let's not forget that part of Templar's plan was to not have Washington alive in the first place ;) :p

That was only if necessary, they just wanted to get him out of power to insert Lee in. Then Connor comes along and forces their hand.

Assassin_M
09-01-2014, 08:26 AM
Well, let's not forget that part of Templar's plan was to not have Washington alive in the first place ;) :p
I know, He was talking about Washington not attacking the land if it was owned by Brits, to which I told him what I posted--he had to mention the Charles Lee argument on his own but he did not, so....I capitalized:p


That was only if necessary, they just wanted to get him out of power to insert Lee in. Then Connor comes along and forces their hand.
To be honest, they're such sore losers...Lee loses favor and is not chosen "W KEEEL ZE WINNNEERRRR" it was their plan from the start. Connor discovered the plan to kill GW in 1776 and GW was elected in 1776, so...

Namikaze_17
09-01-2014, 09:15 AM
To be honest, they're such sore losers...Lee loses favor and is not chosen "W KEEEL ZE WINNNEERRRR" it was their plan from the start. Connor discovered the plan to kill GW in 1776 and GW was elected in 1776, so...

I know, but before that they just wanted GW out of the picture, not exactly dead per se. But you have a point though.

armutyus
09-01-2014, 12:45 PM
If anyone write or not i don't know but i put the Blackbeard's death speech to number one.

"In a world without gold, we might have been heroes!"