PDA

View Full Version : So who ... ? ( MAJOR SPOILER)



avk111
11-17-2012, 09:52 PM
Hey guys,

i have a question about AC3 story ...

Who burned Connors village down ? If the wiki says it was G W why didn't connor deal with him ? And what was Charles lee doing there to begin with I'm really confused who caused this ... Please help me out BTW I didn't finish the game only till sequence 10

thank you

Mr_Shade
11-17-2012, 09:59 PM
please keep spoilers to the correct forum - hints & tips.

avk111
11-17-2012, 10:05 PM
Ok sorry hope someone can answer my question

xboxauditore
11-17-2012, 10:06 PM
I think Charles Lee and the others actually started the fire, But George Washington gave the go-ahead to him.

avk111
11-17-2012, 10:13 PM
I don't know it's confusing why would connor stay quiet against GW for burning his village and continue perusing lee ?unless GW wanted to stop the Indians however the brutal method was chosen by lee

jamgamerforever
11-17-2012, 10:32 PM
George Washington was the one to burn down the village.

If you remember in Sequence 4, Charles Lee wanted to talk to the village elders, not burn the village down.

And the reason Connor is pursuing Lee and not Washington is because Lee is a Templar. Washington is not. Lee presents a bigger threat to America.

avk111
11-17-2012, 10:39 PM
So connir is serving the guy who burned down his village ? Lets say he is serving justice , I think there is a major inconsistency with the plot right there they should have emphasized what happened ? Unless Connors village people were bad it really doesn't make any sense he is hunting Templars since his main motivation was not to see others suffer like him

BBALive
11-17-2012, 10:53 PM
So connir is serving the guy who burned down his village ? Lets say he is serving justice , I think there is a major inconsistency with the plot right there they should have emphasized what happened ? Unless Connors village people were bad it really doesn't make any sense he is hunting Templars since his main motivation was not to see others suffer like him

Connor never 'serves' Washington. You do a couple missions based around him and then you realise it was him that ordered the destruction of your village. After that Connor cuts all ties with him.

Iamsosobad
11-17-2012, 11:49 PM
It seems like George Washington is the one who burned down Connor's village back in the day, and Lee was just there to negoiate with the elders, probably so they could peacefully move to another location while the Templars protected the precursor site. I really have no idea why he continued to pursue Lee after he discovered this, and not Washington, unless the game was trying to portray that maybe the Assassin's are actually the bad guys.

lightlamp
11-17-2012, 11:51 PM
It seems like George Washington is the one who burned down Connor's village back in the day, and Lee was just there to negoiate with the elders, probably so they could peacefully move to another location while the Templars protected the precursor site. I really have no idea why he continued to pursue Lee after he discovered this, and not Washington, unless the game was trying to portray that maybe the Assassin's are actually the bad guys.People are already crying over a non canon DLC about him do you think Ubisoft would make Connor pursue Washington?

MastaGengis
11-18-2012, 03:21 AM
When i noticed the "W" in New York at the end of sequence 12 i was off to assassinate, not play bowls ........... i would have hunted him down through a further maze of underground tunnels, full of Bears, Elks and those fearsome Beavers ...........

avk111
11-18-2012, 06:17 AM
Connor never 'serves' Washington. You do a couple missions based around him and then you realise it was him that ordered the destruction of your village. After that Connor cuts all ties with him.


Well lee didn't look all that friendly to make peace talks with the villagers , so he ,it's be involved somehow in the fire , I'm suspecting he plotted some sort of scheme , where can we get some answers on this matter ?

Godforbid12
11-18-2012, 08:25 AM
GW was the one that burned it down, or atleast gave the order to do so. With lee he was the last man he saw before he woke up to see his village on fire, in a hectic scene like this it be crazy not to assume the last man you saw before you knocked out caused the fire. As to why he didn't kill GW was he is a icon and stands for something he wants even if his people never achieved it. How can he take something away he fought for? Risked his life for? To just take it away? GW isn't a templar or a rogue Assassin and being train by the creed he stayed his hand even if he wanted to wrap his hands around his neck.

As for him pursuing lee, at first it was personal, then when he finds out about GW and it was HIM and not lee, he still pursued lee cause he is a templar a bad guy in his eyes and must be killed regardless. So even though lee may have not started the fire, he is still a templar and Connor is a Assassin. Connor see's things in Black in White.

Scystab
11-18-2012, 09:53 AM
I think Godforbid12 made some good points and hit the topic spot on and most of the replys are consistent aswell. I would just like to add some insights regarding Lee from the novel Forsaken.

On the day Connor's village is burned Lee slaps Connor unconcious, thus althogethetr leaving an "emotional and physical imprint of the templars (because Lee slapped Connor with his templar ring which left the temporary physical impression on his face)". Lee did go there to talk to the elders, but he didn't think twice to execute Washington's order to burn down the village if neccessary.

So Lee was the one of the burners and murderers of his people, which makes Connor's hunt more personal then simply assassination a templar. He blamed Lee for mother's death ofcourse and the ****ation of his people. Alongside all this, Lee, being a Templar, prevents the nation to be free, so in teh eyes of the assassins he must be liquidated.

EDIT: funny, it censored D-A-M-N-ation

avk111
11-18-2012, 10:03 AM
Well I did assume what you wrote above after some thinking. This is due to Connor reaching a level of integrity where by he wants justice rather than revenge.

Direct Quote:" Enough! Who did what and why must wait. My People come first ... My mothers Blood may stain on another's hand (hint hint GW) , but Charles Lee is no less a monster "

It seems GW initiated the attack after thinking that the Brits and Indians are working ... Hint: Remember when Haytham attacked Edward Broddock dressing as a Brit with Ziio.

All in all collateral damage.

avk111
11-18-2012, 06:32 PM
Sorry for the double post but somehow playing through the game again I'm not sure how Connors motivation shifted from making the people who burned his village pay to their crimes, to fully fledge assassin with no sort of remorse over his mothers death by the hands of colonists ? For me As a player it took away my motivation to hunt down lee. Think of it this way , Bruce Wayne loses his parents to scumbag , only to find years later that scum bag was appointed by commissioner Gordon , so he lets loose of Gordon. Help please Ubisoft

BBALive
11-18-2012, 06:51 PM
It seems like George Washington is the one who burned down Connor's village back in the day, and Lee was just there to negoiate with the elders, probably so they could peacefully move to another location while the Templars protected the precursor site. I really have no idea why he continued to pursue Lee after he discovered this, and not Washington, unless the game was trying to portray that maybe the Assassin's are actually the bad guys.

He continued to pursue Lee because he's a Templar, and he'd been taught that Templars = bad.

BBALive
11-18-2012, 06:52 PM
Well lee didn't look all that friendly to make peace talks with the villagers , so he ,it's be involved somehow in the fire , I'm suspecting he plotted some sort of scheme , where can we get some answers on this matter ?

No, they used the scene where Lee attacks young Connor to trick you into believing he caused the fire. I don't think he was there to necessarily make peace with the Natives. He probably would have massacred the village if he was given the chance.

avk111
11-18-2012, 08:18 PM
So in regards to my batman example After a long battle with people who he thought killed his parents ( for example the joker ) he relies it was all for nothing and just focuses on his mission to stop the joker once and for all. Sorry had to compare

corykyrk
11-18-2012, 08:43 PM
I saw this part in the story as the turning point in Conner's way of seeing the war. Up to this point, he had believed the Templars supported the Crown and naturally aligned himself with the Patriots. Once he learns from Haythem that the plan was to kill Washington and insert Lee as commander, he understands that the Templars are (as always) out for themselves. They were trying to simultaneously seize control of the Grand Temple from Conner's tribe and ensure that they would be in position to create a Templar-controlled ruling class in the new world with Lee as Commander-in-Chief. At this point in the story, Conner officially cuts ties with the Patriots' war effort and focuses exclusively on stopping the Templars. I also have the PS3 version with the Benedict Arnold missions (not really spoiling anything). When Washington offers Conner the initial mission to root out the traitor, Conner explicitly tells Washington in a cutscene never to call upon him again. Interestingly, these missions only become available after the completion of "Missing Supplies," causing it to line up perfectly with this shift in Conner's views. The writers made it pretty clear through some dialogue in the earlier missions that Conner was increasingly feeling used by the Patriots for their own ends, and I saw the revelation about Washington having burned his village as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Just my thoughts, sorry for the long post

avk111
11-18-2012, 08:57 PM
Thanks for the explanation , It's ok but in simpler terms its like this, Bruce Wayne discovers that the league of shadows (whom he used to support) were behind the plot that killed his parents , however in Connors story he left Washington be. That's what's confusing me its as if the writer was not able to write a script against GW. Please don't mention the upcoming dlc regarding GW being a king tyrant because that's not in the main canon story. So basically Connors cause of motive was all fake to say the least , the main reason he chased lee in the beginning was because of the village. Then he changes with lee because he was a templar but what GW , or the part riots who burned his village is he going to sit down and look ? Is he not going to put an end to GW ? I'm seriously thinking to throw a petition to the writer to ask for answers the whole foundation of Connors motive as a hero is broken.

InfectedNation
11-18-2012, 10:35 PM
I think Godforbid12 made some good points and hit the topic spot on and most of the replys are consistent aswell. I would just like to add some insights regarding Lee from the novel Forsaken.

On the day Connor's village is burned Lee slaps Connor unconcious, thus althogethetr leaving an "emotional and physical imprint of the templars (because Lee slapped Connor with his templar ring which left the temporary physical impression on his face)". Lee did go there to talk to the elders, but he didn't think twice to execute Washington's order to burn down the village if neccessary.

So Lee was the one of the burners and murderers of his people

I think you should re-read part of the book, The stuff in green is true, the stuff in red is not.

Lee and the other Templars (except Haytham who was in Europe at the time) went to the village to speak to the elders about setting up camp nearby so William Johnson could study the Grand Temple entrance. However Lee got carried away and assaulted Ratonhnhake:ton. When they got to the village, they tried to speak with the elders but Washington and his troops were already all over the place torching the village, there was very little the Templars could do to prevent this (Although I think they tried) so they left.

Haytham found out about this during sequence 6, but witheld the info from Connor until the time where it would be most effective in turning him against Washington.

To everyone else, I would really recommend Forsaken as it adds so much more depth to the story of both characters, and there's only a couple of minor retcons and one major (Connor learning about the amulet from his mother rather than ever speaking to Juno, and burying it in a random place near his village).

It's really nice seeing some big parts of the game from Haytham's perspective, and learning about his life being a struggle similar to Connor's/

psf22
11-19-2012, 02:49 AM
I saw this part in the story as the turning point in Conner's way of seeing the war. Up to this point, he had believed the Templars supported the Crown and naturally aligned himself with the Patriots. Once he learns from Haythem that the plan was to kill Washington and insert Lee as commander, he understands that the Templars are (as always) out for themselves. They were trying to simultaneously seize control of the Grand Temple from Conner's tribe and ensure that they would be in position to create a Templar-controlled ruling class in the new world with Lee as Commander-in-Chief. At this point in the story, Conner officially cuts ties with the Patriots' war effort and focuses exclusively on stopping the Templars. I also have the PS3 version with the Benedict Arnold missions (not really spoiling anything). When Washington offers Conner the initial mission to root out the traitor, Conner explicitly tells Washington in a cutscene never to call upon him again. Interestingly, these missions only become available after the completion of "Missing Supplies," causing it to line up perfectly with this shift in Conner's views. The writers made it pretty clear through some dialogue in the earlier missions that Conner was increasingly feeling used by the Patriots for their own ends, and I saw the revelation about Washington having burned his village as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Just my thoughts, sorry for the long post

Yeah a lot of folks that haven't played the BA Dlc don't know about this as it does add to the story. Some even said the DLC adds nothing.. were they wrong. I think chronologically the Dlc should be played after Seq 10.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-19-2012, 04:04 AM
I think you should re-read part of the book, The stuff in green is true, the stuff in red is not.

Lee and the other Templars (except Haytham who was in Europe at the time) went to the village to speak to the elders about setting up camp nearby so William Johnson could study the Grand Temple entrance. However Lee got carried away and assaulted Ratonhnhake:ton. When they got to the village, they tried to speak with the elders but Washington and his troops were already all over the place torching the village, there was very little the Templars could do to prevent this (Although I think they tried) so they left.

Haytham found out about this during sequence 6, but witheld the info from Connor until the time where it would be most effective in turning him against Washington.

To everyone else, I would really recommend Forsaken as it adds so much more depth to the story of both characters, and there's only a couple of minor retcons and one major (Connor learning about the amulet from his mother rather than ever speaking to Juno, and burying it in a random place near his village).

It's really nice seeing some big parts of the game from Haytham's perspective, and learning about his life being a struggle similar to Connor's/

Which makes me question the book. If it manages to get some things wrong that actually were in the game, who's to say that stuff it adds on its own is true at all? Seriously, I wish Ubisoft just released some Director's Cut version of the game that fills all the plotholes, it's ridiculous how fragmented Ratonhnhaké:ton's story is sometimes...

avk111
11-19-2012, 09:03 AM
So why did Connor still assist GW after he found out that his mothers blood were stained on his hands? I can understand that he may have wished to deal with this issue later, but to actually assist GW the killer of his own tribe (in regards to the Benedict Arnold DLC)?

Its kind of like Ezio finding out that Leonardo had something to do with his fathers death and continue assisting him, in regards to the persistant of Connors assistance what I mean is he has not taken GW to a verdict of some sort.

My mind is so soar trying to make logic of this plot hole.

dchil279
11-19-2012, 02:37 PM
So why did Connor still assist GW after he found out that his mothers blood were stained on his hands? I can understand that he may have wished to deal with this issue later, but to actually assist GW the killer of his own tribe (in regards to the Benedict Arnold DLC)?

Its kind of like Ezio finding out that Leonardo had something to do with his fathers death and continue assisting him, in regards to the persistant of Connors assistance what I mean is he has not taken GW to a verdict of some sort.

My mind is so soar trying to make logic of this plot hole.
Connor is not impulsive like Ezio,

ApexMandalorian
11-19-2012, 02:50 PM
Which makes me question the book. If it manages to get some things wrong that actually were in the game, who's to say that stuff it adds on its own is true at all? Seriously, I wish Ubisoft just released some Director's Cut version of the game that fills all the plotholes, it's ridiculous how fragmented Ratonhnhaké:ton's story is sometimes...

They really need to. And now that I think about it, I don't think that Haytham's part in the game being, what the devs say, is 5 hours long is the thing that detracts from Connor's story. I think that what detracts from Connor is the fact that they just DIDN'T develop his story enough. I don't think Connor's plotholes are a result of time limitations. I think they just didn't do a good enough job developing him. Connor really needs DLC that focuses on HIM, not on some fake story about Washington being a king.

avk111
11-19-2012, 02:50 PM
Dont you think he was impulsive when it came around Charles Lee though ?

Im having hard time swallowing it in. maybe because I thought the whole time charles lee was behind the massacre of the village

Assassin_M
11-19-2012, 11:37 PM
It made no sense to me why Lee would pin Connor to a tree, choke him, tell him to talk to the Village elders THEN have Johnson hit him with the musket butt..To me it seemed like a cheap attempt to make the Templars look bad for no reason..

It made so much more sense when I found out it was Washington, because he was known to the Natives as "Town Destroyer" compared to Charles Lee who was known as "Boiling water". he married from the Mohawks actually, so again it made NO SENSE why Lee would criticize the native way of life like he did when he had Connor pinned to the tree.

That said, Connor did not kill Washington, because it was told before that Connor was not out for revenge. Sure he may have thought of it as Motivation when pursuing Lee, but not killing Washington proves that he was not out for Revenge. Lee was a Templar above all else. Connor`s Job as an Assassin is to rid the World of templars..

Will_Lucky
11-20-2012, 01:22 AM
It made no sense to me why Lee would pin Connor to a tree, choke him, tell him to talk to the Village elders THEN have Johnson hit him with the musket butt..To me it seemed like a cheap attempt to make the Templars look bad for no reason..

It made so much more sense when I found out it was Washington, because he was known to the Natives as "Town Destroyer" compared to Charles Lee who was known as "Boiling water". he married from the Mohawks actually, so again it made NO SENSE why Lee would criticize the native way of life like he did when he had Connor pinned to the tree.

That said, Connor did not kill Washington, because it was told before that Connor was not out for revenge. Sure he may have thought of it as Motivation when pursuing Lee, but not killing Washington proves that he was not out for Revenge. Lee was a Templar above all else. Connor`s Job as an Assassin is to rid the World of templars..

In the end I think that was brutal characterization on the part of the writers of Lee, a lot of people in my history class came to the same conclusion. Lee just wasn't like that, in a sense they completely brutalized his character. Historically Lee doesn't go downhill like that until Washington is made CiC (Writers did include that, I'll give them that.) At the start, it made sense, Lee was an up and coming Officer and ambitious, but by Connor being a child his character changed far too much he hadn't experienced the things that made him go downhill. I'd just say sloppy writing on that part.

zhengyingli
11-20-2012, 01:39 AM
In the end I think that was brutal characterization on the part of the writers of Lee, a lot of people in my history class came to the same conclusion. Lee just wasn't like that, in a sense they completely brutalized his character. Historically Lee doesn't go downhill like that until Washington is made CiC (Writers did include that, I'll give them that.) At the start, it made sense, Lee was an up and coming Officer and ambitious, but by Connor being a child his character changed far too much he hadn't experienced the things that made him go downhill. I'd just say sloppy writing on that part.
The writers could've let Connor misunderstand Charles Lee through witnessing Lee doing a cruel but necessary act, letting Connor link such incident to the fire. I do think they didn't intend on brutalizing the character; they probably just didn't trust the audience to realize the subtlety. Charles Lee's strangling of Connor is what I call "that Hollywood cliche moment." And William Johnson would never knock out a kid like that.

Will_Lucky
11-20-2012, 01:58 AM
The writers could've let Connor misunderstand Charles Lee through witnessing Lee doing a cruel but necessary act, letting Connor link such incident to the fire. I do think they didn't intend on brutalizing the character; they probably just didn't trust the audience to realize the subtlety. Charles Lee's strangling of Connor is what I call "that Hollywood cliche moment." And William Johnson would never knock out a kid like that.

That would have been far better, and later on Connor could have witnessed the Lee after he lost the position of CiC to Washington where his character did go downhill and see him from that viewpoint as someone who had to be ended.

My problem is Lee wasn't beyond such actions, but they were done far too early to make sense. It should as you said have been far more subtle.

avk111
11-21-2012, 07:54 AM
Thank you to all the guys who helped me in this thread.

The only question that remains now is why did connor who seeks justice accept GW being the president of the new government if he knew he was also a perpetrator ?

Need in depth answer please guys

thank you

Assassin_M
11-21-2012, 08:48 AM
Thank you to all the guys who helped me in this thread.

The only question that remains now is why did connor who seeks justice accept GW being the president of the new government if he knew he was also a perpetrator ?

Need in depth answer please guys

thank you
Because he`s simply not a Templar:D

If he gets to select who becomes President and who does not, then how better is he than the Templars ?? True. GW commited Injustice towards his People, but there are other people who view GW as their leader..

Connor is an Assassin above ANYTHING else. He constantly says and he tutors his recruits about it..They do not favor a people/nation/group/Religion. They are for Freedom

avk111
11-21-2012, 09:35 AM
السلام عليكم
انا متشكرلك يا محمد ربنا يبارك فيك أن شاء الله إذا عندك فيس بوك أبعت لي إياه

zhengyingli
11-21-2012, 10:22 AM
السلام عليكم
انا متشكرلك يا محمد ربنا يبارك فيك أن شاء الله إذا عندك فيس بوك أبعت لي إياه
Do not bring God into this, Facebook SMS or not!!!!! :p

avk111
11-21-2012, 11:20 AM
Zhengyingli.

please what do you think of the question I posted do you have any interesting answer on it ?

LightRey
11-21-2012, 12:49 PM
Washington was responsible. He even admits to it (or rather, does not deny it when confronted with the fact) in the game and Haytham confirms it further. However, the fact that Lee was there suggests that he may well have had something to do with it. He certainly didn't stop it and I doubt he was unaware.

avk111
11-22-2012, 06:49 AM
Agreed with mr.Lightrey.

There is some sort of intervention by Lee to this matter, he probably knew of the burning coming soon so he went to get some information regarding the precursor site before GW burned the village.

dbuddy101
11-22-2012, 01:03 PM
It seems like George Washington is the one who burned down Connor's village back in the day, and Lee was just there to negoiate with the elders, probably so they could peacefully move to another location while the Templars protected the precursor site. I really have no idea why he continued to pursue Lee after he discovered this, and not Washington, unless the game was trying to portray that maybe the Assassin's are actually the bad guys. Connor did not fight for himself when chasing lee. At first, it was about his village, and he wanted to kill Lee for that and to stop him from repeating his actions. However, once he learned that it was George Washington who gave the order to burn it down, and that Charles tried to negotiate, he realized that Lee posed a threat to the whole new country, while Washington only personally hurt Connor and his people. Connor had to make the choice to stop Lee or kill Washington for vengeance. In the end, he made the selfless choice to kill Lee and stop the Templars from gaining a hold on the new country, rather than George who only killed Connor's people. In the end, Connor was an Assassin, not a Mohawk. That was especially shown when he killed his childhood friend after they wanted to fight against the patriots. Connor saw that Freedom for some is better than the safety of a few. He had to sacrifice his friend for the sake and hope of freedom, which was accomplished (if only for white men at the time)

avk111
11-22-2012, 02:40 PM
I hardly believe Lee wanted to negotiate "safely" or "peacefully" but none the less this makes Connor a great example of heroism.

Ezio took a while to reach this level (naughty naughty Ezio) when he left Rodrigo Borgia Live.

avk111
11-26-2012, 03:01 PM
Admin can you please close this thread I want to open new one and thanks =)

RatonhnhakeFan
11-26-2012, 03:47 PM
Connor did not fight for himself when chasing lee. At first, it was about his village, and he wanted to kill Lee for that and to stop him from repeating his actions. However, once he learned that it was George Washington who gave the order to burn it down, and that Charles tried to negotiate, he realized that Lee posed a threat to the whole new country, while Washington only personally hurt Connor and his people. Connor had to make the choice to stop Lee or kill Washington for vengeance. In the end, he made the selfless choice to kill Lee and stop the Templars from gaining a hold on the new country, rather than George who only killed Connor's people. In the end, Connor was an Assassin, not a Mohawk. That was especially shown when he killed his childhood friend after they wanted to fight against the patriots. Connor saw that Freedom for some is better than the safety of a few. He had to sacrifice his friend for the sake and hope of freedom, which was accomplished (if only for white men at the time)Uhm no, he killed his friend in self-defense. Go re-watch that scene, seriously.

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 04:00 PM
Uhm no, he killed his friend in self-defense. Go re-watch that scene, seriously.

Yes well, his friend saw that Connor was fighting under the Patriots who were under the command of the man who burned down their village. Can't really blame him for that can you? Connor chose to oppose his people and he attempted to kill him for it.

LightRey
11-26-2012, 04:03 PM
Yes well, his friend saw that Connor was fighting under the Patriots who were under the command of the man who burned down their village. Can't really blame him for that can you? Connor chose to oppose his people and he attempted to kill him for it.
Eh, no. First of all, his friend never saw Connor fighting for the Patriots and Connor wasn't "opposing" his people, he was stopping them from entering into the war. Finally, he never attempted to kill his friend, he was trying to knock him out, reason with him. He had to kill him in self defense in the end.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-26-2012, 04:05 PM
Yes well, his friend saw that Connor was fighting under the Patriots who were under the command of the man who burned down their village. Can't really blame him for that can you? Connor chose to oppose his people and he attempted to kill him for it.

He's neutralizing (in a non-lethal way) the Native soldiers because if they attack, the Continental army would wipe them out. Which is exactly what Lee hopes will happen and why he set the trap. And he only kills Kanen'tó:kon because HE PULLS A KNIFE TO HIS NECK AND IS ABOUT TO KILL HIM. And all this happened because Lee deceived him. Can I blame Kanen'tó:kon? I may understand it, but it doesn't change the fact that he decided to listen to a Lee instead his best friend.

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 04:28 PM
Eh, no. First of all, his friend never saw Connor fighting for the Patriots and Connor wasn't "opposing" his people, he was stopping them from entering into the war. Finally, he never attempted to kill his friend, he was trying to knock him out, reason with him. He had to kill him in self defense in the end.

They'd already entered the war, Connor was just preventing escalation. Undoubtedly he did have to kill him in self-defense.


He's neutralizing (in a non-lethal way) the Native soldiers because if they attack, the Continental army would wipe them out. Which is exactly what Lee hopes will happen and why he set the trap. And he only kills Kanen'tó:kon because HE PULLS A KNIFE TO HIS NECK AND IS ABOUT TO KILL HIM. And all this happened because Lee deceived him. Can I blame Kanen'tó:kon? I may understand it, but it doesn't change the fact that he decided to listen to a Lee instead his best friend.

Who would you side with? The man who takes orders from Washington who did a hell lot more than burn one village down (known very well among natives) with a patriot army on the doorstep or Charles Lee whose associates have normally had decent relations with the natives.

Yes he killed him in self defense, but you can't blame him he didn't even need deceiving (if that was even the case), just say he takes orders from Washington and job done.

avk111
11-26-2012, 04:31 PM
Connor wanted to save the village no matter what , Lee played the ropes and let His friend come in the way , so there was no other way but to put him down.

LightRey
11-26-2012, 04:34 PM
They'd already entered the war, Connor was just preventing escalation. Undoubtedly he did have to kill him in self-defense.



Who would you side with? The man who takes orders from Washington who did a hell lot more than burn one village down (known very well among natives) with a patriot army on the doorstep or Charles Lee whose associates have normally had decent relations with the natives.

Yes he killed him in self defense, but you can't blame him he didn't even need deceiving (if that was even the case), just say he takes orders from Washington and job done.
Actually, no, they hadn't already entered the war. They would have if they had continued with the attack, which is why Connor stopped them, but they were under attack purely because the other Mohawk tribes had been aiding the British and so Washington had ordered as many Mohawk villages to be burned as possible.

Through doing what he did, Connor's village was still excluded from the war.

avk111
11-26-2012, 04:35 PM
Actually, no, they hadn't already entered the war. They would have if they had continued with the attack, which is why Connor stopped them, but they were under attack purely because the other Mohawk tribes had been aiding the British and so Washington had ordered as many Mohawk villages to be burned as possible.

Through doing what he did, Connor's village was still excluded from the war.

agreed

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 04:45 PM
but they were under attack purely because the other Mohawk tribes had been aiding the British and so Washington had ordered as many Mohawk villages to be burned as possible.

Through doing what he did, Connor's village was still excluded from the war.

And there is your problem, combined with the actions of Washington during the Seven Years War they acted as they did.

LightRey
11-26-2012, 04:50 PM
And there is your problem, combined with the actions of Washington during the Seven Years War they acted as they did.
What problem? They were not involved in the war at any point. There is no problem.

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 05:02 PM
What problem? They were not involved in the war at any point. There is no problem.

Washington ordered the village massacred? That is a pretty big problem.

avk111
11-26-2012, 06:50 PM
Actually, no, they hadn't already entered the war. They would have if they had continued with the attack, which is why Connor stopped them, but they were under attack purely because the other Mohawk tribes had been aiding the British and so Washington had ordered as many Mohawk villages to be burned as possible.

Through doing what he did, Connor's village was still excluded from the war.

Actually they were attacked by haytham and Connors mom thus Washington took the decision to burn the villages, in addition to the same event could you remember Connors mom gathered other guys from the other Mohawk tribe so this event sparked it all because of the Templars

Will_Lucky
11-26-2012, 07:08 PM
Actually they were attacked by haytham and Connors mom thus Washington took the decision to burn the villages, in addition to the same event could you remember Connors mom gathered other guys from the other Mohawk tribe so this event sparked it all because of the Templars

Well Braddock had to die, he was a nasty piece of work both the Templars and Mohawks agreed on that one.

avk111
11-26-2012, 08:07 PM
Well Braddock had to die, he was a nasty piece of work both the Templars and Mohawks agreed on that one.Agree