PDA

View Full Version : So is there anyone throughout human history who was evil and NOT a templar?



GarethNelson
10-21-2010, 10:05 PM
In the AC universe, is anyone evil without being a templar?
Anyone?

iNt0xiCaT3dSainT
10-21-2010, 10:17 PM
almost all who are evil have money. evil people want power. Hence proving power hungry b****** are templars

Sparty2020
10-21-2010, 11:10 PM
Evil is a completely subjective word. Do you consider Napoleon, with his Civil Codes and revolutionary reformations that enhanced the average persons life evil? What about his wide acts of genocide and murder? Would Julius Caesar be considered evil for murdering and torturing thousands of Gallic women and children and enacting large acts of crucifixion evil? What about his reformations for the average person and his enhancements of life?

Xanatos2007
10-21-2010, 11:23 PM
Or Vlad Tepes, who repelled the expansion of the Ottoman empire by impaling everybody.

Good times...

DecanDK
10-22-2010, 12:14 AM
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Here, read this. Then you will see a few names you properly know. Like, Hitler, Napoleon ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oatkeeper
10-22-2010, 12:30 AM
Plus, the Templars believed that what they where doing was good for the people... OH WAIT... Thats only in AC1, the villains where generic in AC2 >_>

Xanatos2007
10-22-2010, 12:41 AM
I agree with Oathkeeper, Ubi should really devise some sort of 'thumb up/down' feature for comments like on other forums. It'd make things more efficient around here instead of me having to make a post simply saying "I agree".

In fact, where's the suggestions box...?

jlorence
10-22-2010, 01:13 AM
Girolamo Savonarola, but you won't ever see him unless you buy the DLC.

Murcuseo
10-22-2010, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
I agree with Oathkeeper, Ubi should really devise some sort of 'thumb up/down' feature for comments like on other forums. It'd make things more efficient around here instead of me having to make a post simply saying "I agree".

In fact, where's the suggestions box...?

Along with the thumbs up/down feature there should be an exalt/smite feature for each user. Add that to the suggestion box aswell. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xanatos2007
10-22-2010, 01:38 AM
Another suggestion for the suggestion box:

* We need some sort of suggestion box.

Roakeru
10-22-2010, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
Or Vlad Tepes, who repelled the expansion of the Ottoman empire by impaling everybody.

Good times...
Actually that's not true...I'm from Romania and almost everything that is said about Vlad Tepes is not true.....in my country he is considered a hero....his "reputation" is because the propaganda that Matei Corvin(the king of Hungary,also romanian) held against him in 1462 because Vlad Tepes refused to ask Hungary for help when the ottomans attacked .Venice also had a major role in this;the doge could not believe that Vlad Tepes could resist the invasion without Hungary's help and sent several letters of information about the ottomans positions to Matei Corvin and asked him to help Tepes;but Corvin lied and after Tepes defeated the ottomans he told Venice that the victory is gained with his help.Venice investigated the case and found out the truth,but then Corvin started his propaganda of Tepes's so called "crimes of war" and said that Tepes started a campaign against Venice,so Vlad Tepes was arrested.Again,Venice found out the truth but did nothing because they "needed" Matei Corvin's help against the Ottoman Empire.But Venice's inactivity lead to losing an important ally :Vlad Tepes and obtained nothing in return.So this is the reason for Tepes's monstrous reputation.Being hugely outnumbered all he did was to send the children and women to the mountains and to destroy the resources that the ottoman's could have used,and when they arrived he lead night attacks and tactics to scare the enemy .Things like that happened many times in history an were considered brave and necessary,but this time only they were "crimes of war".
http://www.vistieria.ro/index....corvin-i-veneia.html (http://www.vistieria.ro/index.php/istoria-romanilor/34-articole-ev-mediu/112-intre-propagand-i-realitate-istoric-vlad-epe-matei-corvin-i-veneia.html) (in romanian,use google translate if interested)

Abeonis
10-22-2010, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by DecanDK:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Here, read this. Then you will see a few names you properly know. Like, Hitler, Napoleon ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, IU, Hitler was a Templar, as was Napoleon I believe. Also, the Templars are not evil. They share the same goal as the Assassins, it is just the means by which they go about it that brought about the conflict.

DecanDK
10-22-2010, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Abeonis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DecanDK:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Here, read this. Then you will see a few names you properly know. Like, Hitler, Napoleon ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, IU, Hitler was a Templar, as was Napoleon I believe. Also, the Templars are not evil. They share the same goal as the Assassins, it is just the means by which they go about it that brought about the conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait, did you just say Hitler wasnt evil? LOL

No no, i know not every templar was evil, but most of them were.
The templares wants to use peaces of eden, to overpower and control humanity.
The assassins on the other hand, wants peaces of eden to protect and serve humanity.
And the templares chose to sacrifice unlimited amount of human lives to get their goal,
unlike the assassins, who try in their best effort to spare as many lives as possible.
That in perspective, is evil vs good.
But none the less, we, (users of this forum) are assassins, we HAVE to hate ALL templares, good and bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xanatos2007
10-22-2010, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Roakeru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
Or Vlad Tepes, who repelled the expansion of the Ottoman empire by impaling everybody.

Good times...
Actually that's not true...I'm from Romania and almost everything that is said about Vlad Tepes is not true.....in my country he is considered a hero....his "reputation" is because the propaganda that Matei Corvin(the king of Hungary,also romanian) held against him in 1462 because Vlad Tepes refused to ask Hungary for help when the ottomans attacked .Venice also had a major role in this;the doge could not believe that Vlad Tepes could resist the invasion without Hungary's help and sent several letters of information about the ottomans positions to Matei Corvin and asked him to help Tepes;but Corvin lied and after Tepes defeated the ottomans he told Venice that the victory is gained with his help.Venice investigated the case and found out the truth,but then Corvin started his propaganda of Tepes's so called "crimes of war" and said that Tepes started a campaign against Venice,so Vlad Tepes was arrested.Again,Venice found out the truth but did nothing because they "needed" Matei Corvin's help against the Ottoman Empire.But Venice's inactivity lead to losing an important ally :Vlad Tepes and obtained nothing in return.So this is the reason for Tepes's monstrous reputation.Being hugely outnumbered all he did was to send the children and women to the mountains and to destroy the resources that the ottoman's could have used,and when they arrived he lead night attacks and tactics to scare the enemy .Things like that happened many times in history an were considered brave and necessary,but this time only they were "crimes of war".
http://www.vistieria.ro/index....corvin-i-veneia.html (http://www.vistieria.ro/index.php/istoria-romanilor/34-articole-ev-mediu/112-intre-propagand-i-realitate-istoric-vlad-epe-matei-corvin-i-veneia.html) (in romanian,use google translate if interested) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know, I was saying that even though he did a lot of evil (in such an artistic way, I might add) his influence in history was ultimately positive (much like how Stalin, although viewed as 'evil', was also responsible for repelling the Nazis and essentially winning WWII). If it wasn't for Vlad Tepes we'd probably all be speaking Arabic right about now.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Actually that doesn't sound too bad, screw English!</pre>

BK-110
10-22-2010, 07:56 AM
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

extrememuffin
10-22-2010, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions.

DecanDK
10-22-2010, 08:38 AM
extrememuffin

I agree with extrememuffin,
our actions determent who we are and what we represent.
Do you kill millions of people, cause you believe that your race is more pure then another,
those actions represents evil, sane or insane.

Stormpen
10-22-2010, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by BK-110:
But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

I don't think you can really call him 'evil' either. He was driven mad by the corruption he saw in his time, which being a monk, must have affected him badly. Also, he opposed Rodrigo Borgia, by holding Florence against him. So I wouldn't say that he was evil, exactly.

As for Hitler, he was evil. It doesn't matter if he believed what h was doing was right. Just because you believe a chicken is a goat doesn't make it one.

BK-110
10-22-2010, 09:54 AM
I would love to agree with you, as, in my standards, Hitler's actions were indeed evil. The problem is still that there is no objective standard for the term "evil". It is and stays a subjective term, depending on individual opinion.

According to my standards, the Catholic Church is "evil", as they have killed great numbers of innocent people in the past and continue to spread lies and encourage ignorance. Others don't agree. Just an example.

(This example is in no way meant to offend any Catholic Christians, only the organization and church officials.)

bkb34
10-22-2010, 10:22 AM
Evil lies within everyone... Some people can control it better than others.

In the AC universe, the Templar feel that what they do is for the greater good of the people, but the way they go about it is with mind control etc. to hide the truth, kind of an "ignorance is bliss" type cliche. The Assassins are more about opening the eyes of the people to show them the truth and that all men are free, more of a "the truth shall set you free" cliche.

Throughout history (depending on the author of the history book you read or the person telling you the story) the so called evil people have done what they did because they thought it would be for the greater good of the people. Depending on how they went about their goals is what distinguishes if they were of Templar or Assassin origins...

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 10:55 AM
well if all you do is evil, but you dont see it as bad, then i suppose that makes you actually evil.
if what you do is evil but your well aware of it, and choose to do it anyway, then i suppose that may be worse, but atleast you know the difference.

godsmack_darius
10-22-2010, 01:53 PM
I would have preffered it if Lee Harvey Oswald was not a templar in the AC universe, would have been alot cooler if Ubisoft went with JFK assassinations theory, which I believe are very true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sparty2020
10-22-2010, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what? You can name any national hero and he'd also be considered evil. Alexander the Great is considered the greatest person to have ever lived according Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Yet in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq he was nothing more than a petty thief and murderer. Vlad the Impaler is a Romanian hero yet according to the Hungarians he was a sadistic murderer. Napoleon Bonaparte, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc.

Hitler was not now nor will he ever be evil. If killing millions of innocents can be considered evil then every religious follower (with the exception of Hinduism and Buddhism) would be the equivalent of Satan.

NewBlade200
10-22-2010, 03:24 PM
No one is evil in their own eyes. To discover what is truly evil you must look aat what they did and decide what to belive.
You cant listen to what people say, because people are stupid.

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 03:28 PM
d'ya reckon it's better to be a psychopath, or a sociopath?
naturally evil, or willingly evil?

MT4K
10-22-2010, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
d'ya reckon it's better to be a psychopath, or a sociopath?
naturally evil, or willingly evil?

Naturally evil would be better imo, Willingly evil suggests you actually know what you're doing is evil but do it anyway, whereas Naturally evil could be that you just don't know any other way to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sparty2020
10-22-2010, 04:34 PM
The thing with evil is that you need a standard to measure it against. You need to have your own measurement if you're a philosopher or use a cut-and-paste one if you're a religious person. In both cases evil is an opinion: for example Islams (of a certain sect) consider Osama bin-Laden to be a prophet and a revolutionary, everyone else considers him to be a psychopath and a terrorist. In one example he's a hero, in the other he's a villain.

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 04:40 PM
How about somebody like joseph kony.
or someone who is seriously wrong in the head and just wants complete anihalaton, or somebody who commits great acts of evil for there own personal gain?

MT4K
10-22-2010, 05:06 PM
well like Sparty says, Evil really is just an opinion

i'm sure people who are really just messed up in the head probably consider what they're doing to be good acts when in reality 90% or more would most likely disagree with that and consider it evil

the real question should probably be about what basis should we use to determine good and evil in the first place?, once there is some kind of "Global Standard" for differentiating good and evil, perhaps the world will be a better place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sparty2020
10-22-2010, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by MT4K:
the real question should probably be about what basis should we use to determine good and evil in the first place?, once there is some kind of "Global Standard" for differentiating good and evil, perhaps the world will be a better place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Isn't that exactly what the Templars want? You make everybody of one opinion? To make everyone think and act the same way? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 05:16 PM
well, if you do evil things for little reason, i.e. no just cause and you consider them to be good acts (pretty much the meaning of psychopath) then that means that, You are evil, moral fibres are evil everything about you is evil, in that case.
but i reckon nobody is completely heartless.

MT4K
10-22-2010, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
Isn't that exactly what the Templars want? You make everybody of one opinion? To make everyone think and act the same way? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


uhhhh..... *casually hides my stolen piece of eden* nothing to see here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

it sounded like a good idea at the time though....honest lol


Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
but i reckon nobody is completely heartless.

i would certainly hope you're right because if there is somebody in the world who is completely heartless, it would be kind of sad really :-/

thekyle0
10-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
Hitler was not now nor will he ever be evil. If killing millions of innocents can be considered evil then every religious follower (with the exception of Hinduism and Buddhism) would be the equivalent of Satan. You should probably learn to distinguish between inquisitors and my neighborhood priest. To my knowledge, he's never advocated genocide.

iNt0xiCaT3dSainT
10-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Abeonis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DecanDK:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Here, read this. Then you will see a few names you properly know. Like, Hitler, Napoleon ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Actually, IU, Hitler was a Templar, as was Napoleon I believe. Also, the Templars are not evil. They share the same goal as the Assassins, it is just the means by which they go about it that brought about the conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no no ur wrong my friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Templar wants peace and POWER. Assassins want peace and independence. Also, Templars will do ANYTHING to anyone to achive their goal. Assassins on the other hand try to do things in a peaceful prosepective

General_Lekauf
10-22-2010, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what? You can name any national hero and he'd also be considered evil. Alexander the Great is considered the greatest person to have ever lived according Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Yet in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq he was nothing more than a petty thief and murderer. Vlad the Impaler is a Romanian hero yet according to the Hungarians he was a sadistic murderer. Napoleon Bonaparte, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc.

Hitler was not now nor will he ever be evil. If killing millions of innocents can be considered evil then every religious follower (with the exception of Hinduism and Buddhism) would be the equivalent of Satan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok how exactly is Christianity like satan? I'm not talking about catholic belief I'm talking about Christianity. Christians are the ones who are killed more than any other religion. Every other religios group is against Christianity. Christians have been murdered from the beginning of time since Cain and Able because Cain got jealious. We are all evil since we all come from the same family tree and don't say monkeys because evolution is like a bad movie its all just one huge plot flaw. Any fact about evolution I can prove wrong. Evolution is a stupid religion and don't say it isn't because its takes a truck load of faith to believe something that even the inventor new wasn't true. He was speculating.

Oatkeeper
10-22-2010, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Thats EXACTLY why the Assassins fight the templars. The Templars believe what they are doing will result in the best for their people, or all people. Even if it looks cruel in the process, becuase the end result is what matters.

The Issue with the templars in AC2, is that none of them really presented any real indication that they had the peoples best interest in mind, as much as their own interest. In AC1 it was a great element of the story because It made the player think more about WHY they where fighting this battle and if their targets where "truly" evil, because evil is subjective. Nothing is "True", Everything Is Permitted.

Go play Shadow of the Colossus and tell me that Wander was a hero, or that he was evil, there is no real answer. He went into a city, stole a mythic blade, trespassed upon forbidden land, killed creatures that didn't really try to fight him until they had to defend themselves, and became possessed by the Ultimate evil. All in the name of reviving his true love. Was his cause noble? yes. Where his methods noble? Not so much. And Yet you cannot help but sympathize for him.

Caligula__
10-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Da Vinci was historically the head of the Priory of Sion which is a branch of the Templars yet he seems to dislike the Templars

ProjectXigis
10-23-2010, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Thats EXACTLY why the Assassins fight the templars. The Templars believe what they are doing will result in the best for their people, or all people. Even if it looks cruel in the process, becuase the end result is what matters.

The Issue with the templars in AC2, is that none of them really presented any real indication that they had the peoples best interest in mind, as much as their own interest. In AC1 it was a great element of the story because It made the player think more about WHY they where fighting this battle and if their targets where "truly" evil, because evil is subjective. Nothing is "True", Everything Is Permitted.

Go play Shadow of the Colossus and tell me that Wander was a hero, or that he was evil, there is no real answer. He went into a city, stole a mythic blade, trespassed upon forbidden land, killed creatures that didn't really try to fight him until they had to defend themselves, and became possessed by the Ultimate evil. All in the name of reviving his true love. Was his cause noble? yes. Where his methods noble? Not so much. And Yet you cannot help but sympathize for him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I remembered about Shadow of the Colossus, they didn't really explain the Wanderer's reason for being there, except to save his true love. The Colossi themselves might have been looked upon as "evil" by the populace of the Wanderer's village or whatnot. So, he might have had an extremely good reason for doing so.

Also, I am going to have to disagree about the entire "Hitler isn't evil" thing. I could never justify the death of an entire people based on their belief or race, what have you. The only exception would be that if their belief would result in my enslavement or death.

extrememuffin
10-23-2010, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by General_Lekauf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what? You can name any national hero and he'd also be considered evil. Alexander the Great is considered the greatest person to have ever lived according Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Yet in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq he was nothing more than a petty thief and murderer. Vlad the Impaler is a Romanian hero yet according to the Hungarians he was a sadistic murderer. Napoleon Bonaparte, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc.

Hitler was not now nor will he ever be evil. If killing millions of innocents can be considered evil then every religious follower (with the exception of Hinduism and Buddhism) would be the equivalent of Satan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok how exactly is Christianity like satan? I'm not talking about catholic belief I'm talking about Christianity. Christians are the ones who are killed more than any other religion. Every other religios group is against Christianity. Christians have been murdered from the beginning of time since Cain and Able because Cain got jealious. We are all evil since we all come from the same family tree and don't say monkeys because evolution is like a bad movie its all just one huge plot flaw. Any fact about evolution I can prove wrong. Evolution is a stupid religion and don't say it isn't because its takes a truck load of faith to believe something that even the inventor new wasn't true. He was speculating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
@General_Lekauf im not even going to get into the whole religious debate with you. i belive in evolution and nothing you say will change that just like nothing i say will change what you belive.

@sparty i agree with you that Evil is not defind term and that its hard to say who is evil and who isnt. however im going to stick with Hitler being Evil. the difference i see between Hitler and people like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc is that people alive today belive that these people (not hitler) were great heros. like you said Europe, Africa, North America they all like Alexander the Great while Iran and Afghanistan HATE him. the thing with Hitler though is there is no nation that belives what Hitler did was right. even the Germans know what he did was wrong so Hitler may be the first person to be truly "EVIL"

btw yes i know that there are Facists alive today that think that Hitler was a great man but they are a small minority compared to entire countries our continutes worshiping somebody.

GarethNelson
10-23-2010, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
well if all you do is evil, but you dont see it as bad, then i suppose that makes you actually evil.
if what you do is evil but your well aware of it, and choose to do it anyway, then i suppose that may be worse, but atleast you know the difference.

That's an age-old debate.
I'll respond to it with how the law sees things.

If you honestly do not understand that your own actions are wrong then that is a defence against having the "mens rea" needed for criminal liability. It will not however save you from being locked up in a mental hospital if you are judged as being incapable of not acting in a criminal manner.

GarethNelson
10-23-2010, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by General_Lekauf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what? You can name any national hero and he'd also be considered evil. Alexander the Great is considered the greatest person to have ever lived according Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Yet in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq he was nothing more than a petty thief and murderer. Vlad the Impaler is a Romanian hero yet according to the Hungarians he was a sadistic murderer. Napoleon Bonaparte, Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc.

Hitler was not now nor will he ever be evil. If killing millions of innocents can be considered evil then every religious follower (with the exception of Hinduism and Buddhism) would be the equivalent of Satan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok how exactly is Christianity like satan? I'm not talking about catholic belief I'm talking about Christianity. Christians are the ones who are killed more than any other religion. Every other religios group is against Christianity. Christians have been murdered from the beginning of time since Cain and Able because Cain got jealious. We are all evil since we all come from the same family tree and don't say monkeys because evolution is like a bad movie its all just one huge plot flaw. Any fact about evolution I can prove wrong. Evolution is a stupid religion and don't say it isn't because its takes a truck load of faith to believe something that even the inventor new wasn't true. He was speculating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
@General_Lekauf im not even going to get into the whole religious debate with you. i belive in evolution and nothing you say will change that just like nothing i say will change what you belive.

@sparty i agree with you that Evil is not defind term and that its hard to say who is evil and who isnt. however im going to stick with Hitler being Evil. the difference i see between Hitler and people like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc is that people alive today belive that these people (not hitler) were great heros. like you said Europe, Africa, North America they all like Alexander the Great while Iran and Afghanistan HATE him. the thing with Hitler though is there is no nation that belives what Hitler did was right. even the Germans know what he did was wrong so Hitler may be the first person to be truly "EVIL"

btw yes i know that there are Facists alive today that think that Hitler was a great man but they are a small minority compared to entire countries our continutes worshiping somebody. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If nothing anyone says can change your belief in evolution, then you're holding that belief for all the wrong reasons.

I too believe in evolution, but only because I am forced to by the evidence. Should someone say something that is a valid counterargument as to why I should not believe in evolution, I will be forced to no longer believe in it.

And on that subject, here's how evolution works in a nutshell:
Take a bunch of imperfect replicators (when DNA copies it's not perfect - there's a few tiny flaws here and there)
Take an environment that rewards or punishes different aspects of those replicators (natural resources such as food, mates, shelter etc for rewards, and dangers in the environment for punishments)
Mix the 2 together for a very very long period of time. The replicators that acquire changes (due to the imperfect copying) which cause them to die off more often than copy will die out while those that have advantages will reproduce themselves more - as a result, we find that the replicators change over time, and might even seperate off into different environments and change into whole new species of replicators.

The really cool part about evolution is that to date nobody has found a way to actually prevent it from occurring if you have those basic ingredients above. Because of that, it'd take a hell of a lot to disprove evolution - but it can still be disproven if the right kind of evidence shows up.

Any theory or belief that can't be proven wrong under any circumstances whatsoever should be dropped fast. If there's nothing that would make you go "oh, I was wrong about that", then you're likely delusional.

GarethNelson
10-23-2010, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by NewBlade200:
No one is evil in their own eyes. To discover what is truly evil you must look aat what they did and decide what to belive.
You cant listen to what people say, because people are stupid.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are...emies_innately_evil/ (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/)



On September 11th, 2001, nineteen Muslim males hijacked four jet airliners in a deliberately suicidal effort to hurt the United States of America. Now why do you suppose they might have done that? Because they saw the USA as a beacon of freedom to the world, but were born with a mutant disposition that made them hate freedom?

Realistically, most people don't construct their life stories with themselves as the villains. Everyone is the hero of their own story. The Enemy's story, as seen by the Enemy, is not going to make the Enemy look bad. If you try to construe motivations that would make the Enemy look bad, you'll end up flat wrong about what actually goes on in the Enemy's mind.


Very very few people see themselves as evil.

sandmanssorrow
10-23-2010, 02:09 AM
Hitler WAS Evil, not because of his perspective or ideals necessarily but because of WHAT HE DID in the name of those ideals.
Templars are ancestors of a good portion of the Westerners who opposed and defeated Hitler (for their own reasons and ideology).
An Assassin makes a living killing people, (but only the bad ones right or is it just the ones they are told to kill? I don't recall choices not to assassinate certain targets).
And lastly, "we" are not Assassins, our Animus is the hardware the gives us access to Desmond's historical DNA (ps3,xbox,pc) and though HE may at some point become an Assassin, I, will not. I try not to hate anybody and certainly won't be told who to hate.

deskpe
10-23-2010, 06:53 AM
being evil or not is determined by WHY you do what you do, not what you do.

Avsari
10-23-2010, 10:50 AM
This is a great game and of course it has its own fantasy, but it is interesting how it has twisted history. The Assassins (ITRW) were a terribly evil organization, precursors of Al-Qaeda, and it took a coalition of nations (including Muslim ones) and a lot of effort to eradicate them. The Templars were just a crusader order, formed by monks and knights, upholding Christianity. Perhaps not saints, but nothing weird or conspirational.

They were framed and maligned because the king of France wanted to get his hands on their substantial wealth (they saved their pennies and practically invented banking). He bullied the Pope into dissolving the order under false charges.

Since then a wholesome black legend has been created around the poor guys. I wonder, what would novelists, Hollywood and the video game industry do without this black legend?

The problem is a lot of people actually believe it...

Now where's the next evil templar that I have to backstab? ;-)

UBOSOFT-Gamer
10-23-2010, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Avsari:
Since then a wholesome black legend has been created around the poor guys. I wonder, what would novelists, Hollywood and the video game industry do without this black legend?

The problem is a lot of people actually believe it...


How can people believe those? Take AC for example. Do you think there are really people who believe the Templars were a bunch of guys to take over the world since the beginning of time or Cesare Borgia was a Templar or that 'during the Roman era, the Templars went under the alias "Senatus Populusque Romanus", ruling the Roman Empire.' ???

sandmanssorrow
10-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Templars were the only Non Catholic religious military organization to be recognized by the Pope.
They were probably violent men employed in the business of war.
Make no mistake that their emblem is basically the English flag, red cross on a white background, which I believe is also the symbol for a medical organization that aids the hurt in many countries of the world.
And they were apparently good at the martial part of their occupation since they were able to wage war many miles from their homeland for a decade AND are officially recognized as badasses in THE game of choice.

DoomKnight10
10-23-2010, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

By your definition, no one can possibly be evil. An evil person will generally not find themselves evil, will think what they are doing is right, or is just a means to an end. It does not make them any less evil

Oatkeeper
10-23-2010, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by ProjectXigis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BK-110:
As some have already pointed out, "evil" is a very subjective term. Something is only evil in an individuals own standards. The Templars in AC are not evil, they feel that what they do is right.

But, if we go by the definition that controlling people by force is "evil" then I might say Girolamo Savonarola, the guy you know from Bonfire of the Vanities.

Besides, DecanDK: Yes, Hitler indeed wasn't "evil". He felt that what he did was right. It's a completely different topic that he might have suffered from a mental illness that might explain his actions. As much as society (myself included, of course) might disagree with his actions, he still wasn't objectively "evil".

im going to have to disagree with you on that. even if Hitler belived what he was doing was right it does not mean he was any less evil. his actions caused the death of millions of people and there are still survivors today that were forced to live through some of the worst conditions possible in concentration camps. mental health is not excuse for his EVIL actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Thats EXACTLY why the Assassins fight the templars. The Templars believe what they are doing will result in the best for their people, or all people. Even if it looks cruel in the process, becuase the end result is what matters.

The Issue with the templars in AC2, is that none of them really presented any real indication that they had the peoples best interest in mind, as much as their own interest. In AC1 it was a great element of the story because It made the player think more about WHY they where fighting this battle and if their targets where "truly" evil, because evil is subjective. Nothing is "True", Everything Is Permitted.

Go play Shadow of the Colossus and tell me that Wander was a hero, or that he was evil, there is no real answer. He went into a city, stole a mythic blade, trespassed upon forbidden land, killed creatures that didn't really try to fight him until they had to defend themselves, and became possessed by the Ultimate evil. All in the name of reviving his true love. Was his cause noble? yes. Where his methods noble? Not so much. And Yet you cannot help but sympathize for him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I remembered about Shadow of the Colossus, they didn't really explain the Wanderer's reason for being there, except to save his true love. The Colossi themselves might have been looked upon as "evil" by the populace of the Wanderer's village or whatnot. So, he might have had an extremely good reason for doing so.

Also, I am going to have to disagree about the entire "Hitler isn't evil" thing. I could never justify the death of an entire people based on their belief or race, what have you. The only exception would be that if their belief would result in my enslavement or death. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its explained near the end that Wander heard a story from a nearby town elder about the one who could control life and death, he immediately stole their sacred blade and trespassed the forbidden land in an attempt to bring his love back. The leader of the group who went after him explained how many ways he sinned, but Wander couldnt even hear him as wanders only focus was getting to his love. He was ruthless and reckless, and all for a seemingly noble cause. You cant call him "good" but at the same time you cant call him "evil".


Hitler WAS Evil, not because of his perspective or ideals necessarily but because of WHAT HE DID in the name of those ideals.

This is exactly the point of this discussion. The Templar cause is the EXACT same as the Assassins, the way they do it is what sets them apart. Vidic said in AC1 something along the lines of "Your Ancestors had the right idea, but they didn't follow it to completion" because the Templars didn't/don't think that people can be trusted to turn to peace on their own, and need to be lead there, even if it required force.

Sparty2020
10-24-2010, 12:38 AM
@ General_Lekauf I was honestly going to defend my point with intellectual facts from history, philosophy, and society until I saw you get into the whole creationist thing.
@ extrememuffin Ah, but like you said, there are still people out there who will attempt to justify and revere Hitler as a God. As much as you and I know that Hitler was an insanely dangerous megalomaniac who had a hate-***** for anything without his signature mustache, other people will view him as a messiah and possibly a martyr and as long as those people exist nobody can truly justify calling Hitler evil. We just call him insane like with Charles Manson http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

extrememuffin
10-24-2010, 01:18 AM
@GarethNelson sorry i should of explained my self better. what i ment by "nothing you say can change my mind" is that religion is based on blind faith. i dont think there is enough proof that General_lekauf could give me to change my mind. so in a sense there is nothing he can tell me that will change my mind because there is nothing to actually prove god exists.

@sparty i know i kind of controdicted my self with my last post and i have to admit that there are people out there that think Hitler was a great guy and those people make me sick. I am going to sort of change directions with my arguments right now. what i think about evil (and you actually made me think of this sparty) is that its sort of unique to each person (pretty much what you have been saying) in the sense that i think that osama-bin laden is evil yet extremist muslims think he is there savior.

so "Evil" to me is what ever each person makes it. I think osama is evil and extremists think george bush is evil (lol i sort of think that to).

CRUDFACE
10-24-2010, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by SukhvirsCreed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abeonis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DecanDK:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Here, read this. Then you will see a few names you properly know. Like, Hitler, Napoleon ect ect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Actually, IU, Hitler was a Templar, as was Napoleon I believe. Also, the Templars are not evil. They share the same goal as the Assassins, it is just the means by which they go about it that brought about the conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no no ur wrong my friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Templar wants peace and POWER. Assassins want peace and independence. Also, Templars will do ANYTHING to anyone to achive their goal. Assassins on the other hand try to do things in a peaceful prosepective </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I feel kind of bad for joining so late, but I still want to say something, yah know? I don't think they said Napolean was a templar, just that he had a piece of Eden. Not everyone who used them were templars after all. Templars want control, while assassins are willing to take the risks to break that control. It's like how Shaun, in AC2, reminded them that when it comes down to it, they still assassinate people. They aren't meant to be peaceful.

On the topic of evil, it all depends on the common norm of your area, religion and what it did for you.

With religions, I'm not enthralled with the Abrahamic ones. They always have the same message of "follow me or suffer for eternity." The concept of a perfect realm known as heaven doesn't make sense because it goes against itself...and that our earthly time is equivilant to an eternity of bliss or damnation.

GarethNelson
10-24-2010, 02:22 AM
extrememuffin: there are in fact plenty of ways you could prove the existence of god - it just so happens that nobody has of yet done so, thus implying that none of those ways work. If that makes sense. Basically, i'd be forced to believe that a concious entity created the universe if I was provided powerful enough evidence or a deeply convincing rational argument that I have somehow missed.

On the subject of what is evil: Personally I define it as that which is not good or which harms good, and I define good as "that which maximizes utility for the rational agents concerned". Good and evil are fundamentally subjective. To us, the 9/11 bombers are evil villains - to their allies, they are martyrs and anyone who stands in their way is the villain.

It is not fundamentally possible to invent an objective definition of evil because good and evil are human inventions. However there does tend to be near-universal agreement on what particular things are evil: murder, rape and theft come to mind as things that are nearly universally considered evil.

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by GarethNelson:
extrememuffin: there are in fact plenty of ways you could prove the existence of god - it just so happens that nobody has of yet done so, thus implying that none of those ways work. If that makes sense. Basically, i'd be forced to believe that a concious entity created the universe if I was provided powerful enough evidence or a deeply convincing rational argument that I have somehow missed.
sure you could say "god spoke to me so he exists" but that does not prove he exists. the only way i can think of to prove he really exists is to kill me and let me see if i meet god in a afterlife.

btw i hate the idea of afterlifes. the thought of living forever just makes me mad. i would get so bored with it and there would be no way out of it.

GarethNelson
10-25-2010, 02:57 AM
No, saying "he spoke to me" isn't proof of anything.
Saying "insert rational argument here" where that rational argument has never been given before and is in fact a rational argument would be better.

Personally I love the idea of an afterlife - if I believed that there was an afterlife then my next action would be to kill myself. That would be more efficient than having to mess around with looking after my health.

Oh, and if you're against the idea of living forever i'm curious when you think the right time to die is. By definition if you're against immortality, you think that death is a good thing at some point - so what age is a good maximum? Tell me and i'll come and stab you on that birthday.

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by GarethNelson:
No, saying "he spoke to me" isn't proof of anything.
Saying "insert rational argument here" where that rational argument has never been given before and is in fact a rational argument would be better.

Personally I love the idea of an afterlife - if I believed that there was an afterlife then my next action would be to kill myself. That would be more efficient than having to mess around with looking after my health.

Oh, and if you're against the idea of living forever i'm curious when you think the right time to die is. By definition if you're against immortality, you think that death is a good thing at some point - so what age is a good maximum? Tell me and i'll come and stab you on that birthday.

lol its true i do think death is a good thing at some point. i in know way want to die right now but at one point i know ill be ready to die. my great grandpa gave me some advice. "kill your self before you get to old" so i would say a good time to die would be 60-70. i dont care what birthday exactly so suprise me. btw im 18 right now and my birthday is in June so ill be seeing you in a few years

itsamea-mario
10-25-2010, 08:34 AM
Don't kill yourself, cos that be stupid, if ya wanna die, get yourself killed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

die for something.

Mr_Shade
10-25-2010, 09:25 AM
Lets steer away from the whole killing idea please.....

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 10:40 AM
lol sorry shade but you have to admit we kept it very civil in this thread. any chance of you giving us a prize? maybe just a pat on the back

Mr_Shade
10-25-2010, 10:48 AM
I haz no prizes...


But remember the rules please guys.. this forum is E rated - so less about death and more about fluffy bunnies please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 10:52 AM
what about fluffy bunnies secreatly stabbing people with there dual hidden blades?

persiateddy95
10-25-2010, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
and more about fluffy bunnies please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
That should be in the Rabbids forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

GarethNelson
10-25-2010, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GarethNelson:
No, saying "he spoke to me" isn't proof of anything.
Saying "insert rational argument here" where that rational argument has never been given before and is in fact a rational argument would be better.

Personally I love the idea of an afterlife - if I believed that there was an afterlife then my next action would be to kill myself. That would be more efficient than having to mess around with looking after my health.

Oh, and if you're against the idea of living forever i'm curious when you think the right time to die is. By definition if you're against immortality, you think that death is a good thing at some point - so what age is a good maximum? Tell me and i'll come and stab you on that birthday.

lol its true i do think death is a good thing at some point. i in know way want to die right now but at one point i know ill be ready to die. my great grandpa gave me some advice. "kill your self before you get to old" so i would say a good time to die would be 60-70. i dont care what birthday exactly so suprise me. btw im 18 right now and my birthday is in June so ill be seeing you in a few years </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your grandfather was probably thinking about the horrors of aging.
I refer you to www.sens.org (http://www.sens.org) for an answer to that problem.

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by GarethNelson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by extrememuffin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GarethNelson:
No, saying "he spoke to me" isn't proof of anything.
Saying "insert rational argument here" where that rational argument has never been given before and is in fact a rational argument would be better.

Personally I love the idea of an afterlife - if I believed that there was an afterlife then my next action would be to kill myself. That would be more efficient than having to mess around with looking after my health.

Oh, and if you're against the idea of living forever i'm curious when you think the right time to die is. By definition if you're against immortality, you think that death is a good thing at some point - so what age is a good maximum? Tell me and i'll come and stab you on that birthday.

lol its true i do think death is a good thing at some point. i in know way want to die right now but at one point i know ill be ready to die. my great grandpa gave me some advice. "kill your self before you get to old" so i would say a good time to die would be 60-70. i dont care what birthday exactly so suprise me. btw im 18 right now and my birthday is in June so ill be seeing you in a few years </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your grandfather was probably thinking about the horrors of aging.
I refer you to www.sens.org (http://www.sens.org) for an answer to that problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pretty much he was just saying being old isnt that great. so yeah the sens thing looks intersting although like i said i dont like the idea of immortality so proloning my death i might do but not for long.

also check out the guy with the beard in the video on the bottom right of the page http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

MT4K
10-25-2010, 12:05 PM
immortality would never work unless you could remove a persons perception of time... otherwise you would probably go completely crazy after a few thousand years lol

extrememuffin
10-25-2010, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by MT4K:
immortality would never work unless you could remove a persons perception of time... otherwise you would probably go completely crazy after a few thousand years lol

pretty much what iv been saying lol

GarethNelson
10-25-2010, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by MT4K:
immortality would never work unless you could remove a persons perception of time... otherwise you would probably go completely crazy after a few thousand years lol

I can think of no reason why you would go mad just from living longer. There's the usual lame argument that you might outlive loved ones and that grief would take its toll on your mental health, but then you'd be a bit of a nasty person to get all these treatments yourself without also providing for those you care about.

Something else i'm interested in that will prolong life is cryonics - yeah, i'm seriously going to get myself frozen (or vitrified to use the technical term - the tissue never technically freezes). There's no way on earth i'm going to let my wife or son or anyone else I care about not join me.

Life is a good thing and death is a bad thing, despite people trying to put a good spin on death.

Aging is a terrible thing that slowly weakens you and then ultimately kills you - but it is a side effect of living (the side effects of metabolism to use the technical term), and living is itself something good.

To quote a wise man, "life is the great indulgence, death the great abstinence".

MT4K
10-25-2010, 01:30 PM
well of course you would have to give it to loved ones aswell, what fun would it be living forever all by yourself, especially taking into account how lonely you would forever feel in that regard

but the thing i would worry about sending me a little crazy is the fact that you would pretty much eventually end up doing everything... and then whats left? :-/

i suppose you could just sit and wait for humanity to advance further to a point where you can gain tons of new experiences but considering we have kind of been at a stand still (in terms of that sort of thing) for quite awhile now, i think it would get extremely dull and pointless rather quickly (quickly in terms of how fast we make advancements and so on)

persiateddy95
10-25-2010, 01:32 PM
Well I guess some people just like to live life... Without being after something.

That would be boring for me though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

GarethNelson
10-25-2010, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by MT4K:
well of course you would have to give it to loved ones aswell, what fun would it be living forever all by yourself, especially taking into account how lonely you would forever feel in that regard

but the thing i would worry about sending me a little crazy is the fact that you would pretty much eventually end up doing everything... and then whats left? :-/

i suppose you could just sit and wait for humanity to advance further to a point where you can gain tons of new experiences but considering we have kind of been at a stand still (in terms of that sort of thing) for quite awhile now, i think it would get extremely dull and pointless rather quickly (quickly in terms of how fast we make advancements and so on)

I must have missed that standstill.......

But anyway, there's pretty much an infinite number of possible subjective states to experience and personally I want to try and experience as many as possible.

Of course realistically I know that I probably will die at some point. I do however want to put that off as long as I possibly can and will "rage, rage, against the dieing of the light" to quote one of my favourite poems.

GarethNelson
10-25-2010, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by persiateddy95:
Well I guess some people just like to live life... Without being after something.

That would be boring for me though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Imagine all the awesome cradle of filth songs you could listen to if you and Dani Filth were both immortal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yeah, Dani Filth - he replaces the rest of the band so often it's insane.

Preversive
10-25-2010, 01:41 PM
In Assassin's Creed 2, when entering the first Assassin's grave, *cannot get on the name of the church.* You see a couple of soldiers talking about the job of guarding the tombs is boring, when the first guy is complaining, the second one is telling him to shut up about it, and that the job is well paid.

When the Eagle Vision makes them look like templars, it's well shown in this particular situation, that they are NOT Templars, even though they work for them.

Clearly bad guys, but no Templars, just like most soldiers Ezio is killing throughout the game.

CRUDFACE
10-25-2010, 01:44 PM
That sounds off to me, no offense of course. I think you appreciate life more because your time isn't infinite. I don't want to drag my life out that long. It'd take a while to perfect anyways, we'll be pretty old by the time we can...I think. Do you mind telling me more baout it? I've only heard stuff that bashes it.

You can never do "everything" there's always going to be something to improve on.

But I wtill wouldn't want it. It's too easy to abuse and would unbalance prorities and how we view others a little to strongly.

Wait, Cryonics just perserves you, right? You'd still die anyways...

persiateddy95
10-25-2010, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by GarethNelson:
Imagine all the awesome cradle of filth songs you could listen to if you and Dani Filth were both immortal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
That's not fair! xDDDD

itsamea-mario
10-25-2010, 01:47 PM
well if you've got nothing to do extremely boring.
if i was immortal, and invincible. then i would most definately not be living a normal life in a normal job, i'd go round the world doing stuff, finding things, fighting wars, probably some superhero bulls**t.
try not to get attached to too many people or anyone.

MT4K
10-25-2010, 01:50 PM
maybe it's just my natural pessimistic outlook on humanity as a whole http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but what i mean by standstill is that there aint been any real new experiences you can have today that you could never have gotten for quite a few years now, alot of what you can do today, you could do the same thing or very similar before is basically what i meant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

it seems like since ww2, we aint really made any drastic advancements to warrant living forever and always having something new to experience, but like i said, it could just be my pessimistic outlook on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but heck, remember some of those old films/movies from the past and how they showed like the year 2000 being full of flying cars and all sorts of crazy stuff... yeah they really thought we would be pretty close to that sort of stuff.... seems like humanity as a whole seems content with what we have, rather than striving to achieve more

itsamea-mario
10-25-2010, 02:00 PM
do we choose how we live or is it pre-determined??..??..??..?