Talk:Jacques de Molay's advisor

Killed in 1307

The fact that we can play as this fellow seems to suggest that he was not actually killed in 1307, just heavily wounded. (Genetic memories being passed on, and all that.) --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:46, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Or the thing we saw is a recollection of muliple samples made by Abstergo. Imagine they collected de Carneillon's memories.. Nihil Verum. Omnia Licita 08:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC) 08:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Even if Abstergo got their hands on De Carneillon's memories, it doesn't change the fact that they would have had to extract the Templar's from an ancestor; one who had to have been born after October 13,1307. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:56, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Correct. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 15:26, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

I think they recovered the Templar's remains, and extract the memories from them. I think know they can, like with Desmond and Clay's bodies. Lorenzo.ladogana (talk) 02:16, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, but apparently we can view someone's entire life now. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 17:47, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

I've browsed some of Darby's tweets, but it's not very clear to me. It sounds like Abstergo has managed to move past the conception barrier. But at the same time, Darby says that this French Templar's death was an edit, to make the moment more exciting. He was a minor character anyway - for more important characters, it appears it would be made explicitly clear when an edit was made for dramatic effect.

I understand wanting to move past this "sex scene" as the point where we transfer to the next individual in the ancestral line, but god, it makes everything so hard to define. Nothing seems consistent anymore... Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:01, December 7, 2014 (UTC)