Assassin's Creed Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714181550

2014-07-14T18:15:50Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "No need to be a like that! Your point was clear, and I understood it... that doesn't stop a biasness coming out in it. Just because you meant one thing does not mean another ..."

No need to be a like that!

Your point was clear, and I understood it... that doesn't stop a biasness coming out in it. Just because you meant one thing does not mean another thing has not been put across. But whatever, clearly no reasoning with you.

However, it was not Digweed, it was one of the chaps beating him up. Rest your case? But you're wrong again. The journal was A) not fully in Haytham's possession and B) was still being decoded.

All I have done is put a potential at you (The Journal) and have identified it as such; A possibility, with no proof to fully dispute it, nor to fully confirm it... all you keep doing is throwing things at me, hoping it is the answer and saying: "No... you don't understand"... I understand perfectly... you are trying to make a distinction between two morally bad parties that are both guilty of morally bad acts.

No distinction can be made. BOTH have performed the same morally bad acts. both are as bad as each other: it is stupid declaring one act of murder or kidnap or whatever as being worse than another. There really is nothing more to it. I tried to bring a respectful close to our discussion, and you basically acted like a child throwing his toys at me. So again: It was nice speaking to you, take care.

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714171919

2014-07-14T17:19:19Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with ""Also Haytham did not make a copy of the journal, taking it from Juan in 1747 and handing it to Birch when he returned to Britain, having taken several peaks into the book. Th..."

"Also Haytham did not make a copy of the journal, taking it from Juan in 1747 and handing it to Birch when he returned to Britain, having taken several peaks into the book. The book was written to detail the First Civilization research, and also had the handwritings of several other people. Haytham had no idea of his father being a pirate or an Assassin when he reunited with Jenny in 1758, so no, that particular journal did not detail Edward's personal life"

Oh dear, oh dear... Incorrect... Assassin's Creed Forsaken Page 318:

"Moments later he was asking, "Where is the book?" with a fidgety sound to his voice.
"William Johnson has made a copy..."...

So Haytham did have a copy made. And you will also find that Haytham DID learn about Edward being an Assassin, way, way before finding Jenny. Just before he ends up under Braddock's orders I believe. And unless Edward had created two journals, Haytham has read it. But Haytham does make note that Edward did not lie to him and that Haytham's journal was him doing the same for Connor. it is important to remember we only see sections of the journals. and that their will be many more entries and secrets detailed that are only hinted at us. Why would we have seen any entires in Forsaken where Haytham talks about Edward's past, before IV is announced.

As to the other point... I can only explain it now, in the most basic way possible. Whether or not you mean to... you show a biasness towards the Assassins' morality. Doesn't matter if one is slightly more loose with their morals or not... both are as bad and guilty as one another.

But as you said, we have gone of topic. It was nice discussing the morality of the Orders with you :).

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714102527

2014-07-14T10:25:27Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Whoops... Derby is a British city, and since I live close to it, I see it more than Darby, and that's what I type, without thinking to much about it :/ The very same Journal...."

Whoops... Derby is a British city, and since I live close to it, I see it more than Darby, and that's what I type, without thinking to much about it :/

The very same Journal. Edward's journal that he was killed for. Haytham had a copy made, unless I am mistaken? So he would have the exploits of his dad, the pirate. (It would also explain how Connor came to know about Edward; he found Haytham's journal... I doubt Edward's was to far away) I could be wrong... I just don't see Edward keeping two Journals... that's all.

I am not missing any point. While saying how neutral you are... you are also saying... "yeah but the Templars are slightly worse at it". At least that's what I am reading it as anyway. Oh well... I think we have both made our respective points clear... which are not dissimilar... Just the "how bad" differs I think. :)

User blog comment:Fijibuffman1925/Parents vs AC/@comment-5174994-20140711175511/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714101446

2014-07-14T10:14:46Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Totally agree outsider! I can't recall where I heard/read it... but didn't one area in the US ban (or limit, can't 100% remember) use of guns and see crime rate fall... a lot...."

Totally agree outsider! I can't recall where I heard/read it... but didn't one area in the US ban (or limit, can't 100% remember) use of guns and see crime rate fall... a lot. Earlier this year... so can't remember where I read it.

The right to bear arms was introduced by the very people that can also - take it out. over 200 years later, you don't need to keep with a rule created in another time for reasons that don't exists today.

User blog comment:Fijibuffman1925/Parents vs AC/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714100540

2014-07-14T10:05:40Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "I was allowed to play Mortal Kombat at about 4 years old. And now at 21, I have yet to rip someone's spine out Most of these shootings happen in countries that have more lax ..."

I was allowed to play Mortal Kombat at about 4 years old. And now at 21, I have yet to rip someone's spine out

Most of these shootings happen in countries that have more lax gun control. They are done by people who are mentally unstable. It is their parents at fault. They should recognise these issues and deal with them. It is bad parenting; it is they that should teach right from wrong. and recognise when their child needs professional help. Not blame media for it after its done.

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714095148

2014-07-14T09:51:48Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Yet Edward's Journal, is the Black Flag Novel... like Haytham's before it; I guess I just always thought Edward's journal was read by Haytham... apparently Edward kept 2 then...."

Yet Edward's Journal, is the Black Flag Novel... like Haytham's before it; I guess I just always thought Edward's journal was read by Haytham... apparently Edward kept 2 then... oh well.

My point is simple. You are all defending the Assassins, and saying how evil the Templars are. That is not the case. BOTH use morally "bad" methods to reach their target. Therefore BOTH are bad. It is mentioned throughout the games. You then say... its bad because of this reasoning... So I say, we can't know the reasoning to some of their choices, so I offer an equally plausible reasoning; THEY ALL believe, whether ASSASSIN, OR TEMPLAR that their reasoning is just. Both are morally "Bad". it is as simple as that.

Call it what you want Molotov... you made the distinction of family members, as if that makes any difference. My ridiculous question was to point out your ridiculous claim that the Templars are worse because of the distinction of targeting family members. But lets not forget Ezio's rage when Yusef died shall we? (Note, Also, yes Ezio was in training... just not combat training).

Both are BAD. You are both claiming the same... yet in your reasoning the Templars are worse. BOTH kill innocents. Both lie, cheat... and all the other stuff I have said many times now.. it doesn't matter the ifs, buts and intricate details... BOTH do it. But importantly, BOTH want some type of control. I believe the Templar ideals are right... simply because they are more likely to create peace should they come to pass; what the Assassins want is not possible.

However, back to the Orginal topic (which I notice I never answered). A "dark" assassin protagonist is not possible. We would have to be looking at it with a protagonist who is against those ideals to see the opposite as "bad". AKA, a Templar, or a follower of Juno. Remember how we saw Haytham. and then once we knew he was a Templar, people questioned how "good" he actually was. Imagine a Haytham character was the protag (for a full game) and Connor the antagonist... Connor would suddenly become (even) more obviously Naïve and annoying. Which is possible to happen, Derby has talked about whether a Templar is a possible protag and so long as the main issue is the Assassin's "Creed", they meet what the product is.

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140714002516

2014-07-14T00:25:16Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Lets get onto that list then!!! Uberto: His family were threatened (rather ironic considering my last post, hehe). He was an innocent and should have been helped not killed. ..."

Lets get onto that list then!!!

Uberto: His family were threatened (rather ironic considering my last post, hehe). He was an innocent and should have been helped not killed.
The Piazzi conspiracy had three motives: Selfishness, killing a tyrant (How Ironic, a Templar doing an Assassin's job) and for Templar goals. (So a bit mixed here)
The barbargo lot: I can't recall to much on them; But from what I remember yes they were corrupt and selfish. But: Moro was an innocent. Made in to something he wasn't... so again should have been protected by the assassin. 1490 - 1499: Doesn't count; most believed they were doing right... nothing corrupt there (Apart from the odd one or two, who did it selfishly: the Farmer is one, if I remember right)
1500 - 1509: Well naturally... it was Cesare's guys. (Although Ercole wasn't and believed he acted in the best interests of his own minor order).

But notice how your entire list of corrupt Templars comes from the er... corrupt Grand masters?

Really? Hickey yes. Malfatto? Hmm... I can't recall him being inducted... source of his induction or a mention of it: otherwise he is as much of a Templar as Ezio is assassin before his induction?

Well, Haytham was in possession of Edward's Journal and well... Jenny told him. And I will point you to Haytham's last entry... The tradition of truth his father left for him... (I am paraphrasing: My copy is at the bottom of the Black Chest edition of IV). (About Jenny) Maybe... but subjective. He could just as easily have seen it as not being "bad" by killing her. She may have been a slave... But in her earlier years, as a concubine she would have lived relatively well... But I agree, there is other more morally correct methods.

Yeah, I have read the comics... I just don't feel it paints anyone in a bad light... The Assassins wanted what they felt is theirs.

Don't worry, I am not ignoring the point about my "prejudice" :). Infact I believe I am being the least prejudice. I am the one looking at from all sides, under the understanding of "bad" and "good" being subjective and not wholly agreeable. It is I, who keep making the point that none are morally "good" and that the means are morally "bad". Loose with morals? They both kill... murder is morally "bad"... therefore they are both bad. BOTH orders have used the SAME tactics to achieve their ends. therefore neither are "good". Well, naturally, the writers have the black and white lights on to much... unfortunately they have to appeal to more than just those like us who follow the more inner workings of the lore. But, As such we can also, surely, see both Orders are wrong in their means. I am not defending the Templars... merely shouting back at the Assassins "POT, KETTLE, BLACK".

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713235414

2014-07-13T23:54:14Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Ahh... I see, so the people Ezio killed to reveal Manual are not important because none were Manual's family? Do not be silly. Rodrigo and Cesare are awful examples, both beca..."

Ahh... I see, so the people Ezio killed to reveal Manual are not important because none were Manual's family? Do not be silly.
Rodrigo and Cesare are awful examples, both became corrupted: although, if you were to push me... Federico and Giovanni are Assassins, so are active in the AvT and does not count as merely family members. Petruccio is the only one I can say touché on. As for Cesare: well, going by your distinction, therefore narrowing "anyone he wants" to family killings and intimidation: Mario was an Assassin, as so does not fall into that.
Lets also take William of the list. He was an Assassin. Charles was in mourning, Haytham was essentially a member of his "family". Torres may have done that... but name one Assassin who has selflessly done as much as Torres to improve lives?
I have already explained the most likely reasoning for Ahmet.

See Subjective? I can explain as much as you can blast them.

But it is pointless anyway. You have already confirmed the Assassins used the same tactics. and so are just as bad... once or a hundred times... its still been done.

Agree with them? That is not the issue... I have already said both Orders are guilty, while everyone tries to push "evil deeds" onto the Templars. I agree with their Philosophy, not necessarily the acts committed in its name. It is not me explaining away the Assassin's evils as "Well... the Templars pushed this a bit further".

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713232206

2014-07-13T23:22:06Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with ""Throughout the assassins creed franchise, the story has always went the same basic route of putting you in the shoes of an assassin slaying the corrupt Templars one by one" ..."

"Throughout the assassins creed franchise, the story has always went the same basic route of putting you in the shoes of an assassin slaying the corrupt Templars one by one"

Not all of the Templars we "slay" are corrupt. Corrupt, as in using the influence, resources, and position of the Templar Order, for selfish, personal gains. AKA, Cesare. Name all of the corrupt Templars (And by Templars I do not mean Hench Men such as Malfatto, Hickey).

bad is a subjective word. what is bad to one person can be different to another. So no, I mean corrupt.

Both orders believe the end justifies the means. That is why they both do what it commonly believed to be bad (KILL). the reasoning for both orders is the same: It is for the greater good. Only one end can actually bring about peace. and that is Order.

I think at first, Rodrigo was a true Templar. I think he became frustrated, and greedy, and that's what eventually led to his corruption. Cesare was just completely selfish. It is a stretch to use Malfatto. He was a grunt, nothing more.

True, it was kinda "bad" of Ahmet to do that. But I ask you, what if he didn't? What would Ezio have done? Walked of home? Or gone straight to retrieve the keys? Ahmet read Ezio's priorities correctly, and used it to buy himself time. Same as Ezio's sacrifice to the greater good of killing one man (Kill many innocents, to reveal one target).

Easily explained: First we saw the Templars through the Templars eyes. THEN we saw the Templars from an Assassins eyes. Admittedly Haytham did become more cold in his latter life. But not evil. He became battle hardened finding out about Edward, Jenny and Birch's great secret, at the horror practiced on Holden. As for Jenny... yes it was justified. Put yourself in Birch's position. Jenny knew EVERYTHING, but Birch wanted Haytham as a student: yes it was morally bad, but to him necessary. Charles Lee, believed himself better than everyone else: Haytham again points out this English Imperialism he has. He also though himself above Hickey (Socially an inferior). Charles, Johnson and co were stupid, Haytham questions their actions, and laments Holden's superiority to them. He did not agree, nor condone with Johnsons' means.

TBH, IMO, the comics didn't really do that, they felt betrayed, and wanted what they believed they should be the guardians of (Much like how they felt when Calderon went rogue). Again, bad is subjective. but like I said both orders:

"Both lie, both cheat, both rob, both kill, both manipulate, both have extremists and members that become corrupt, both are sneaky, both work behind the scenes, both are at fault for Juno's release"

Both are bad, both believe their "bad" actions will be justified latter. But by going from "bad" and "good" they are COMPLETELY EVEN! Because of the above. You can't say Ahmet is bad for killing people... but say... for example, Ezio isn't. Same between Connor and Haytham. Birch and Achilles. Rodrigo and Giovanni. Abbass and Manual. Torres and Altair... well, you get the idea.

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-5174994-20140713113618/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713225121

2014-07-13T22:51:22Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "And yet Sima, Connor failed in his mission (to protect his people and his people's land... simply because he did not listen to Haytham. Haytham himself says (in Forsaken, if ..."

And yet Sima, Connor failed in his mission (to protect his people and his people's land... simply because he did not listen to Haytham.

Haytham himself says (in Forsaken, if I remember correctly) that Johnson was an idiot for what he did. I think latter on, he begins to get really pissed with the idiocy of all of them

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507

2014-07-13T21:05:07Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Over on ACi, we had many debates about the philosophies... And more than you would think either don't support one Order over the over, or they support the Templars. We even ha..."

Over on ACi, we had many debates about the philosophies... And more than you would think either don't support one Order over the over, or they support the Templars. We even had one nutjob (Yes, Nin, if you decide to gander around here, I mean you ;) ).

Personally I support the Templars.

So: You say slaying corrupt Templars? Name them? Robert de Sable? No. There was maybe 2 (3 if you include Al Mualim) that were actually there for reasons over than the Templar goals.
ACII: While they came across as a bit crazy: if you look, and listen carefully, you'll find not maybe were corrupt... the Piazzi's yes, maybe... ''Maybe''... the Barbarigo.
ACB: Only Cesare. And if you listen to Lucritzia during the mission of rescuing Sforza, she reveals some interesting tidbits about the Assassin's most powerful ally.
ACR: Again, name one corrupt member in this entire game? You can name grunts such as Renegade... but he wasn't corrupt... his interests aligned with the Templars.
ACIII: The Bulldog abandoned the Order. Charles ''was'' a bit harsh and a bit Imperialistic, but he wanted what the Templars seek. Hickey again was a Grunt, in it for the cash (But hey, the Assassins hire mercenaries, right?).
ACIV: Torres donated a LOT of money to charities FYI. But name a corrupt Templar?

It is very clearly shown in all games (and side media) that the Templars and the Assassins are the same. Only their goals differ.

Both lie, both cheat, both rob, both kill, both manipulate, both have extremists and members that become corrupt, both are sneaky, both work behind the scenes, both are at fault for Juno's release (and Nin's fanatic following of Juno).

The Assassins are hypocrites! Freedom and anti control... yet follow a set of rules and a chain of command, and kill any who do different than they. ally a tyrant who is controlling a republic. Yes people like Vidic may suggest some type of 'bad guy'... but you have to have guys you hate, but Machiavelli also came across as a dick, as did Altair at one point (Again a sense of being better... just like Baron Octavian and Charles Lee).

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/Could Shay be a Kenway?/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140705153200/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140705173937

2014-07-05T17:39:37Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "Oh dear... Didn't notice I did that... Another child of Haytham**** No more gaming word play from you now!"

Oh dear... Didn't notice I did that... Another child of Haytham**** No more gaming word play from you now!

User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/Could Shay be a Kenway?/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140705153200

2014-07-05T15:32:00Z

90.218.118.81: Created page with "That is such a nice idea. I am really hoping Comet is real... The series really needs a Templar lead for a full game. And a Second son of Haytham would be a nice way to see ho..."

That is such a nice idea. I am really hoping Comet is real... The series really needs a Templar lead for a full game. And a Second son of Haytham would be a nice way to see how he a) interacts with Haytham and B) how he would interact with Connor.