The people never have the power. Only the illusion of it. And here's the real secret: they don't want it...

>what happened to the story after that?
Literally nothing, everything since has just been dragging its heels with the real world plot being almost entirely ignored.

literally have the power for something, gets the power for something else in return.

pls explain.

>DUDE FREEDOM THOUGH

Attached: Assassins-Creed-Brotherhood-Ezio-Auditore.jpg (1364x768, 119K)

>Connor fucks up literally everything for everyone out of petty revenge and selfish idiocy
>He's actually legitimately supposed to be the good guy doing the right thing
I just don't understand how AC3 happened.

I wonder how Rogue even got released, given that it went against Assassins.

Because they are the descendant of niggers and so are the assassins

fuck niggers

youtube.com/watch?v=BHXatP8kCSQ
Haytham is the only redeeming factor of AC3

He is the good guy because 2012 is not yet there, and giving the tech to the Templars would lead to even greater enslavement. Leaving the Temple alone at that point is the best solution.
Of course the real point is that they have been squabbling like children for thousands of years and forgot everything that was taught to them.

>they have been squabbling like children for thousands of years and forgot everything that was taught to them.
I think some user said that the ending of Odyssey says that. So next game will be about what, whacking both the Assassins and the Templars since you can't beat some sense into them?

Ok mass shooter, settle down.

fuck schools
fuck school shooters
and fuck niggers

AC3 accidently portrayed the Templars as the good guys.

>The Ancien Régime were actually the Assassin-affiliated good guys who were overthrown by a Templar plot and the First French Republic was just a puppet of them until Nappy shook everything up
What did they mean by this?

Attached: Assassins-Creed-Unity-Screenshot-3.jpg (1600x900, 316K)

>"We're cruel and desperate creatures, set in our conquering ways. The Saxons and the Franks. The Ottomans and Safavids... I could go on for hours. The whole of human history is but a series of conflicts and subjugation. A desire for more, and more, and more"
absolute kino. Do you guys recall how long it took for you to realize Haytham was a templar?

So was he a Templar or an Assassin?

Attached: epstein.jpg (618x410, 52K)

Third party actor exploiting/blackmailing Templars.

Because the Templars literally want to mind control people and act like their higher ups won't eventually become corrupt or fall to their own vices. Look at how the French Order ended up mutinying because one guy didn't want to wholesale slaughter the Assassins and instead wanted to find a common ground for them to both work with. The Templars are also in general not above using horrendous means like poisoning hundreds of thousands of homeless people with smallpox or killing people who are unaffiliated with either the Assassin or Templar cause just to keep certain things a secret. That's not to say the Assassin's "Burn and salt the earth then let everyone else sort through the mess" ideal is a good one either.

Connor's not portrayed as the good guy at all. Every single kill he does actively makes people's lives worse on the Native American side, all the people he sides with are either scheming, glory hounds, or complete assholes, and in the end he failed at everything but building his Homestead to the point that he even shouts at Juno about it. He was even ready to turn to Haytham's side until the Washington reveal. In AC:L when he teams up with Aveline and she asks him if he believes in the Brotherhood's goals he just says "I...trust in my own hands" rather than in what the Brotherhood does.

Attached: Assassin's Creed III Remastered 2019-08-10 14-13-17.jpg (1920x1080, 1012K)

>The best character in the entire Assasin’s Creed series is only playable for 15 minutes
Ubicucks

Ngl, now I'm seeing it

AC3 already says that explicitly.
Maybe they will add a plot once again.

>15 minutes
He was playable for at least five hours, all of which was a handholding tutorial for some reason

It's about two to three hours if you just follow the story, it's around five to six in OG if you did the entire Boston Underground with him and got the chests and Almanacks in the areas you could.

The Masked Assassin.

>Freedom bros!!!
>But also we will kill you if you use your freedom in a way we disagree with!

>Because the Templars literally want to mind control people and act like their higher ups won't eventually become corrupt or fall to their own vices. Look at how the French Order ended up mutinying because one guy didn't want to wholesale slaughter the Assassins and instead wanted to find a common ground for them to both work with. The Templars are also in general not above using horrendous means like poisoning hundreds of thousands of homeless people with smallpox or killing people who are unaffiliated with either the Assassin or Templar cause just to keep certain things a secret. That's not to say the Assassin's "Burn and salt the earth then let everyone else sort through the mess" ideal is a good one either.
All this shit is just ad hominem arguments the game uses, the Templars are bad because they are bad. But the actual Templar philosophy is objectively correct while the Assassin philosophy is shit.

The entire fucking war is ad hominem ad infinitum

AC1 Templars weren't saturday morning cartoon villains though. AC1 and AC3 were the only ones that didn't portray them as such.

>But the actual Templar philosophy is objectively correct
The Templar philosophy is not objectively correct because it means a few people ruling over everyone with everyone having no say in their choices and the rulers having no responsibility for their actions because they'll just cover everything up. The Assassin philosophy is also flawed because it believes that everyone being completely free of everything could remotely function when that just leads to anarchy. Hell, Assassin ideology is basically killing rulers and people who actually want to get stuff done or keep the peace and then leaving. The one time they did take over (Rogue being that one) they cocked it up so bad that the people were worse off than they were with the Templars.

The middleground of rulers with responsibility elected by their fellows and laws for people to uphold is the proper way to do it, but these two idiot sides go to the extreme for no reason when the middleground is literally staring them in the face. That's not to say the middleground is not open to corruption as well, but it still gives people the freedom to speak and revolt if they disagree.

NO GODS
NO MASTERS

>literal grade school philosophy and muh greater good
Thats why we hate them

>The Templar philosophy is not objectively correct because it means a few people ruling over everyone with everyone having no say in their choices and the rulers having no responsibility for their actions because they'll just cover everything up.
The Templar philosophy includes the belief that the leaders of society should be enlightened people, making it completely correct. This is indeed how it should be - the best people should lead all the rest. You're just assuming the people on the top will always be corrupt which actively contradicts the philosophy. Basically a strawman argument. The Templars aren't saying corrupt people should be on top, but that the best and most enlightened mankind has to offer should rule. Which is better than every possible situation mankind will ever have by default.
You could say that where the Templars go wrong is that they themselves become corrupt but again, that's ad hominem argument. That just means the Templars are shit. It doesn't mean their philosophy is bad.
>rulers with responsibility
Good
> elected by their fellows
Retarded
>laws for people to uphold
Good
>when the middleground
Let me guess, your "middle ground" is some form of a democratic republic which is exactly like the country you currently live in which is probably rife with shit tons of problems? Lmfao

>Still no Haytham game
>It still only exists in the AC universe

>He's actually legitimately supposed to be the good guy doing the right thing
if you think this has ever been true for anyone other than desmond then you haven't been paying attention, even in the first game it was made clear that the assassins are not good and neither are the templars, they are competing shadow organizations that seek to control the direction of humanity in one way or another.

>Templars trying to basically Jew the rest of the world is good
Wew

>The Templar philosophy includes the belief that the leaders of society should be enlightened people, making it completely correct.
Plato's republic would be nothing more than tyranny.

I don't even think its unintentional, some of the characters like Haytham feel like intentional redpill from the last sane person on Ubisoft's writing stuff. I think it could also be reverse psychology, by portraying Assassins as mary sues and Templars as comic book villains in stuff like Ezio games, which genuinely makes you question the logic of it all.

So rulers should be Jews?

Did you forget the whole "they kill anyone that goes against their plan" part?

When is Desmond coming back

Okay? What's wrong with that other than it being a big scary buzzword?
If the Jews are the best that humankind has to offer then yes, the rulers should be Jews. If instead its Nordics, or Persians, or Greeks, or whatever the fuck then it should be them. I personally suspect that its highly unlikely the most enlightened individuals all come from the same racial background but whatever.

Based and grand inquisitor pilled.

Again, ad hominem. That's a strike against the Templars themselves, not their philosophy. But even then, if your plan is objectively the best for mankind I would say it isn't morally wrong to kill people who are trying to oppose it if that's what it takes to bring the plan about. Debatably you actually have a moral obligation to kill in that circumstance.

>Oui (Yes)
Do americans really do this?

Attached: flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg (904x864, 84K)

>The Templars aren't saying corrupt people should be on top, but that the best and most enlightened mankind has to offer should rule.
Except it WILL eventually fall to corruption or tyranny. We've seen it time and time again in the Templar ranks when they've gained control despite having groups of these "Enlightened" people. 90% of the time their goal is just finding more PoEs to rule over humanity with.
AC1 had Al Mualim wanting to control people's minds so that only things he thought were correct would be allowed which we saw happen in AC2 with that one guy controlling a region of Firenze and it caused the people to live worse lives and to fall to human vices and their own corruption.
Cesare Borgia was literally wanting to use the Apple to fight wars and kill people just for power while Rodrigo just wanted answers that would let him rule over everyone.
Haytham wanted to use the secrets of the Grand Temple to control humanity because he believed himself better than the common masses. Not to mention he wholesale slaughters guards just because it's too expensive to feed and guard them for a single day while he verifies some information and not only instigating the Boston Fire but killing homeless as well with smallpox.
Torres wanted to spy on everyone and kill anyone who thought something he didn't like and allied himself with people who would murder indiscriminately.
In Rogue Gist and his men literally manipulated Shay into believing their cause was just and even by the end of the game they don't convince him it's correct. Haytham is also incredibly bloodthirsty in this game in general.
Unity's Templar leader wanted to use the power of the Sword just to rule over people.
As far as I understand Syndicate is the only time the Templars are actually good for the community and even then they have child labor and horrible working conditions.

Every single time we've seen the Templars try something it's been a detriment to humanity and a power play at best.

The point of the games is there is no good or bad, Templars wish to hide the truth while Assassins want to expose it and it's hard to say which would be the correct thing to do. The problem is both use deceit and violence to achieve their goals and have total disregard for the safety of the general population.

>why they're so quick to fall in line as soon as someone takes charge

Yeah, when someone with a good idea shows up, people want to join and be part of something important or fun. What a revelation. The problem is when leaders whose ideas turned out to be bad don't want to step down.

>The Templar philosophy includes the belief that the leaders of society should be enlightened people
And who decides who is "enlightened" enough to be a leader? Oh, that's right, the Templars and I'm sure it's just coincidence that they decide they're the "enlightened" people that should lead the masses.

You can be the very avatar of enlightenment but that doesn't free you from human nature, and you're naive if you think it does. You get to rule unopposed for long enough, eventually you'll stop ruling for "the people" and start ruling for youself, wether you realize it or not. It's inevitable.

>Except it WILL eventually fall to corruption or tyranny.
How do we know that for sure? We can't say for sure that the system will fall to tyranny.
Suppose for instance that it is true that the Templar philosophy will always end in corruption and tyranny in the higher ranks, in every possible permutation. That would mean that humans are all inherently prone to corruption when given power. However, as a check, we know that this isn't true, as there have certainly been powerful figures in history who were also good rulers. But let's move ahead and assume that it actually is true. Even then, the Templar philosophy is still the best available because if all humans are inevitably going to become corrupt when given power then no system will ever work, but a system which places the best people on top will at least
A) Have the best possible rulers even if they are still shit.
B) At least have order and be stable with a common direction and purpose for mankind.
For example as shit as the communist party was for Russia in some sense it was still highly preferable to complete anarchy or an ineffective government.
Rest of the post I won't address because I'm not interesting in analyzing the events of the games as if they're real situations, just in talking about the philosophies themselves, although I feel bad because you took the time to write it all out.

What's the "truth"?

>And who decides who is "enlightened" enough to be a leader?
The previous enlightened leaders and administration.
Who decides who is going to the next lead engineer? Who decides who is going to be the new general? The decider is someone who is themselves trustworthy and knows what the role entails and what it takes to be a good ruler.
>You can be the very avatar of enlightenment but that doesn't free you from human nature, and you're naive if you think it does.
What does this even mean? Being the "avatar of enlightenment" would certainly free you from the more negative aspects of human nature. You're telling me Jesus Christ or the Buddha would be """corrupted""" by power? Not a fucking chance.
>You get to rule unopposed for long enough, eventually you'll stop ruling for "the people" and start ruling for youself, wether you realize it or not. It's inevitable.
Complete bullshit myth propagated by bullshitters desperate to defend democratic systems at all costs. You don't know this and you can't prove it, you've just been taught to recite it.

>How do we know that for sure
Because it happened every time.
Just face it the templars aren’t good enough to wield the power they want

I wonder who behind this post

>The previous enlightened leaders and administration.
And who decided that they’re the enlightened ones?

I can't believe those fucks at Atlus copied this as the basis for P5's antagonist's ideals

So did revelations
youtu.be/UFBadhMAMsM
>4:12

youtu.be/mLSiKSrmLic?t=2457

>How do we know that for sure?

Because it is part of human nature to be selfish and petty. Human psyche is flawed from birth and all individuals, in their own way, are self-centered assholes, and given a position of power would become corrupt. That’s why you can’t give a position of power to someone without having the means to take it back

>41 minutes
tl;dr pls

Whatever you make it to be, user.

Adam and Eve were white, and they were two escaped slaves who stole a mind control deivce from their Alien overlords.

Open in new tab

>even in the first game it was made clear that the assassins are not good and neither are the templars
In the first game the assassins weren't good because the assassins were being run by an evil sith lord who wanted the apple of eden for himself to rule over the world, then Altair fucked him up and established the assassins who were 100% the good guys throughout the 2 trilogy.

That traps are

>Because it happened every time.
I'm talking about the philosophy of the Templars if we applied it to the real world, not the events of the games.
>And who decided that they’re the enlightened ones?
At a certain point it obviously goes back to who was powerful enough to seize control just like all human government originates. There's no getting around it. The hope is that the enlightened among us are strong enough and confident enough in themselves to seize power, and also that they don't feel that it is beneath them to do so. However, it seems to me that those humans who have lived and may be called enlightened or appeared enlightened decided that seizing earthly power was beneath them. Which is a damn shame, because they would have made the best rulers.

Adam and Eve are human + Isu hybrid who stole a piece of eden, inadvertently causing humans to harness their power (Cain was the first templar). Correct me if I'm wrong because AC lore is autistic as fuck

>traps
>trips
Whoa

>That would mean that humans are all inherently prone to corruption when given power.
It's not that all humans are prone to being completely corrupt, it's that eventually you will get rulers that are prone to the corruption and will seat themselves at the highest place with no checks or balances to rid them of their power, either through nepotism or through hierarchy. What happens if your entire group is agreeing with Mr. "I want to burn down this entire city because it would free up how much we spend on food stamps and social security"? It's a bad moral choice but a logical choice because it frees up that money for other generous acts like charity or the future of humanity and you can just cover up the arson because you control not only telecommunications but also can fake the truth?
What also determines if someone is "enlightened"? Experience? Moral fortitude? Good leadership skills? They're an expert in a field? Because in the Templar Order's example an "enlightened" person is just someone who knows that man needs to be rules over with an iron fist and that people are faulty, except for the Templars of courser. Even if you're getting philosophical about this your "enlightened" people is completely subjective and may or may not mean they're good for leading humanity.

In the context of AC the "truth" is just simply freedom to do what people want. Neither the Templars nor the Assassins believe that Isu stuff should be public knowledge because it will end all religions (Because there's proof almost everyone behind them is a fraud using a PoE), explain that humans are what amounts to slaves, Adam and Eve were slaves of the Isu, and that there are devices that can literally control their thoughts which would cause massive revolts of the population demanding answers. Not to mention public knowledge of Assassins and Templars would be devastating, even Abstergo wipes knowledge outside of Liberation about stuff like that.

All this thread has done is remind me how shitty the story was in AC games. Haven't played since Black Flag. Don't think I'll pick it up again.

Welp, this is it Yea Forums, think i'm just gonna end it here, I dont think I can take this shit anymore.
>epstien shit has me freaking out
>just lost 3k in stocks
>family wants to kill me
>keep hearing niggers and homos giggling 10 feet from my window every night
>get gang stalked every single day
>older brother has recently came out as a tranny and has admitted he has sexual feelings for me
Since you guys have always been my favorite board, and kept me entertained. I'll return the favor. I'll be streaming my suicide in about 10 minutes. In the mean time, I shall answer any questions, suggestions, etc

>inb4 go out in a blaze of glory
No, not going to ruin other peoples lives.
>inb4 why dont you make your own thread
ISP is blocked or some shit. so just posting this in first thread i see.
>inb4 is there anything i can do to change your mind
Nope, its Happening.

stream URL and quick rundown:
pastebin.com/mBNpUHbA

See you all soon.
~VC

Attached: IMG_4738357483_4838992019.jpg (1024x683, 255K)

>Infinite Tsukuyomi
Please speak english

uhhh.... ayo bruh look at dis doood lmao nibba he ded nibba aw shiet he deded ad dedded again yo whut

>Because it is part of human nature to be selfish and petty.
Proofs? There are many examples of humans who lived upright moral lives and were very selfless and forgiving people.
>Human psyche is flawed from birth and all individuals, in their own way, are self-centered assholes, and given a position of power would become corrupt.
All of this is simply a false premise that you believe. Why should I believe this? Can you offer anything to prove this is true? You think that all humans are "self-centered assholes"? There are many examples of incredible kind-hearted human beings. What you're saying simply isn't true. Some humans are good and some are bad and everything in between. Not everyone is the same.

You should play Rogue at least.

>Get burnt out on the series after how bad 3 was
>Hear for years how everyone says Black Flag is the best shit ever and the best game in the series and it fixed everything wrong with 3 and Edward is a great protagonist who's even more charismatic than Ezio
>It's just 3 with the tedious ship sections ramped up to 11 and more shitty shanty towns and sidequest busywork and Edward is another stupid cunt like Connor who spends 90% of the game refusing to listen to anyone and fucking things up

Attached: 1560494447034.jpg (393x354, 32K)

The only good thing about Rogue is Haytham appearing in it.

it's kinda telling that Ubisoft has the manpower to shit out this amount of lore across a shitton of mediums but only 1% of their audience actually gives a fuck about it

(You)
It's literally Black Flag 2 but with a better protagonist and where you work for the good guys.

>It's literally Black Flag 2
That's the primary problem with it, yes.

Much better

Imagine having this much of shit taste

>It's not that all humans are prone to being completely corrupt, it's that eventually you will get rulers that are prone to the corruption and will seat themselves at the highest place with no checks or balances to rid them of their power, either through nepotism or through hierarchy.
I don't think this is necessarily true so long as you have proper education and beliefs encoded into the system initially. But even if it is true, we return to my earlier points where even then that is still humanity's best case scenario.
>What also determines if someone is "enlightened"?
That would be for an enlightened person to answer, not myself. That's kind of the whole point too. It shouldn't be the job of average schmucks to determine who the ruler should be, that's above our heads. Obviously I desire the best leader but I don't have the skills to determine who that would be exactly, I'm capable of being fooled. This is why democracy ultimately fails.
> Even if you're getting philosophical about this your "enlightened" people is completely subjective and may or may not mean they're good for leading humanity.
How is it subjective? We could certainly agree between us what qualities a good ruler should have. If you're saying its all just a toss-up and no one knows what constitutes a worthy person and that can't be determined then why would you even give a shit who rules in the first place? Completely nonsensical argument.

I MAKE MY OWN LUCK

Don't do it. Live a noble life.

ITS A DAMN TOUGH LIFE FULL OF TOIL AND STRIFE WE WHALERMEN UNDERGOOOOOOO

Literally what is meant to be good about Black Flag? It sure as fuck isn't the naval gameplay which results in constantly getting on and off your ship and swimming for 30 seconds to every location because your ship isn't allowed to get close to any island and floats away when it does, or the shitty naval combat which is braindead simple and painfully slow and made even more obnoxious by enemy ships spawning in on battles out of nowhere and the insane grind required to upgrade your ship with materials primarily gained from boarding enemy ships which always plays out exactly the same way every fucking time. It isn't the boring shanty towns that all look exactly the same and are boring as fuck to explore while offering no interesting gameplay opportunities. It sure isn't the shitty whale hunting or diving bell side missions which are more of just doing the same shit over and over, and it sure isn't the godawful plot also known as "Edward Is Retarded and Ruins Everything Until He Decides to Stop Being a Douche".
Black Flag is everything bad about AC1-3 (shitty character development systems that are just grinding for minor upgrades, shitty sidequests, filling out checklists of pointless shit to do and shit to collect) exaggerated as much as possible while the actual good things about the games (interesting settings and environments, assassination scenarios, and entertaining characters) is entirely absent.

Attached: 1280398961376.jpg (400x405, 49K)

>complains about having to swim to shore from a ship
>complains about naval combat being slow
ZoomZoom

Fuck you Ezio you don't know what it's like. You were born a fucking Chad.

Oh and both 4 and Rogue are buggy as fuck so that doesn't help them either.

>Doing nothing for extended periods of time is a good thing because doing anything that requires actual thought is bad
Yeah, that sure sounds like someone who would defend these shitty games.

Attached: fell through ship.jpg (1149x648, 199K)

Chad isn't just looks.
t. "Chad" jawline but still beta omega

>but with a better protagonist
What is with everyone liking Shay so much outside of his awesome coat? He's barely got any development, he flip flops constantly on what he believes, he completely doubts both sides and has the Templars constantly playing on his fears, and betrays the Assassins without even cooling his head off or trying to talk to anyone that isn't Achilles. Even when he kills Arno's dad he's completely unsure of what the hell he believes in.

>where even then that is still humanity's best case scenario.
So in your opinion having a lunatic at the helm is a better case than a group of regular people trying their best but still making mistakes? You'd be fine with an overlord of Earth calling for the execution of a couple million people on the down low just because it would mean maybe better stock prices or better development for another country? This is the kind of thing you have to think about here because that's the kind of argument you're portraying with blanket approval or something like this.
>That would be for an enlightened person to answer, not myself
That is a complete cop-out of an answer. You need to have a basis for what these type of people are even considered, why are they fit to rule where others are not? Do they have an ironclad moral compass? Do they have leadership skills? Are they able to take care of things with giant consequences that count tank entire nations? Are they 800 IQ braniacs that only think logically? Exactly what is your definition of "enlightened" here?
>How is it subjective?
Because what you might consider "enlightened" might be completely different to someone from another point of view. What if they force certain beliefs on others who don't believe in them? What if they force countries to do something they disagree with because maybe it'll help another country? Even with a baseline this doesn't mean years down the line the person won't snap or gain a God Complex.

>what is meant to be good about Black Flag?
It's finally got a protag that gives as much shit about the whole templar/assassin thing as I did. It was good that the game tried to move away from that sack of rotten fruit, even for a little while.

youtube.com/watch?v=x3rGhVNdJSg
AC 1 always had the best setting. Can't get enough of the era of holy wars.

Shay being unsure is what makes him realistic, he always leans towards Templar ideology after the ceremony with Haytham but the fact he always has doubts is what makes him a realistic character because he knows it's an extremist ideology (just like assasssins) but with an arguably much better end goal than that of assassins (dude chaos, anarchy, lmao).

There's also the fact he's a breath of fresh air, he isn't goody twoshoes all previous protags, even the pirate Edward is a shitty "muh noble savage" trope with pirate code and shit as if it was Disney PotC.

>o in your opinion having a lunatic at the helm is a better case than a group of regular people trying their best but still making mistakes?
I thought you said that all humans would become corrupt if given power? I don't want "regular people" in charge, I want the best possible people in charge. If those people still make mistakes, then at least its the best we can get.
>You'd be fine with an overlord of Earth calling for the execution of a couple million people on the down low just because it would mean maybe better stock prices or better development for another country?
If that is the absolute best humanity can get then that's what we have to take. But I think the best ruler would be much better than that.
>That is a complete cop-out of an answer.
How? Its pointing out my own limitations and not pretending that I know more than I actually do or can prove like some people in this thread.
>You need to have a basis for what these type of people are even considered, why are they fit to rule where others are not?
Well I have some ideas of what a good ruler would be like obviously, but what I'm saying is I don't have the ability to determine and sift between individuals to see who could live up to the ideals. A better person than me would have to do that.
>Do they have an ironclad moral compass? Do they have leadership skills? Are they able to take care of things with giant consequences that count tank entire nations? Are they 800 IQ braniacs that only think logically? Exactly what is your definition of "enlightened" here?
All of that sounds good honestly. You're not parsing my argument well though, I'm not saying the IDEA of a good leader is confusing, I'm saying that determining who the ACTUAL LEADER should be is confusing and shouldn't be the job of a regular dude like me. The job of a regular dude like me should be to trust in the leadership I have and live a good life to the best of my ability while being guided by those leaders.

>Yea Forumspolbabies are unironically wishing for a (((New World Order))) and think the Templars are good

CONT.
>Because what you might consider "enlightened" might be completely different to someone from another point of view.
Who cares? With this point you are basically saying that its all relative and we can't say what a good leader's qualities are. That's retarded. Again, if you actually believe that you shouldn't care who leads at all! So why not just run my plan? Lmfao
>What if they force certain beliefs on others who don't believe in them?
That's literally impossible to do unless you've somehow developed mind control technology.
>What if they force countries to do something they disagree with because maybe it'll help another country?
That's completely fine? Getting people below you to behave and do what's best for the whole even if they can't see the bigger picture is part of what good leadership entails. I don't give a shit about what some country thinks if its going to end up being a bad choice for themselves and others. And when you see the bigger picture, what's good for one of us is also good for all of us because we are all linked.
>Even with a baseline this doesn't mean years down the line the person won't snap or gain a God Complex
Again back to my previous point! At least then we have the best possible leader even if he's flawed. At the end of the day somebody has to be in power, so what's to say they won't ""snap""? Your complaints apply to every single system ever devised.

fuck off kike

Assassin's Creed 3 would've been a better game if Haytham was the protagonist.

Change my mind.

I can't take a fat neckbeard promoting eugenics and survival of the fittest seriously, the autistic lack of empathy is deafening

>ad hominem ad infinitum
Cunnilingus postmortem. Tyrannosaurus Rex

When were those two concepts ever mentioned in this entire thread?

Nah, only the AC2 family games had cartoonishly evil Templars

>Tripfaggot and an Autist having an autist spergout war about lore of a shitty Jewbisoft bideogaym
lol

I never said all people, I said eventually someone in charge would become corrupt because you will always have someone out for themselves or looking at their best interests first. They'd rally to keep their position longer than they should, they could make questionable choices for the "Greater Good", they could rule with an iron fist enforcing martial law and all that good stuff without reason, etc.
>Its pointing out my own limitations
Because you're arguing for a mysterious figure to lord over you without any expectations or beliefs on how they should do such a thing, just a general "Oh, well I hope they're good". A person who would tick so many boxes needed for this would be so rare to begin with, and you have no idea if the person would end up being a megalomaniac or not even with the boxes ticked because of their own sense of what is right and wrong.
>I don't have the ability to determine and sift between individuals to see who could live up to the ideals
I'm not asking for a specific person, I'm asking you on what that individual would need in your eyes before we even pick the person.

>Your complaints apply to every single system ever devised.
Absolutely, but in several systems you can oust the person in charge or even kill them if they're really that bad. If a secret society is ruling from the shadows and their enlightened rulers decide who is actually worthy of it then no one will ever have a say in anything and the morality and choices of a select few will determine the path humanity follows as a whole. You're giving up any sense of freedom for total control by a guiding hand and just praying that guiding hand acts in your best interests.

To be fair, Borgia were cartoonishly evil in real life.

fuck off sophist kike

But AC3 is where they're the most absurd, literally burning down villages and beating up children for kicks.

Let it go, user. Ignore the Modern Day post III and stop playing entirely post Rogue/Unity

> I said eventually someone in charge would become corrupt because you will always have someone out for themselves or looking at their best interests first.
This point was already responded to, so reply to the response instead of just parroting the point.
>They'd rally to keep their position longer than they should, they could make questionable choices for the "Greater Good", they could rule with an iron fist enforcing martial law and all that good stuff without reason, etc.
Says who? The fact that there have been great and kind kings in human history disproves you when you claim that will always happen.
>you without any expectations or beliefs on how they should do such a thing,
Completely false and again you are failing to effectively parse what I'm saying. Go back to the quoted post.
>this would be so rare to begin with
Not with proper education and preparation. In an ideal system the next leader would be trained and prepared for decades in advance. Also, excellent people exist and are out there. I've met some truly excellent humans in my 24 years. They're very rare but if I've met a couple then there's a good amount out there with leadership potential.
>I'm not asking for a specific person, I'm asking you on what that individual would need in your eyes before we even pick the person.
A few things for me are high intelligence, a sense of nobility and taking great pride in being a righteous person, a belief in upholding the law without discrimination, possessing great strength and will and having an unwavering sense of the greater good and a desire to not only rule over others effectively but also to continually improve them as well throughout their rule.
>Absolutely, but in several systems you can oust the person in charge or even kill them if they're really that bad
Really? Why don't you try that with an American president? You're fucking delusional if you think this is still a realistic possibility today.

>Isu
kys

I get he wants to be on both sides and doesn't pick one or the other, that's fine, but even as he's killing people who have ideals he believes in (Like poison girl) he doesn't really know why he's helping the Templars, and likewise he's only really with the Templars to stop the Assassins from killing innocents because Achilles is a terrible leader. As a character he's just so unsure of everything, he's making incredibly serious choices despite this, he gets manipulated by the Templars constantly (Gist in particular), and his personality is just being incredibly rash, and getting a thought in his head before exploding and making a decision based on that though. Hell, he kills Adewale despite Adewale literally freeing slaves and helping the downtrodden just because Haytham wants him dead.

>literally burning down villages
They never do this at all. The one guy shoots some of the natives if they don't cooperate but that's because he needs to amass a Native army to fight off the British, the French, and the Colonists. They do burn New York to kill the people there and then attempt to kill the homeless there as well because I think they said they wanted to clear the land out or something, but in the main story they never do this.
>and beating up children
This happens though, I still don't understand what the hell was up with any of them because their message in the first place was to warn Connor and his people of Washington coming to burn their village down before going away anyway.

The vast majority of Americans think their government is complete shit and deeply flawed. Ever wonder why nothing ever changes?
> If a secret society is ruling from the shadows and their enlightened rulers decide who is actually worthy of it then no one will ever have a say in anything and the morality and choices of a select few will determine the path humanity follows as a whole.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this. The vast majority of people are not intelligent enough to have a say in who the leader should be and are tricked by charlatans who are two-faced because they are too dumb to know any better.
>You're giving up any sense of freedom for total control
Says who? A good leader who allow his people freedoms. I would say under a good leader we would have even more freedom than we have today under our so called "free" society.
> and just praying that guiding hand acts in your best interests.
Better than praying that something as retarded as democracy will suddenly work and that people will make informed educated choices lmfao. Difference between you and me is that you need the majority of people to be great in order for your system to work. I just need a select few to be great for mine to work and then they will even improve other people, which is what truly excellent leaders do.
What do you think the best structure for a family is? Do you think the kids all get an equal vote to the parents?

The kino we could've had...
youtu.be/H6d79JHh3cU

Attached: 1564749087685.jpg (3840x2160, 654K)

>grade school philosophy
damn nigga what kind of fucking grade school did you go to?

don't fucking blame me for it, that's what they wanna call it

Fail reddit troll

Literal NPC opinion, being okay with being ruled over and having no say in what the big boys decide for you

>Elitist pricks
>Think they know what is better for everyone
>Do shady shit behind closed doors but they do it all "for the betterment of mankind"

That's already how it is in our current system, so unless you're the one in charge you're always going to be ruled over. And even as a ruler you have your responsibilities to the people.
What? You think that getting to pick between two pre-selected shit leaders is "having a say"? And I'm the NPC?

How about not playing the games where they start to call them that because they're shit? Enjoy your middle of the shelf Witcher wannabes

>when you claim that will always happen
Except you're claiming because there's been a couple guys who have been good leaders that means everyone with 100% certainty will always be great leaders because many people across time have been good leaders. No one's saying everyone will be corrupt all the time, we're saying someone, at some point in time, will become corrupt or believe he's better than others despite good intentions. Path to hell, etc.
>and again you are failing to effectively parse what I'm saying
I'm understanding what you're saying, but you are literally acting like you're unable to think about these things and it's too difficult a choice to make so it should be left to "Better people" than you. If you can't make the choice then why do you think those "Better people" can make it? What makes them so special compared to you or anyone else on this earth?
>Not with proper education and preparation.
Says who? Who is to say this person can't be trained for it, then years into his tenure he starts thinking he knows better than the population, than the demands of other people, than the demands of people he's close to, etc? What stops him from that? His inner circle? What if they don't realize he's gone off the chain until it's too late?
>A few things
Okay, great, so at least we have a baseline. What makes it so this person can't fail? What makes it so this person can't start to think he's better or smarter than others and that their plights aren't to be listened to? When you're thinking on a global scale you're going to find it much harder to rule on a smaller scale because the louder voices down out the quieter ones.
>You're fucking delusional if you think this is still a realistic possibility today.
Dude, how many politicians have been impeached over the years? How many have been chosen just because people were pissed over certain things? Are you kidding me? It's not easy, sure, but it's very much a possibility if people actually tried.

its a shame I find these games so fucking tedious because I really do enjoy the settings

>unironically playing AC after Relevations
ishygddt

Attached: 1559323195614.jpg (1280x720, 100K)

Never, Chadmond's mind is still alive and he will return

Oh great another thread devolved into a “discussion” between bootlickers and idiots.

If they put it back in the Remaster that would have salvaged the entire game holy shit

I haven’t played an Asscreed since 3. Did they finally drop the dumb ass Templar and animus shit?

Do we want him to return, though? The MD story sucks arguably ever since Brotherhood, and the series has switched genres entirely. Most of the important stuff happens in the movie and comics. If Desmond returned he'd find out Juno was killed years ago by his secret autistic son that's also a Sage. It's Star Wars EU levels of retarded. Let it go, now that Désilets is making games and won the lawsuit against Ubi he can't wait to start again on Amsterdam 1666, and neither can I

>Except you're claiming because there's been a couple guys who have been good leaders that means everyone with 100% certainty will always be great leaders because many people across time have been good leaders
No, I didn't. This is a strawman.
>No one's saying everyone will be corrupt all the time
People in this thread have said that power will inevitably corrupt any human who wields it so uh, yes, that is what people have said.
> we're saying someone, at some point in time, will become corrupt or believe he's better than others despite good intentions
And I've pointed out that this applies equally to all systems. No solid rebuttal has been made to that point.
>f you can't make the choice then why do you think those "Better people" can make it?
Jesus Christ lol. I don't even understand why this is a question. Do you think you have the capability to select a good candidate for the next general of the US Army? No? Then why do you think anyone else can make the choice? I mean what point are you even trying to make here dude? Its an incredibly obvious and blatant fact of reality that certain people make better choices than others.
>What makes them so special compared to you or anyone else on this earth?
How about specific knowledge of what good leadership entails and what it takes to run a country or the world?
>Says who?
Me.
>Who is to say this person can't be trained for it, then years into his tenure he starts thinking he knows better than the population
Uh, well he WOULD know better than the population. That's the whole goddamn point.
>What stops him from that? His inner circle? What if they don't realize he's gone off the chain until it's too late?
Inner circle could certainly step in. Again, all this shit applies to any system. Still waiting for that rebuttal. Someone has to have the power dude, lmao.

No, and in this specific cases I'm happy for it, fuck off

Ahhh good old times when Ubisoft used to give a fuck about story.

>Dr Franklin, I'm Templar.

Attached: Shay.png (300x400, 160K)

nigger I got nothing to lose other than time spent torrenting it and for the record, I skipped Unity and Syndicate where they started to call Those Who Came Before as Isu. Didn't even finish Origins although it was fun for a bit and didn't even bother with Odyssey

>Juno was killed years ago by his secret autistic son that's also a Sage
Lol what. I'm kinda behind on the games, that sounds hilarious. But if Juno is dead then what is the threat now?

>democracy working on a scale bigger than a city-state
>democracy not turning into plutocracy

It started off so well but they shit the bed so bad with the story.

With that after credits Easter egg of assassins in future/cyberpunk whatever they should’ve gone that direction.

Imagine hopping between flying cars and through skyscraper balcony’s to get to your target.
But no Ass creed from 2012-2016 really fucked up

Thats freedom though

They started calling them Isu in Syndicate, noy Unity. Also Unity was the last good AC alongside Rogue

What's to stop a democratic republic from turning into some fucked up oligarchy with the group at the top collectively maintaining their own interests at the expense of the people, all the while manipulating the systems of that democratic republic? Oh wait...that's currently happening...
> What makes it so this person can't fail?
Nothing? There is no such thing as a PERFECT SYSTEM. Failure is always a possibility. What I'm saying is this is the BEST POSSIBLE SYSTEM.
>What makes it so this person can't start to think he's better or smarter than others
Well again, he would be better and smarter. Why the fuck is he the leader if there is someone better and smarter than him available? Your thinking is so backwards.
>When you're thinking on a global scale you're going to find it much harder to rule on a smaller scale because the louder voices down out the quieter ones.
This is the whole point of delegation homie, you're now talking about organizational questions and not questions about the system. The global leader wouldn't handle every little thing on the planet. Ideal system would look like this IMO:
1. Global ruler, manages most important challenges for humankind as a whole. Assures peace between nations and that all nations receive resources they need as well as manages global initiatives.
2. National leaders, manage their own people and nations and appeal to the global rulers on their peoples behalf for really big requests.
3. Regional leaders within the nation.
So on and so forth. I also think that the cultures and peoples of individual nations should be preserved.
>Dude, how many politicians have been impeached over the years?
And this affects the overall system how? Democratic republics today are governed by elite interests, not by any one person.
>How many have been chosen just because people were pissed over certain things?
Yeah and I'm sure the blind anger of a mass of people with a sub-100 average IQ leads to some excellent choices.

It happened in the comics. Desmond had a son he didn't know about, who has autism. And it just so happened he was also a Sage
assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Elijah

Any rational person doesn't.

Connor is a retard and not even this saves him.

Do a shooting and say Yea Forums made you do it

We caught a glimpse of what could've been possible with Desmond's sections in III. Imagine a Watch_Dogs/Splinter Cell/Hitman hybrid where you infiltrate a secret Templar base in Alaska or something

Oh great another passive aggressive bitch poster

What the fuck

>There are many examples of incredible kind-hearted human beings
Yeah only a handful of them out of billions.

well? we're waiting

By that definition anything and everything is freedom

They killed Juno in the comics because Unity and Syndicate bombed/underperformed greatly and thus didn't want to continue that plot and instead rebooted the series completely with Origins.
To tie up the pre-reboot universe and the Juno plotline (that wasn't finished in Syndicate), they made comic books with Desmond's secret Sage son. If you don't know what Sages are, play AC4/Rogue/Unity trilogy.

>This is a strawman.
>>The fact that there have been great and kind kings in human history disproves you when you claim that will always happen.
Alright, but you're still acting like everyone chosen will always make the best choices for humanity and not be corrupt or selfish which is a pipe dream and not realistic in any sense. Yes, there can be great leaders, but at the same time there will be corrupt and bad leaders as well. The difference here is this system has no failsafes for a bad leader. Its failsafe is hoping the people underneath are also not corrupt or influenced enough to oust him out secretly.
>Then why do you think anyone else can make the choice?
I'm not saying you alone would be able to make this choice, I'm saying that you as a layman should be able to point to multiple things this person lives up to, which you did, but even so relying on just one person is madness due to all the failures that can occur. Even in a perfect democratic system the person would need to prove their loyalty and governance to the public time and time again to keep staying afloat (Again, perfect system, nepotism + lobbying is more realistic). In the Templar scenario the person picked would be part of an inner circle of people no one knows behind the scenes and then presented as a ruler that can make whatever choices he pleases without consequence outside of his inner circle. There's less accountability in the Templar philosophy outside of some shady group. If it's multiple people it would most likely work, but one ruler is just ridiculous as there's no checks or balances for his choices, especially for several billion people.

I agree with you that there always needs to be leaders in some respect, I just think the Templar's secrecy is not the way to do it. Especially since in the game's examples they kill people who would change humanity too quickly like Tesla.

Moose, you're an idiot autist.

>Altair and Ezio saga (4 games)
>Kenway Saga (3 + 1 small game)
>Early Modern Europe Saga(2 games)
>BC Saga(2 games)
what else will they have in store after this

You got it all wrong mate.
Altair Saga (2 Games - AC1 and Bloodlines).
Ezio Saga (3 Games and 2 movies, AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations and Lineage/Embers)
18th Century Saga (6 games - Liberation, AC3, Freedom Cry, AC4, Rogue, Unity)
Syndicate is completely standalone and basically filler.
Reboot Saga (2 games for now - Origins/Odyssey)

Inb4 why Unity together with 3, 4 and Rogue, because the plot is directly connected and deals with the same revolutionary theme in the same time period.

>What I'm saying is this is the BEST POSSIBLE SYSTEM.
Alright, I agree with you to a certain extent because I agree humanity does need rules and regulations that people can agree upon, that's how you get a working society, I'm just not agreeing with how the Templars would be doing it nor do I remotely agree with a single person doing it. A council of people who are known to the public would be a far better way of handling this because it's far harder to corrupt and you'd have to have choices done by logic and a group vote. Like you said you'd have multiple tiers of people as checks and balances, but there needs to be both accountability and reasoning from these people for any choices they make.
The Templar's main problem besides the mind control of the general public is how their end goal is always making everyone but people in their inner circle docile and like sheep rather than people who bring attention to their problems and get their voices heard. It essentially boils down to "Who watches the Watchmen?" I guess that's the point I've been trying to make this whole time. You can't just have one layer of accountability, you have to have multiple layers, because otherwise you just have an oligarchy that can't be stopped, and if you have one person governed by a group you have a shadow oligarchy making his decisions and he's a figurehead more than anything.

I'd like to see a Connor, Aveline, and Arno mixed game. Connor would be roughly in his 60's at the point that Arno's journey ends in Unity, and Shay would be still around in his 70's, maybe have Arno find out the truth about his father. Don't know how it would work without feeling like a mess though.

>Cunnilingus postmortem
Too cold for my liking.

Attached: 99.gif (400x324, 147K)

>The people never have the power.
Becauase people like the Templars exist to specifically make that illusion
Literally it's their entire MO to be the shadow puppeteer what did he meme by this .

>And here's the real secret: they don't want it.
Why would you want power and responsibility when your corporate new-fuedal overlords make sure you need to work 2 jobs and a side gig to not die at the end of the week?

>The responsibility is too great to bear.
Now you're just jerking off in public

>It's why they're so quick to fall in line as soon as someone takes charge. They want to be told what to do. They yearn for it.
>We live in a society

Imagine unironically joining, liking, or supporting the faction of Literal Spooks

Attached: Max_stirner.jpg (200x237, 11K)

>nothing is true, everything is permitted
Well yeah.

You're a moron that misunderstood the line, in fact there's so many idiots like you out there that they made Ezio literally spell it out for you at the end of Revelations, here faggot:
youtube.com/watch?v=vrrI0LJP7Yk

Templars recruit from the lowest IQ margins what did you expect

Hopefully never because the modern day/scifi part of this series is terrible.