User talk:Lacrossedeamon

Welcome to the Order, Lacrossedeamon!

Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki! We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you!

Have you something to say?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat! You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Format

Hey Lacrossedeamon, I want to thank you for your initiative in creating the article on Mirages, but there were several formatting errors in regards to that page:

• Perspective

We take a lore-oriented approach here, and as a result, mainstream articles should be written as though you actually are living in the Assassin's Creed universe. This means that you should be writing from an in-universe perspective, rather than a gameplay one. A lot of the information on the page, while not explicitly referring to the game, were organized and listed out in such a specific way as to clearly suggest that it's coming from a gameplay point-of-view. For example "Known Mirages" implies that there is an audience that this list is using as a referential point—known to whom? Known to players. But from an in-universe perspective, players of the game doesn't exist. Instead, you should integrate that information into the article as just what mirages can manifest as without implying the observers of this are obviously players.

• Tense

Because we write from an in-universe perspective, this means we treat people and things that existed historically in Assassin's Creed, such as Ezio Auditore, as having really existed historically. This is why we tend to write in the historical past tense. However, not everything from historical periods are long gone; some still exist in the present day in the Assassin's Creed world. Mirages is one of these things. Mirages, being a naturally occurring optical phenomenon, continue to exist in the present day and will continue to exist as long as this phenomenon can exist in the universe. As such, it was incorrect to write about mirages in the historical past tense rather than the present tense.

• Introducing the subject of the article

As an extension of the first point, introducing the subject of the article from the very specific perspective of a main protagonist heavily implies that you're writing from a gameplay perspective. When you introduce subjects, the first line should always define exactly what it is. What exactly is a mirage? Refer to my correction as an example.

Anyways, I hope all our formatting standards don't come across as too overwhelming for you. You are not at fault because we have not had our layout guide and manual of style written out yet, and in fact, several other new editors such as yourself have been making similar errors. So don't worry. You are free to try to add back information to the page and even expand on it; just make sure to do your best to write from an in-universe perspective! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:00, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the rundown. I’m usually not big on editing as all I have is an iPad which makes formatting a pain. I was just surprised that the page hadn't been created yet so I just hoped to get the ball rolling on this one in hopes a better Wikia editor might pick it up. I’m also curious on the validity of creating a page similar to the Hunt for the Nine or Liberation of Rome but about Bayek and Aya hunting the Snake. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:17, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

That would be entirely valid, even encouraged. Technically, we should have articles on every major event in the series. However, these articles are normally among the largest of projects, so you might want to warm-up with smaller articles first just to have a little more experience. You're not required to do so though. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:21, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

The Shroud

Hello Lacrossedeamon.

I'm here to ask you again about the shroud. Once, you told me that Jesus' and Jason's weren't the same one. But it seems that Syndicate says otherwise and it confuses me. (A lot).

Let me explain myself by giving you some important points:

1- In Syndicate we know that Abstergo had one shroud before the one the Templars got from the Buckingham Palace, and that shroud was the original Consus created long before. (And it had his consciousness stored inside of it).

2- That shroud (the original) is known as the Golden Fleece, because Consus (in one of his conversations with Álvaro Gramática) mentions Jason as a person who he had contact with. And Consus' consciousness is stored ONLY in the original shroud. (Although a magazine says that Consus can/could communicate telepathically with some individuals).

3- This is not official, but I think that the Assassin Intel in Syndicate adds the stories from Project Legacy because that's explaining the journey that Shroud #1 (let's call the original that way hehe) took before being sold to Abstergo. (It was sold, was it?)

4- Renato mentions that the shroud had the image of a tortured man on it. (A reference to the shroud of Turin) This could confirm that the shroud of Turin is fake, since Shroud #1 was stolen by the assassins. It could be Brutus' body, but he wasn't tortured... right? Why would the responsible ones for the lore make such a reference? Was it suppose to be Jesus'?

5- The Essential Guide mentions Jesus' shroud as ONE of many, and also said that it's not the same one that Jason used before.

It confuses me so much. Can you explain to me once more why Jason's shroud is not the one Jesus wore? 

Oh, and I read your fanfic about Jesus' story. We have some details in common hehehe.

Thanks in advance.

Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:49, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

First thanks for the read, it means a lot. I tried to keep it mostly canon compliant and just theorize stuuf but admit it did get little fanfic-y in places, especially the Chalices and MD portion. Ideally Ubi are working up to a life of Jesus story as some of the coincidences like Kawab and the Holy Lance/Devotion Prong seem to perfect, But I’m worried if it does come to fruition I’ve hyped myself up to much and it won’t be as good as my idea and then I’d be devastated.

But onto the Shrouds. So Ubi has introduced a possible 4 Shrouds: the Golden Fleece or #1, the Coat of Many Colors, Jesus's, and the Buckingham Palace. Now I theorize that those last three are actually the same with the Coat of Many Colors being based down the Tribe of Judah to Jesus and then taken to Britannia by some of his Disciples as told in a few of the Holy Grail myths. Now due to the Abstergo files in Syndicate we know that the Golden Fleece is the original Shroud with Consus in it and that through it he also came in contact with Jason, Giovanni Borgia, and William Robert Woodman (the last hasn't been explained how he came in contact with the Shroud though) but that Shroud was destroyed by the Assassins necessitating for the acquisition of the other Shroud in Syndicate. Consus is also shown to have a connection to Dorothy Osbourne from Uprising but we don’t know how as the Shroud should have still been in Europe. Additionally, Abstergo theorized that Jeanne d'Arc's Voices were from Consus (I've got my own theories on that though). Those two are probably what magazine was referring to.

The main confusion is due to the Shroud of Turin. It’s advertised as the same Shroud that Jesus had but Project Legacy tells us differently. It was stolen and replaced with a fake by Italian Assassin’s. When used to heal Giovanni Borgia, it give the boy a connection to both Consus and Brutus. This tells us that the Shroud of Turin was the original Shroud, ie the Golden Fleece, and the one used on and buried with Brutus. While it’s possible I find it highly unlikely that it made its way from Brutus's tomb to Judea in half a century in order to also be the same Shroud Jesus had. It’s described depicting the visage of a tortured man but that the man has changed throughout history, possibly to be the last person who used it, so the tortured man shown on the Shroud could be anyone and not specifically Jesus or Brutus. Now why the Templars marketed the Shroud of Turin as the same Shroud Jesus had is unknown. Either they were mistaken similar to the belief that the Chalice was an object rather than a person or they believed there was some benefit to be gained by the deception. We won’t known until it explained how d'Charney found it or it’s history from Brutus to that point. Hopefully we see it in the Origins comic.

Please let me know if you have more questions or if anything I said was unclear and I’ll try to explain myself better. Also I’d love to know what details we had in common.

V/R Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:15, March 10, 2018 (UTC)