Mr.House wrote...
Not really. Haytham keeps telling you that these men who are fighting for freedom are only fighting for their own power, which turns out true. Haythams final speech to Connor made it clear to day Connor was simply a naive idiot who didn't form any real opinion on what he is doing.
How does any of that contradict what i said?
Templars want peace through control. Control is most effective when consolidated. Thus, helping the colonists doesn't advance the Templar ideals at all.
I'll agree that Connor was an idealist who got lost along the way. That, in my opinion, was what made him such a moving protagonist.
Thomas Hickey. Just remembered. "Sure, I'm in it for wine and women. But I've got what I wanted. You, boy...your hands will always be empty."
simfamSP wrote...
But it is grey. It's *very* grey. Peace through control is not an 'evil' motive. The problem being that such power corrupts a man.
When Haytham fights Connor I agreed with a lot of what he said. People will naturally look for an established hierarchy for guidance. There can never be 'liberty' in the sense that Connor wants.
Their conflict needs to carry on. They compliment each other and keep a balance of power. Ultimately though, the war between Assassin's and Templars has becoming a lot more person for the former side than the latter. I feel it's more about simply surviving than for their overall cause.
I'm not saying it ISN'T grey.
I was actually thinking about it a bit today. It IS grey because a lot of what the Templars say is true. People ARE weak on their own. They DO follow the path of least resistance, of chaos, to their own destruction, when ungoverned.
That being true, though, doesn't validate the hypocrisy of Templars supporting colonial "freedom."
pirate1802 wrote...
Ofcourse they would. They'd want control for THEMSELVES. That meanst detaching the colonies from the crown and wresting it under their contol. What they were trying to do with Charles ready to take command. Isn't it what haytham said, that this was supposed to be the example of the perfect society, one raised under Templar control?
But they don't actually have control. Washington does. Further, while them controlling the colonies would be great (for them) in and of itself, it's flawed to not consolidate and go after the center of power. They should have been trying to get control of England, not a backwoods bunch of colonies.
Modifié par EntropicAngel, 10 décembre 2013 - 05:31 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Retour en haut
.
