1. #41
    JustPlainQuirky's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    14,478
    That's indirect and unintentional though.

    Edward literally went up and killed them.
    Share this post

  2. #42
    SpiritOfNevaeh's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Homestead
    Posts
    5,053
    Originally Posted by Mayrice Go to original post
    Edward Braddock killed an entire family including children because a dude called him selfish.
    Yeah, dude was a ******!

    Haytham: Edward was one of us, upon a time: I considered him a close friend. He was brave and bold in ways few men are. But everything changed at the siege of Bergen op Zoom. We had lost the fortress to the French, and were in the midst of egress. There was a skiff hidden at the port that we planned to make our escape. As we drew near, a young man and his family came upon us, begging for safe passage. I consented, but Edward refused. The young man called him craven... so Edward killed him and all the rest... even the children. To this day I do not know why. Was this the first time he'd struck out? Or had I simply never seen it before? Either way, things were never the same after that. We campaigned together a few more times, but each outing was more disturbing than the last. He killed and killed; enemy or ally, civilian or soldier, guilty or innocent, it mattered not. If he perceived one to be an obstacle, they died. He maintained violence was a more efficient solution: it became his mantra, and it broke my heart.

    craven |ˈkrāvən| adjective
    contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly; a cowardly person.

    Originally Posted by Hans684 Go to original post
    And how many families have Connor destroyed by starting the revolution?
    That was soooo not his fault, indirect and unintentional.
    Share this post

  3. #43
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,658
    Originally Posted by Mayrice Go to original post
    That's indirect and unintentional though.

    Edward literally went up and killed them.
    Originally Posted by Humble_Assassin Go to original post
    That was soooo not his fault, indirect and unintentional.
    Connor literally killed Pitcairn and William, because of that he directly doomed his people and started a war. If he hadn't the outcome would be better, his people save and no war.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    JustPlainQuirky's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    14,478
    William actually was about to kill natives.

    And Connor killed pitcairn because he thought he was harmful to his cause. His intentions weren't nearly as bad.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    Sesheenku's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Originally Posted by Hans684 Go to original post
    Connor literally killed Pitcairn and William, because of that he directly doomed his people and started a war. If he hadn't the outcome would be better, his people save and no war.
    This shouldn't even be an argument.

    Edward is mad, he kills merely to put people in their place, for merely questioning him. He thinks highly of himself and anyone to deny him that dies. Edward doesn't merely intend good things to happen he also kills people he has no business killing, people that aren't Templars, Assassins, or even have anything to do with the war at ALL.

    Connor is merely a naive fool, intending good wholeheartedly while not being capable of analyzing everything appropriately.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,658
    Originally Posted by Sesheenku Go to original post
    This shouldn't even be an argument.

    Edward is mad, he kills merely to put people in their place, for merely questioning him. He thinks highly of himself and anyone to deny him that dies. Edward doesn't merely intend good things to happen he also kills people he has no business killing, people that aren't Templars, Assassins, or even have anything to do with the war at ALL.

    Connor is merely a naive fool, intending good wholeheartedly while not being capable of analyzing everything appropriately.
    I don't care if it should or not.

    When did I say Edward wasn't mad?

    Indeed Connor is , and that just adds to my point.
    Share this post

  7. #47
    Sesheenku's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Originally Posted by Hans684 Go to original post
    I don't care if it should or not.

    When did I say Edward wasn't mad?

    Indeed Connor is , and that just adds to my point.
    It actually detracts from your point which is the equivalent of saying that a child who accidentally sets his house on fire is just as bad as a serial killer who sets houses on fire to burn his victims.

    One is ignorant to the consequences of their actions, the other knows full well the consequences and decides to do it anyways.

    If you went into AC and you told Connor all of the consequences of his actions he would most likely rethink them in order to spare more people, if you tried the same with Edward Braddock on the other hand the only thing he'd do is avoid being killed by Haytham and continue slaughtering innocents on purpose to further his own ends.
    Share this post

  8. #48
    pirate1802's Avatar AC Expert
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    8,234
    Edward Braddock was a mad dog who deserved to be put down. When even Templars turn against you, you know you done ****ed up pretty bad..
    Share this post

  9. #49
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,658
    Originally Posted by Sesheenku Go to original post
    It actually detracts from your point which is the equivalent of saying that a child who accidentally sets his house on fire is just as bad as a serial killer who sets houses on fire to burn his victims.

    One is ignorant to the consequences of their actions, the other knows full well the consequences and decides to do it anyways.

    If you went into AC and you told Connor all of the consequences of his actions he would most likely rethink them in order to spare more people, if you tried the same with Edward Braddock on the other hand the only thing he'd do is avoid being killed by Haytham and continue slaughtering innocents on purpose to further his own ends.
    So basically the Templars are bad guys and Assassins the good guys. I never defended Edward you know, all I said is that what he does(even trough tint Templar anymore) is just what the Assassins to, cut anyone they find needed for a better future.
    Share this post

  10. #50
    Sesheenku's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Originally Posted by Hans684 Go to original post
    So basically the Templars are bad guys and Assassins the good guys. I never defended Edward you know, all I said is that what he does(even trough tint Templar anymore) is just what the Assassins to, cut anyone they find needed for a better future.
    There is no bad and good in AC, both organizations do good and bad things. Ezio caused a lot of damage during his quests for example but Edward was most definitely bad.
    Share this post