PDA

View Full Version : Let's analyse speeches and quotes from AC to find faults or sources of admiration.



ArabianFrost
07-30-2013, 01:24 PM
We had a favourite quotes thread back then but lets have a thread about quotes or speeches you thought offered weak arguments. Obviously, pretty much all of AC2 to the Non-Alta´r ACR parts would not be the best of choices.

While we're at it, I would like to ask you guys to cool down the derailment in any thread out of the "bring up whatever you want" thread and the Twitter one. I know I'm guilty of that and I apologise, but in hindsight all threads were absolutely maimed with derailment. The mods can only do much, so let's just migrate most light-hearted discussions to the mentioned threads. it makes it very hard to enter a discussion in a thread when no one thread talks about the subject.


My one would be Haytham's final speech. It was one hell of a strong speech, but I felt it was heavily subjective with little fact.

"Even when your kind appears to triumph... still, we rise again. And, do you know why? It is because the Order is born of a REALIZATION. We require no creed! No indoctrination by desperate, old men. All we need is that the world be as it is. And THIS is why the Templars will never be destroyed!"


I honestly don't know why he talks about the tenants of the creed. How is that relevant? Stay your blade from the flesh of innocents, do not compromise the brotherhood and be one with the crowd. The first tenant is a simple moral obligation that even Haytham practised when he was younger, even if, assassins didn't shy away from stabbing suspicion.

Second tenant talks about keeping the order secret and how is this different from Templars who strive on secrecy and ruling the world without anyone's knowledge. They even go so far as to kill any one who finds about the Templars (see ACR's voice recordings). Last tenant is pretty much shared by both.

If you guys played the first investigation mission that requires you to find where Benjamin Church, Haytham downright tells Charles Lee that observing the crowd and being one with it is a requirement to be an Assassi-..Wait, they turned out to be Templars. Isn't that weird? Their techniques are so replicative of the ways of the assassins we were dead sure these were assassins, therefore due to the similarity of the assassin techniques and the Templars ones, I find it very weak for Haytham to argue that against assassins when both are not so different after all. Assassins label their techniques and Templars don't. No need to claim the Templars are better because they don't do so.


The second thing I'd like to talk about is Haytham implying that Templars only reuire humanity to be "as it is". As it is? See, here's the point. What "IS" the state humanity as residing at? Haytham alludes that Humanity is inherently in need of a ruling power, now that's relatively true. We need a collective bode of rules to manage all aspects of nations coherently. However, Haytham's words reek of total abidance rather than moderate abidance, which is absolutely wrong, at least not for all the population and revolutions are a clear sign of that. The American revolution, the Haitian revolution, the French revolution, the Golden Age of pirates and even the recent Arabic ones. Humans are not sheep. They don't want someone to herd them. They want someone to manage the economics and institutions, while abstaining from hindering each and every human's freedom. Unfortunately, I can't use these revolutions as a counter-argument since freedom of speech is not their sole catalyst, rather, the desperate need for economic reforms are the major effector. However, I can refer to the recent NSA shenanigans and the British porn as well. Sure people didn't go out asking for ousting of governments, but they showed nuisance and resisted as far as their, let's say "laziness" for the lack of better term, allowed. Freedom is an ideal that remains looming whether your privileged or not. Humans are born rebellious. It's their nature.


As for the last point, while Templar ideals can change from one form to another, the Templar order can fall. The same is with the assassins. Moderated Freedom vs Prosperous Control has always been an argument for the ages. Fighters for it will always be found


If you scrolled down this far, post a Templar/Assassin speech of your own and express why you agree/disagree with it. d.

Spider_Sith9
07-30-2013, 01:26 PM
inb4Haythamisright

I've read it and I will post my own to asked to be analyzed.

Connor: Freedom is Peace.

Haytham: No, it's an invitation to chaos.

Assassin_M
07-30-2013, 01:34 PM
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted <---- Creed

Hand off innocents, hide in plain sight, no compromise to brotherhood <----- Tenants

ProletariatPleb
07-30-2013, 01:38 PM
Hand off innocents
>_>

Garnier de Naplouse's famous quote, ".........but I want to play with fire, father....then you will answer fir his burns..."
Not finding faults here, but that was a really powerful quote for me. For the first time I thought that I was doing something wrong. It makes so much sense.

ArabianFrost
07-30-2013, 01:40 PM
inb4Haythamisright

I've read it and I will post my own to asked to be analyzed.

Connor: Freedom is Peace.

Haytham: No, it's an invitation to chaos.

Freedom is peace? Eehhhh, I wouldn't necessarily call it an instrument to peace, but if everyone truly is respective of OTHER people's freedom of belief, taste and anything else then it's definitely an invitation to peace. The problem is that it must apply to everyone by everyone. You can't have someone disagree to another's freedom at a certain matter. This is why wars start. A simple disagreement. Freedom is a delicate ideal, but its fruits are prosperous.


Control is the stark opposite, it's horribly easy to implement correctly. Eventually though, people will find out and they WILL rebel. Choose your poison, both are difficult to maintain.

ArabianFrost
07-30-2013, 01:40 PM
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted <---- Creed

Hand off innocents, hide in plain sight, no compromise to brotherhood <----- Tenants

That's the maxim. Both are parts of the creed.

Legendz54
07-30-2013, 01:44 PM
Haytham's whole prior death speech.




http://youtu.be/iLAQLRB76Y8

Ureh
07-30-2013, 03:47 PM
>_>

Garnier de Naplouse's famous quote, ".........but I want to play with fire, father....then you will answer fir his burns..."
Not finding faults here, but that was a really powerful quote for me. For the first time I thought that I was doing something wrong. It makes so much sense.

But he ordered both of the legs to be broken. <_< X.X

Spider_Sith9
07-30-2013, 03:50 PM
But he ordered both of the legs to be broken. <_< X.X

Sometimes you gotta do terrible things to make a good result. It's the same case of corporal punishment. If you constantly spank a child, may be psychologically tormented as an adult. Maybe they find pain as acceptable?

Ureh
07-30-2013, 04:09 PM
He claims to be saving them from harm by inflicting pain? And then the pain he inflicts now will somehow make them more "tolerant" to more? Nah, no thanks, Templars. And What Garnier was doing with those patients, using profane medicine to take their minds. That is not safety, he's imprisoning them within their own minds while their bodies are subject to the sadism of him and his guards. I think he's just another Templar that vomits pretty words but takes things too far. He justifies reprehensible acts with the promise of a "perfect" future that will not last (if it even begins).