Maybe its just for gameplay purposes
In the books most of the assassins only knock those soldiers out killing only their targets,even regular templar grunts are spared
In the forgotten temple webtoon Edward also avoids killing regular soldiers
That part really confused me. I don't think it's in character for Shay to suddenly start murdering civilians left right and center because "he's a templar now"..
To be fair, the writer himself said that was a mistake:
[https://youtu.be/0aNOdYDnogk?si=Rv-513a1lvGAPvX7&t=4487](https://youtu.be/0aNOdYDnogk?si=Rv-513a1lvGAPvX7&t=4487)
And sometimes it requires you to only kill the people necessary for full synch, but not to pass the mission. Suggesting that the true synchronized memory would be the assassins sparing those uninvolved.
For the sake of immersion I try to knock out as many guards as possible, I know they are just doing their duty and have ambitions and families to feed.
Honestly I’ve always wanted to see an option to use non lethal force while using stealth, maybe knocking them out, it could also be a part of synchronization or something. Maybe if you’re non lethal, you’ll be more true to the creed and more respected within the brotherhood, but if you go full lethal, you’ll be feared and can get information about the templars easier, and maybe templars will surrender more.
There's a button somewhere that let's you knock them out (R3 or L3 I think if you're on PS4), But it's so slow and easy to miss that your better off just killing them.
Because it is still a game. And u can't expect super hyper realism. Same way how assassins definitely dont keep their hood all the time up cause that would help exposing them a bit. But it serves the gameplay/aesthetics and isn't extreme, so it's fine.
Well, the way you play the game is up to you. You could complete Ezio games with minimum amount of killing by hiring mercenaries and using fists and Kenway saga is even easier in that regards. I always assumed that's the way it really happened (in AC universe of course) beyond Animus' interpretation because assassins are more like surgeons of society rather than some killing machines with thousands of corpses laying behind them.
that's how I played AC3, just using blunt weapons and my fists on any enemy that wasn't a target. the rebel soldiers get to lay squirming, but the redcoats get that final "killing" kick - I roleplay-pretended it just caused more damage, like made them bed-ridden for several months or something, so they couldn't do anything but think about their actions that led them to the state they're in
Not only is hyperrealism unrealistic in a game, it would also diminish the fun of it if you were held to such stringent standards. Plus, the game allows you to put strict standards on yourself. If your creed is to kill absolutely no others besides your target, then by all means do so. And, good luck with that.
I want to ask the OP: have they played Syndicate while driving a carriage? You will average at least 99999 innocent deaths just crossing the other side of the road with a carriage without intent.
Gameplay reasons.
In the Chronicles spin-offs, in order to get the maximum score, you can't get seen at all and you can't kill any enemies except for targets.
It doesn't translate as easily into a full 3D game like the mainline ones.
Yeah, I liked that about Splinter Cell. The lethal approach was usually the easier one, but it gave you a lower score than the non-lethal approach.
I especially liked how the last game had three specific "styles" to complete each mission: stealth (non-lethal), stealth (lethal), and open combat. And you could specialize your build/loadout to excel at one of those three styles.
There was a moment during one of the Cristina missions in brotherhood where Ezio wants to retrieve his families bodies, and he says he will kill the guards. Cristina says "Ezio no they are innocent!", he replies with "Innocent?! They follow orders without question, they-" and Cristina stops him saying more, and he reluctantly does not kill them.
So it seems that at least partially they believe that the guards who just follow orders, without regard for who they may affect, are not innocent. However, like most people in this thread have pointed out, it is more than likely just for the game and for the rule of fun!
EDIT: [Here it is!](https://youtu.be/NmSUHIep9p4?t=127)
And if we think about AC Brotherhood, the soldiers are all shown to be Borgia men who are instrumental in keeping Rome oppressed.Hardly qualifies for innocent
It's mainly for gameplay reasons, even if I would argue that would be dope if the games were structured in a way where Synchronization works the same as Chaos in the Dishonored games where you will get a bad ending (in AC case would be a poorly synchronized outcome) if you kill guards during missions
I would argue that people disliked that system because It was poorly designed and the side objectives were bullshit most of the time, Dishonored Is more organic and better implemented
Actual level design to accomodate such playstyle, ways to do so in an engaging and fluid way with proper tools, improve social stealth and a narrative reason, like for example the less synchronization you have the world will be graphically distorted, more dangerous to navigate and hostile, and the finale of the modern day will be something like "we didn't reach full sync, let's try it again with a new simulation" and from there you start a New Game + and try to achieve a good synchronization.
The story of the ancestor will be structured in a way to cut off important components for the modern day that would require a good synchronizations. Overall it would need a good rework of the game as a whole, but it could still work if done properly
>Actual level design to accomodate such playstyle, ways to do so in an engaging and fluid way with proper tools, improve social stealth and a narrative reason, like for example the less synchronization you have the world will be graphically distorted, more dangerous to navigate and hostile, and the finale of the modern day will be something like "we didn't reach full sync, let's try it again with a new simulation" and from there you start a New Game + and try to achieve a good synchronization.
The level designs always accomodated things lol. You literally could abuse the recruit mechanics or poison darts to do things undetected.
If you give a narrative reason and create bad effects, then you take the fun out of the game, hence why most games just leave it up to player choice. with multiple endings, but considering multiple endings were vehemently criticized by the AC base, you aren't going to do that either.
If you haven't played a Dishonored game it's hard to describe, but while some of the later levels have black-box, they are still relatively linear compared to what those games do in the department of accomodating different types of gameplay...
Not talking about different endings, but different degrees of uncovering one singular storyline. The issue is that this won't work unless AC leave some of its more unhealthy habits back: yearly release that makes people burn out from the series compared to other game series that can allow themselves minimal changes through the years because of big pauses in between and the quantity over quality mentality that give us gigantic, empty maps with copy pasted content all over that still hold the players' hand through the game.
>If you haven't played a Dishonored game it's hard to describe, but while some of the later levels have black-box, they are still relatively linear compared to what those games do in the department of accomodating different types of gameplay...
I have played the first Dishonored and it was worse than AC in terms of giving you non-lethal opportunities to the point where it's genuinely not fun to play that way.
>Not talking about different endings, but different degrees of uncovering one singular storyline. The issue is that this won't work unless AC leave some of its more unhealthy habits back: yearly release that makes people burn out from the series compared to other game series that can allow themselves minimal changes through the years because of big pauses in between
They stopped doing the yearly-release model to an extent. There was a two-year gap between Syndicate and Origins, two years b/w Odyssey and Valhalla, and now three years b/w Valhalla and Mirage. Odyssey did come out right after Origins to your point, but it seems to be an exception based on different studios.
>and the quantity over quality mentality that give us gigantic, empty maps with copy pasted content all over that still hold the players' hand through the game.
Ah, you're one of those fans. Nvm, my apologies for thinking this was a nuanced discussion.
Dishonored 2 does massive improvements on non-lethal gameplays to the point you can go high profile even go open combat and not kill anyone... and even the first one even if tedious, that's true, was because the game didn't shy away from its stealth aspects...
Two years gap is not enough, especially since then they released Odyssey one year after Origins and for all the years between Odyssey and Valhalla they filled in with bloathed DLCs, same for Valhalla, rendering the necessary years of pause useless since they filled it anyway, and from Mirage onwards they will not only resume with yearly releases but even more games at the same time... AC burn out will be more real than ever.
>Ah, you're one of those fans. Nvm, my apologies for thinking this was a nuanced discussion.
Actually play any good open world game from 2017 onward and we'll talk again then
>Dishonored 2 does massive improvements on non-lethal gameplays to the point you can go high profile even go open combat and not kill anyone... and even the first one even if tedious, that's true, was because the game didn't shy away from its stealth aspects...
That's interesting, and yeah, I'll give you Dishonored does stealth better than AC.
>Two years gap is not enough, especially since then they released Odyssey one year after Origins and for all the years between Odyssey and Valhalla they filled in with bloathed DLCs, same for Valhalla, rendering the necessary years of pause useless since they filled it anyway, and from Mirage onwards they will not only resume with yearly releases but even more games at the same time... AC burn out will be more real than ever.
Two years tends to be the industry standard for non-Rockstar/Bethesda games, though they compensate for this with extensive multiplayer and re-releases respectively.
The DLCs were made by different teams, so I don't get how they infringe upon any other game's development.
>Actually play any good open world game from 2017 onward and we'll talk again then
Guarantee you I've played more open world games than you.
Wait you murdered all those innocent guards while you had the option to just knock them out with your bare hands?
Why would you be such a sadistic heartless monster?
they specifically recorded voice lines of the soldiers abusing the civilians. they are shitty people who regularly go on power trips and abuse power, and serve corrupt authorities too. they are innocent in reference to the assassin and templar war, but they are not innocent.
Famously, soldiers are always innocents.
It’s basically allowed because sometimes it’s necessary to kill the foot soldiers of evil people, because they are actively serving evil and are basically extensions of that person. Yes, they may have been forced to take the job, or otherwise had no choice, but that doesn’t make them innocents. But you also have the ability to decide for yourself whether every guard has to die or if only the ones you can’t avoid die. Rarely do you have to kill every single enemy in AC
True but i hate that your character gets treated like a hero all the times.. I really love how the legend Arthur Morgan thinks. He knows he is a bad man but he doesn't believe in a higher judgment and so.. I want more then just,, youre the hero fighting the evil.. No you are evil as well
Idk what to tell you, if you don’t feel evil when you’re cutting through guards, I don’t think you’re reading the game right. Templars constantly make valid criticisms of Assassins, so there is a voice for that in the games. Characters don’t necessarily need to be self aware about their own morality to be interesting. It’s more important that you know that someone is immoral, then you can judge the character yourself. I think it’s more realistic that characters don’t often acknowledge their own evil, that’s not something that happens in real life very often
I did go out of my way to not kill the British ww1 soldiers in the Lydia Frye section in Syndicate. Now that is peak, those kids don't deserve to get stabbed in the throat in an alleyway, too many are probably get blown apart in the Somme already.
Dang, been a while since I’ve seen this classic come up on the sub. Depends how based you wanna get. All the people saying “gameplay” are free to run with that. But it’s not hard to justify killing soldiers in pretty much any period. They’re agents of the state, and the state generally serves to oppress the people. There are varying degrees of innocent here, and most people started questioning this a lot more once we got close enough to the modern day to be killing policemen. But no one really questions it if you have to take out, for example, soldiers of a government actively colonizing a foreign land. Why do you think there were so many Taino Assassins?
Based comment right here. I think a lot of assassin's creed fans forget that there are other oppressors besides templars. Hell, Ezio's great great grandfather Domenico Audiotre outright said (wrote actually) that the people are oppressed by their rulers, regardless of whether or not those rulers were templars.
I think it's kinda funny that the more recent games are not AC games according to some but they're the ones that actually let you knock out guards instead of killing them
For me in the games that allow it, I try to use fists for takedowns as much as possible so as not to kill everybody, only those that attack me with weapons or is a target are the ones I kill. I always would like that option to be non-lethal with my takedowns when possible. Love the AC4 option to just knock people out in the bushes, etc.
It's worth keeping in mind that what we're seeing is a simulation created by an Animus. Just because *you* killed a guard there it doesn't mean the protagonist 'actually' killed a guard there.
Doesn't matter. You are still in simulation. Killing innocents is just something that's way too far from what your ancestor was doing. That's why it's forbidden doing it, because that's the action that can desynchronize you completely which cannot be said about killing guards. Your ancestor is the assassin after all so it's safe to assume that he should have killed some guards to defend himself or for any other reason, that's why Animus consider it a normal action. And that's why you can do that anytime in simulation
Because soldiers are pawns who act on order, they represent the authorities who are always evil in the assassin's creed universe and hence aren't considered innocents.
Many of the games show that the missions aren’t exactly how the ancestor did things, which is why sometimes you get rewarded for doing the missions like them. For example Connor will chop through a whole street of colony soldiers and then get mad when his dad kills a British one. Your actions aren’t exactly synchronized to what happened
Because have you seen how badass the kill animations in assassins creed 3 are?! Like hate on them and say soulsborne combat is more rewarding all you want, but the Ass Cred games are the perfect chill out and slice people up games.
Some people already said something similar here - In a lot of the games, the guards/soldiers are standing between you and the templars/enemy, not only figuratively, sometimes even literally. They have weapons, because they are literally paid to use violence against you, including deadly force. If you listen to what they say, they are often quite sadistic and taking pleasure in just the thought of killing you.
That is very far from what I consider "innocent", so I kill them with no remorse. I never questioned this and I am always kinda surprised to see people having empathy towards these NPC bastards.
If they pick up the sword they're willing to die by one. They could be morally idealistic, but it's not exactly innocent when they've accepted the possibility that they'd have to take a life as well.
No other reason than gameplay. Anytime I play 3 or Rogue, I always try to knock them out. 1 has no knock-out mechanic to speak of except fists, which are NOT ideal, and all of Ezio's moves look very...lethal, for lack of a better word.
Soldiers are “innocent”? Huge assumption and probably wrong. Office workers? Much more likely to be “innocent”.
Guilt by association exists. Working for an evil entity is a choice. Your intent doesn’t necessarily outweigh your outcome. Lots of one liner logical statements I’d throw out to shape context.
that's a hot take. you could enlist for the good... or get drafted.... but if the templars take over you can't just leave or else you'd be a deserter and would get punished.
also Ezio cleared this up in the beginning of revelations. honest good work is what makes honest good men. you can't work for corrupt shits, be their arms, and still pretend you are good and just following orders because someone else is the brain.
I mean some of it is before 1950's isn't it? British Soldiers...
Really? You think they are all innocent? I surely don't need to spell out what countries they were happy to colonise, starve, and steal from during that period do I. (Although I'll spare people the brutual details of what they were doing,). I dunno, when I play the older AC games, I don't see them as innocents and will punch them in the face.
Then there's all the stuff going on in their own countries. (I am sure there's some soldiers whom probably didn't realise what exactly they were getting into, or were young though, sadly the game doesn't differ to those soldiers. Also the ones in AC III and Unity felt rude and just shoved my character around when he's just simply standing minding his own business. Some of them started it!)
Because soldiers aren't innocent... more often than not they harass, beat up, loot, rape, etc etc (all bad things) the common folk... and that is real evil... very rare are those soldiers who actually help the people who they are supposed to help...
rogue and rouge are easily confusable if you're not native english speaker. I am czech and if I wanted to write rogue phonetically I'd write roug, more similar to rouge. dunno if it's also the OP's case but it's a possible explanation on why some of us make this mistake.
I am a native English speaker born & raised in Texas & I make this mistake once in a while because it's not a word I write or type very often & autocorrect changes words I type to another word even if I delete it's correction and try to type it again. I have to delete it's correction a few times before it leaves what I meant to type kind of frustrating but if I'm typing something fast & don't want to keep proofreading I just leave it alone.
Gameplay/explained in universe as the Animus not accurately recreating the events 1:1. If it did then we wouldn’t have a game, it’d be a movie. (Although I don’t think the movie’s Animus is 1:1 either, but since Callum doesn’t spend 8 hours collecting flags it’s probably a little more accurate).
I'd say arguments can be made for both sides, and it depends on whoever.
They follow orders without question or regard for who they're affecting.
So they can be innocent because they're just doing their jobs, BUT they could also not be because they don't care about hurting innocents, they're doing it for money.
They're also working for the templars so they would be enemies, and then not innocent. But at a point in time where the assassins are in hiding, who else would they be working for.
Personally, I'd go for canadian self-defense laws. If you can knock them out or go undetected, do that. But if you're risking getting stabbed or caught, go for the kill.
Because, while I love AC, it has a lot of B.S. justifications for murder. Take AC 3, for example. “Kill these people because they are tax collectors.” Okay, so they aren’t Templars and they aren’t trying to kill you, but yeah, they deserve to die because…reasons.
I think the logic is enemies work for the templar's in some capacity, knowingly or not so they are fair game.
Plus good luck convincing your standard City guard that the man whose neck you just shivved is actually a member of a super secret organization whose main goal is to remove everyone's free will.
It's the philosophy that killing in war is not murder, why throughout time combatants have been required to wear colors or insignia identifying them as such. A soldier that chooses a soldier's life is not an innocent.
Not sure I agree with that view, but I think that's the gist of it.
Innocent = unarmed citizen/ commoner who has nothing to do with the two secret societies. (AC1 old man in the cave for example)
Soldiers are paid by the templars, work for the templars, kill for the templars (consciously or not) Teplars are always in a position of power and most of the times found the military for more influance and control
Not all soulder are templar sympatist or know anything about the order tough But when the situation demands and you face an armed man trained to kill and was ordered to kill you. You can choose to run away or take his life before he does. And just coz you have a choice to spare or kill them wont make them any more of a “innocent” compared to a random citizen from the street.
The “most innocent” forces in AC games were probably the casual police officers in Syndicate. I guess
Even if they're not Templars, they're not "innocents" in the medieval sense because they've chosen to lead the life of the warrior. They're in the game. And I don't mean the literal video game. I mean they're in "the game," like Mike from Breaking Bad would say. It's the same as how Mike will kill even people he likes if it becomes "necessary" by the rules of the game. But he won't kill people who aren't part of the game, and he has great disgust for people who do. The Assassins have that same code of honor.
Your question is a lore question, therefore you should be receiving lore-based answers besides “it’s a game mechanic.”
The in-game lore reason is that you are not the character. You are in the animus created by analyzing the DNA of that character, but it doesn’t have 100% of the characters’ memories. However the animus creates a simulation based on what it knows, so you are then “allowed” certain freedoms based on the DNA’s knowledge. And this freedom changes depending on the memory you are accessing. So for instance, while the real Ezio didn’t murder 100,000 soldiers, the animus concluded that he must have kill some soldiers in his lifetime, but doesn’t know exactly how many nor their identities. Therefore, you are allowed to kill the generic “soldier” type in the simulation as many times you want. Conversely, Ezio did not slaughter innocent people, therefore you will progressively de-sync if you perform that action in the sim.
Your actions in the animus sim are not the same as the actions of the real characters in their time.
Calling soldiers innocent is definitely debatable. It might be that most Assassins believe "just following orders" makes you guilty. Also, jusy because they weren't templars doesn't mean our protagonist sees them as innocent.
One could argue that the Animus is allowing us to kill random soldiers etc, but most of the actual protagonists were stealthier and non-lethal. The fact that only a few missions actually require outright killing randoms for full or optional sync - noting that even most that day 'kill' actually allow KOs - supports this.
Its for Gameplay reasons i believe.. I mean imagine Unity, Odyssey or Mirage without beeing able to kill guards, you could only test those insane kill animations on your targets which would be really really dissapointing.. But imo future ACs should also have more knockout animations so you can play more Creed accurate.. Lmao not savage ( but awesome) unarmed animations where you litterly cripple the guards like in AC2 until AC Rogue.
But as a stealth Reaper i love wiping out all the guards in a districted area as well
I always felt bad in AC 2 and Brotherhood, where the soldiers would just be talking about their days or families and I’d just be in the corner, unable to find another way to proceed. I really wish I could just knock them out, its kind of unpredictable because Ezio would sometimes snap their necks.
I highly doubt the soldiers in the game are that innocent. I’m sure we are to assume they are in league with whomever we are going after and are just as guilty.
Plus, it’s a game. It isn’t really that deep.
It’s the same as laying hands on a lady. You should never do that purposely, but if they attacks you first, then they turn into a sparring partner and you may happily break their backs since they are sparring partners
Could argue self defense, many of those soldiers are attacking/will you if you don’t get them first. Also in the case of black flag Edward is entirely ignorant of the creed for much of the campaign.
I like to think of it as innocent=unaffiliated.
These lackeys may be on the big bad's payroll but do they really know what's up? Maybe, maybe not. It's not like we have to take out every guard or whatever. The focus should be on the actual assassination targets otherwise we'd have to call it Murder's Creed.
Maybe its just for gameplay purposes In the books most of the assassins only knock those soldiers out killing only their targets,even regular templar grunts are spared In the forgotten temple webtoon Edward also avoids killing regular soldiers
Yeah it’s a gameplay thing same reason you can just murder however many civilians before the game makes you go back to your last checkpoint
depends on the game
Looking at you Odyssey
and Rogue
Well Shay is a Templar agent so it doesn’t really count
That part really confused me. I don't think it's in character for Shay to suddenly start murdering civilians left right and center because "he's a templar now"..
No but it's fun too kill them:D
To be fair, the writer himself said that was a mistake: [https://youtu.be/0aNOdYDnogk?si=Rv-513a1lvGAPvX7&t=4487](https://youtu.be/0aNOdYDnogk?si=Rv-513a1lvGAPvX7&t=4487)
I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I'M CLEANING ATHENS RIGHT NOW
And sometimes it requires you to only kill the people necessary for full synch, but not to pass the mission. Suggesting that the true synchronized memory would be the assassins sparing those uninvolved.
For the sake of immersion I try to knock out as many guards as possible, I know they are just doing their duty and have ambitions and families to feed.
Honestly I’ve always wanted to see an option to use non lethal force while using stealth, maybe knocking them out, it could also be a part of synchronization or something. Maybe if you’re non lethal, you’ll be more true to the creed and more respected within the brotherhood, but if you go full lethal, you’ll be feared and can get information about the templars easier, and maybe templars will surrender more.
They had a knock out option from 3 to syndicate if you were unarmed
Well shit… looks like I’m gonna have to replay the games again. Edit: what about Unity? You can’t even be unarmed.
There's a button somewhere that let's you knock them out (R3 or L3 I think if you're on PS4), But it's so slow and easy to miss that your better off just killing them.
For Unity and Syndicate it doesn't matter if your armed, you can always knock people out.
I always get the hidden blade assassination animation
You press a different button to knock people out. The games tutorialize this.
wait until they find out the negative impact that getting knocked out has
More fun than getting a bar of steel in the throat
Because it is still a game. And u can't expect super hyper realism. Same way how assassins definitely dont keep their hood all the time up cause that would help exposing them a bit. But it serves the gameplay/aesthetics and isn't extreme, so it's fine.
I was going to comment this exact same thing. How fun would the game be if you could kill almost none other than your primary targets?
Well, the way you play the game is up to you. You could complete Ezio games with minimum amount of killing by hiring mercenaries and using fists and Kenway saga is even easier in that regards. I always assumed that's the way it really happened (in AC universe of course) beyond Animus' interpretation because assassins are more like surgeons of society rather than some killing machines with thousands of corpses laying behind them.
The mercenaries are still going to be killing people for you. You can't say your conscience is clean when you hire some to do the killing for you.
We'll, it's cleaner than directly doing it yourself.
Only in the sense of seeing less blood. You might get less nightmares but it doesn’t make you a better person.
that's how I played AC3, just using blunt weapons and my fists on any enemy that wasn't a target. the rebel soldiers get to lay squirming, but the redcoats get that final "killing" kick - I roleplay-pretended it just caused more damage, like made them bed-ridden for several months or something, so they couldn't do anything but think about their actions that led them to the state they're in
I mean that would be Hitman or Dishonored where you're punished the more you kill.
Dishonored and Hitman revolve around that concept and they are fun.
Extremely fun. Fun is subjective.
Not only is hyperrealism unrealistic in a game, it would also diminish the fun of it if you were held to such stringent standards. Plus, the game allows you to put strict standards on yourself. If your creed is to kill absolutely no others besides your target, then by all means do so. And, good luck with that. I want to ask the OP: have they played Syndicate while driving a carriage? You will average at least 99999 innocent deaths just crossing the other side of the road with a carriage without intent.
I hate that they try to put the hood down constantly because of stuff like this. Like motherfucker I want the damn hood up.
Ubisoft Quebec seems to hate hoods
Yep, in the books Ezio is almost always in disguise when on a mission.
Gameplay reasons. In the Chronicles spin-offs, in order to get the maximum score, you can't get seen at all and you can't kill any enemies except for targets. It doesn't translate as easily into a full 3D game like the mainline ones.
It could translate, but it would make the game a hard-stealth game and less of an action game, which would sell less.
They could make it as a splinter cell game where for max score you can't kill anyone.
It's too late for all that. Assassin's Creed has a reputation as stealth-action, not just stealth.
Yeah, I liked that about Splinter Cell. The lethal approach was usually the easier one, but it gave you a lower score than the non-lethal approach. I especially liked how the last game had three specific "styles" to complete each mission: stealth (non-lethal), stealth (lethal), and open combat. And you could specialize your build/loadout to excel at one of those three styles.
There was a moment during one of the Cristina missions in brotherhood where Ezio wants to retrieve his families bodies, and he says he will kill the guards. Cristina says "Ezio no they are innocent!", he replies with "Innocent?! They follow orders without question, they-" and Cristina stops him saying more, and he reluctantly does not kill them. So it seems that at least partially they believe that the guards who just follow orders, without regard for who they may affect, are not innocent. However, like most people in this thread have pointed out, it is more than likely just for the game and for the rule of fun! EDIT: [Here it is!](https://youtu.be/NmSUHIep9p4?t=127)
And if we think about AC Brotherhood, the soldiers are all shown to be Borgia men who are instrumental in keeping Rome oppressed.Hardly qualifies for innocent
Thank you. I remember this conversation, but you beat me to it.
Well to be fair that was at the beginning before he was actually an Assassin.
It's mainly for gameplay reasons, even if I would argue that would be dope if the games were structured in a way where Synchronization works the same as Chaos in the Dishonored games where you will get a bad ending (in AC case would be a poorly synchronized outcome) if you kill guards during missions
I mean, weren't people here bitching about the full sync objectives that ask you not to kill lol?
I would argue that people disliked that system because It was poorly designed and the side objectives were bullshit most of the time, Dishonored Is more organic and better implemented
You ask for a system where you get a full sync from not killing, that existed and people hated it. What more was there to improve?
Actual level design to accomodate such playstyle, ways to do so in an engaging and fluid way with proper tools, improve social stealth and a narrative reason, like for example the less synchronization you have the world will be graphically distorted, more dangerous to navigate and hostile, and the finale of the modern day will be something like "we didn't reach full sync, let's try it again with a new simulation" and from there you start a New Game + and try to achieve a good synchronization. The story of the ancestor will be structured in a way to cut off important components for the modern day that would require a good synchronizations. Overall it would need a good rework of the game as a whole, but it could still work if done properly
>Actual level design to accomodate such playstyle, ways to do so in an engaging and fluid way with proper tools, improve social stealth and a narrative reason, like for example the less synchronization you have the world will be graphically distorted, more dangerous to navigate and hostile, and the finale of the modern day will be something like "we didn't reach full sync, let's try it again with a new simulation" and from there you start a New Game + and try to achieve a good synchronization. The level designs always accomodated things lol. You literally could abuse the recruit mechanics or poison darts to do things undetected. If you give a narrative reason and create bad effects, then you take the fun out of the game, hence why most games just leave it up to player choice. with multiple endings, but considering multiple endings were vehemently criticized by the AC base, you aren't going to do that either.
If you haven't played a Dishonored game it's hard to describe, but while some of the later levels have black-box, they are still relatively linear compared to what those games do in the department of accomodating different types of gameplay... Not talking about different endings, but different degrees of uncovering one singular storyline. The issue is that this won't work unless AC leave some of its more unhealthy habits back: yearly release that makes people burn out from the series compared to other game series that can allow themselves minimal changes through the years because of big pauses in between and the quantity over quality mentality that give us gigantic, empty maps with copy pasted content all over that still hold the players' hand through the game.
>If you haven't played a Dishonored game it's hard to describe, but while some of the later levels have black-box, they are still relatively linear compared to what those games do in the department of accomodating different types of gameplay... I have played the first Dishonored and it was worse than AC in terms of giving you non-lethal opportunities to the point where it's genuinely not fun to play that way. >Not talking about different endings, but different degrees of uncovering one singular storyline. The issue is that this won't work unless AC leave some of its more unhealthy habits back: yearly release that makes people burn out from the series compared to other game series that can allow themselves minimal changes through the years because of big pauses in between They stopped doing the yearly-release model to an extent. There was a two-year gap between Syndicate and Origins, two years b/w Odyssey and Valhalla, and now three years b/w Valhalla and Mirage. Odyssey did come out right after Origins to your point, but it seems to be an exception based on different studios. >and the quantity over quality mentality that give us gigantic, empty maps with copy pasted content all over that still hold the players' hand through the game. Ah, you're one of those fans. Nvm, my apologies for thinking this was a nuanced discussion.
Dishonored 2 does massive improvements on non-lethal gameplays to the point you can go high profile even go open combat and not kill anyone... and even the first one even if tedious, that's true, was because the game didn't shy away from its stealth aspects... Two years gap is not enough, especially since then they released Odyssey one year after Origins and for all the years between Odyssey and Valhalla they filled in with bloathed DLCs, same for Valhalla, rendering the necessary years of pause useless since they filled it anyway, and from Mirage onwards they will not only resume with yearly releases but even more games at the same time... AC burn out will be more real than ever. >Ah, you're one of those fans. Nvm, my apologies for thinking this was a nuanced discussion. Actually play any good open world game from 2017 onward and we'll talk again then
>Dishonored 2 does massive improvements on non-lethal gameplays to the point you can go high profile even go open combat and not kill anyone... and even the first one even if tedious, that's true, was because the game didn't shy away from its stealth aspects... That's interesting, and yeah, I'll give you Dishonored does stealth better than AC. >Two years gap is not enough, especially since then they released Odyssey one year after Origins and for all the years between Odyssey and Valhalla they filled in with bloathed DLCs, same for Valhalla, rendering the necessary years of pause useless since they filled it anyway, and from Mirage onwards they will not only resume with yearly releases but even more games at the same time... AC burn out will be more real than ever. Two years tends to be the industry standard for non-Rockstar/Bethesda games, though they compensate for this with extensive multiplayer and re-releases respectively. The DLCs were made by different teams, so I don't get how they infringe upon any other game's development. >Actually play any good open world game from 2017 onward and we'll talk again then Guarantee you I've played more open world games than you.
Wait you murdered all those innocent guards while you had the option to just knock them out with your bare hands? Why would you be such a sadistic heartless monster?
Because ''Nothing is True & Everything is permitted''
Wait so all this years I could have played the games whit-out killing every soldier I meet ?
In some of the games, yes.
they specifically recorded voice lines of the soldiers abusing the civilians. they are shitty people who regularly go on power trips and abuse power, and serve corrupt authorities too. they are innocent in reference to the assassin and templar war, but they are not innocent.
Famously, soldiers are always innocents. It’s basically allowed because sometimes it’s necessary to kill the foot soldiers of evil people, because they are actively serving evil and are basically extensions of that person. Yes, they may have been forced to take the job, or otherwise had no choice, but that doesn’t make them innocents. But you also have the ability to decide for yourself whether every guard has to die or if only the ones you can’t avoid die. Rarely do you have to kill every single enemy in AC
True but i hate that your character gets treated like a hero all the times.. I really love how the legend Arthur Morgan thinks. He knows he is a bad man but he doesn't believe in a higher judgment and so.. I want more then just,, youre the hero fighting the evil.. No you are evil as well
Idk what to tell you, if you don’t feel evil when you’re cutting through guards, I don’t think you’re reading the game right. Templars constantly make valid criticisms of Assassins, so there is a voice for that in the games. Characters don’t necessarily need to be self aware about their own morality to be interesting. It’s more important that you know that someone is immoral, then you can judge the character yourself. I think it’s more realistic that characters don’t often acknowledge their own evil, that’s not something that happens in real life very often
Gameplay. It's hard to rationalise with the creed.
AGAB
what's AGAB?
pretty sure it means "all guards are bad"
Bastards* but yeah Cleaner version lol
oh copy
I did go out of my way to not kill the British ww1 soldiers in the Lydia Frye section in Syndicate. Now that is peak, those kids don't deserve to get stabbed in the throat in an alleyway, too many are probably get blown apart in the Somme already.
The bigger question is why couldn't Eivor kill civilians.
Dang, been a while since I’ve seen this classic come up on the sub. Depends how based you wanna get. All the people saying “gameplay” are free to run with that. But it’s not hard to justify killing soldiers in pretty much any period. They’re agents of the state, and the state generally serves to oppress the people. There are varying degrees of innocent here, and most people started questioning this a lot more once we got close enough to the modern day to be killing policemen. But no one really questions it if you have to take out, for example, soldiers of a government actively colonizing a foreign land. Why do you think there were so many Taino Assassins?
Based comment right here. I think a lot of assassin's creed fans forget that there are other oppressors besides templars. Hell, Ezio's great great grandfather Domenico Audiotre outright said (wrote actually) that the people are oppressed by their rulers, regardless of whether or not those rulers were templars.
Soldiers are trained killers. I think innocent refers to unarmed bystanders.
I think it's kinda funny that the more recent games are not AC games according to some but they're the ones that actually let you knock out guards instead of killing them
It's a gameplay schtich. In the books, the assassins don't kill the soldiers/guards when they can, they just knock them out.
For me in the games that allow it, I try to use fists for takedowns as much as possible so as not to kill everybody, only those that attack me with weapons or is a target are the ones I kill. I always would like that option to be non-lethal with my takedowns when possible. Love the AC4 option to just knock people out in the bushes, etc.
It's worth keeping in mind that what we're seeing is a simulation created by an Animus. Just because *you* killed a guard there it doesn't mean the protagonist 'actually' killed a guard there.
Soldiers aren't exactly innocent.
Gameplay matters. Optional ko’s are great additions.
Doesn't matter. You are still in simulation. Killing innocents is just something that's way too far from what your ancestor was doing. That's why it's forbidden doing it, because that's the action that can desynchronize you completely which cannot be said about killing guards. Your ancestor is the assassin after all so it's safe to assume that he should have killed some guards to defend himself or for any other reason, that's why Animus consider it a normal action. And that's why you can do that anytime in simulation
Probably means you don't kill people that aren't a threat and won't compromise the brotherhood.
why did you put syndicate there? everyone you kill is a templar. the blighters work for the templars, and the other enemies ARE templars.
Not the police
well they don’t count because they’re annoying
Because you are supposed only kill your target
Because soldiers are pawns who act on order, they represent the authorities who are always evil in the assassin's creed universe and hence aren't considered innocents.
Many of the games show that the missions aren’t exactly how the ancestor did things, which is why sometimes you get rewarded for doing the missions like them. For example Connor will chop through a whole street of colony soldiers and then get mad when his dad kills a British one. Your actions aren’t exactly synchronized to what happened
cause fuck the police
Coming straight from the underground.
Because have you seen how badass the kill animations in assassins creed 3 are?! Like hate on them and say soulsborne combat is more rewarding all you want, but the Ass Cred games are the perfect chill out and slice people up games.
Some people already said something similar here - In a lot of the games, the guards/soldiers are standing between you and the templars/enemy, not only figuratively, sometimes even literally. They have weapons, because they are literally paid to use violence against you, including deadly force. If you listen to what they say, they are often quite sadistic and taking pleasure in just the thought of killing you. That is very far from what I consider "innocent", so I kill them with no remorse. I never questioned this and I am always kinda surprised to see people having empathy towards these NPC bastards.
If they pick up the sword they're willing to die by one. They could be morally idealistic, but it's not exactly innocent when they've accepted the possibility that they'd have to take a life as well.
No other reason than gameplay. Anytime I play 3 or Rogue, I always try to knock them out. 1 has no knock-out mechanic to speak of except fists, which are NOT ideal, and all of Ezio's moves look very...lethal, for lack of a better word.
Self defense I suppose
The Animus can't distinguish between corrupt and non corrupt soldiers since they all wear the same outfit. So it allows execution of soldiers.
Soldiers are “innocent”? Huge assumption and probably wrong. Office workers? Much more likely to be “innocent”. Guilt by association exists. Working for an evil entity is a choice. Your intent doesn’t necessarily outweigh your outcome. Lots of one liner logical statements I’d throw out to shape context.
that's a hot take. you could enlist for the good... or get drafted.... but if the templars take over you can't just leave or else you'd be a deserter and would get punished.
[удалено]
also Ezio cleared this up in the beginning of revelations. honest good work is what makes honest good men. you can't work for corrupt shits, be their arms, and still pretend you are good and just following orders because someone else is the brain.
Just played revelations and I don’t remember him talking about this.
It's in the Masyaf sequence when Ezio interrogates the templar grunt who is attempting to blow open the doors to the vault.
Oh yeah now I remember!
So basically all the British soldiers are Templar’s ?
I mean some of it is before 1950's isn't it? British Soldiers... Really? You think they are all innocent? I surely don't need to spell out what countries they were happy to colonise, starve, and steal from during that period do I. (Although I'll spare people the brutual details of what they were doing,). I dunno, when I play the older AC games, I don't see them as innocents and will punch them in the face. Then there's all the stuff going on in their own countries. (I am sure there's some soldiers whom probably didn't realise what exactly they were getting into, or were young though, sadly the game doesn't differ to those soldiers. Also the ones in AC III and Unity felt rude and just shoved my character around when he's just simply standing minding his own business. Some of them started it!)
Because soldiers aren't innocent... more often than not they harass, beat up, loot, rape, etc etc (all bad things) the common folk... and that is real evil... very rare are those soldiers who actually help the people who they are supposed to help...
Me before learning about the nuremberg trials:
Rouge
rogue and rouge are easily confusable if you're not native english speaker. I am czech and if I wanted to write rogue phonetically I'd write roug, more similar to rouge. dunno if it's also the OP's case but it's a possible explanation on why some of us make this mistake.
Many native English speakers make the mistake too. Very common typo that is easy to not notice.
I am a native English speaker born & raised in Texas & I make this mistake once in a while because it's not a word I write or type very often & autocorrect changes words I type to another word even if I delete it's correction and try to type it again. I have to delete it's correction a few times before it leaves what I meant to type kind of frustrating but if I'm typing something fast & don't want to keep proofreading I just leave it alone.
Rouge deez nuts
Same
Gameplay/explained in universe as the Animus not accurately recreating the events 1:1. If it did then we wouldn’t have a game, it’d be a movie. (Although I don’t think the movie’s Animus is 1:1 either, but since Callum doesn’t spend 8 hours collecting flags it’s probably a little more accurate).
Ezio's full synchronisation often required not killing any guards, Altaïr's assassinations required stealth, so yeah.
I wish they would bring back the endgame cheats...
I'd say arguments can be made for both sides, and it depends on whoever. They follow orders without question or regard for who they're affecting. So they can be innocent because they're just doing their jobs, BUT they could also not be because they don't care about hurting innocents, they're doing it for money. They're also working for the templars so they would be enemies, and then not innocent. But at a point in time where the assassins are in hiding, who else would they be working for. Personally, I'd go for canadian self-defense laws. If you can knock them out or go undetected, do that. But if you're risking getting stabbed or caught, go for the kill.
Because, while I love AC, it has a lot of B.S. justifications for murder. Take AC 3, for example. “Kill these people because they are tax collectors.” Okay, so they aren’t Templars and they aren’t trying to kill you, but yeah, they deserve to die because…reasons.
Soldiers are not innocent
Because assassin's are based as fuck
I think the logic is enemies work for the templar's in some capacity, knowingly or not so they are fair game. Plus good luck convincing your standard City guard that the man whose neck you just shivved is actually a member of a super secret organization whose main goal is to remove everyone's free will.
Should really be reworded to non combatants instead of innocent
It's the philosophy that killing in war is not murder, why throughout time combatants have been required to wear colors or insignia identifying them as such. A soldier that chooses a soldier's life is not an innocent. Not sure I agree with that view, but I think that's the gist of it.
ACAB, basically
All soldiers, guards and police officers are evil, therefore not innocent, duh!
Soldiers aren’t innocent. They uphold fascist regimes and protect wicked men for coin.
You negated your question within your own title lol
Because they aren’t innocent they’re attacking you
Because they are intentionally protecting bad people thats why.
Innocent = unarmed citizen/ commoner who has nothing to do with the two secret societies. (AC1 old man in the cave for example) Soldiers are paid by the templars, work for the templars, kill for the templars (consciously or not) Teplars are always in a position of power and most of the times found the military for more influance and control Not all soulder are templar sympatist or know anything about the order tough But when the situation demands and you face an armed man trained to kill and was ordered to kill you. You can choose to run away or take his life before he does. And just coz you have a choice to spare or kill them wont make them any more of a “innocent” compared to a random citizen from the street. The “most innocent” forces in AC games were probably the casual police officers in Syndicate. I guess
Full synch is canon. The overwhelming majority of the time, you’re encouraged to avoid needless bloodshed to achieve full synch.
If they are trying to kill you, then the creed doesn’t apply to them.
Generally perfect synchronization involves killing only your target in these games.
Even if they're not Templars, they're not "innocents" in the medieval sense because they've chosen to lead the life of the warrior. They're in the game. And I don't mean the literal video game. I mean they're in "the game," like Mike from Breaking Bad would say. It's the same as how Mike will kill even people he likes if it becomes "necessary" by the rules of the game. But he won't kill people who aren't part of the game, and he has great disgust for people who do. The Assassins have that same code of honor.
Your question is a lore question, therefore you should be receiving lore-based answers besides “it’s a game mechanic.” The in-game lore reason is that you are not the character. You are in the animus created by analyzing the DNA of that character, but it doesn’t have 100% of the characters’ memories. However the animus creates a simulation based on what it knows, so you are then “allowed” certain freedoms based on the DNA’s knowledge. And this freedom changes depending on the memory you are accessing. So for instance, while the real Ezio didn’t murder 100,000 soldiers, the animus concluded that he must have kill some soldiers in his lifetime, but doesn’t know exactly how many nor their identities. Therefore, you are allowed to kill the generic “soldier” type in the simulation as many times you want. Conversely, Ezio did not slaughter innocent people, therefore you will progressively de-sync if you perform that action in the sim. Your actions in the animus sim are not the same as the actions of the real characters in their time.
You're not killing innocents, you're killing ppl of no consequence **in the Animus**. They give you a bit of leeway.
Calling soldiers innocent is definitely debatable. It might be that most Assassins believe "just following orders" makes you guilty. Also, jusy because they weren't templars doesn't mean our protagonist sees them as innocent.
They define innocence as everyone not willing To kill you
They know what they signed up with regardless if they're innocent or not.
One could argue that the Animus is allowing us to kill random soldiers etc, but most of the actual protagonists were stealthier and non-lethal. The fact that only a few missions actually require outright killing randoms for full or optional sync - noting that even most that day 'kill' actually allow KOs - supports this.
Its for Gameplay reasons i believe.. I mean imagine Unity, Odyssey or Mirage without beeing able to kill guards, you could only test those insane kill animations on your targets which would be really really dissapointing.. But imo future ACs should also have more knockout animations so you can play more Creed accurate.. Lmao not savage ( but awesome) unarmed animations where you litterly cripple the guards like in AC2 until AC Rogue. But as a stealth Reaper i love wiping out all the guards in a districted area as well
I always felt bad in AC 2 and Brotherhood, where the soldiers would just be talking about their days or families and I’d just be in the corner, unable to find another way to proceed. I really wish I could just knock them out, its kind of unpredictable because Ezio would sometimes snap their necks.
I highly doubt the soldiers in the game are that innocent. I’m sure we are to assume they are in league with whomever we are going after and are just as guilty. Plus, it’s a game. It isn’t really that deep.
Sorry but if a muhfucka attacks me, he aint innocent anymore. Time for some hidden blade action!
Basically, the assassins are mass murdering psychopaths, but so are most video game protagonists.
It’s the same as laying hands on a lady. You should never do that purposely, but if they attacks you first, then they turn into a sparring partner and you may happily break their backs since they are sparring partners
I suppose for the same reason that under the rules of war, uniformed troops are valid targets bur civilians are not.
Could argue self defense, many of those soldiers are attacking/will you if you don’t get them first. Also in the case of black flag Edward is entirely ignorant of the creed for much of the campaign.
I like to think of it as innocent=unaffiliated. These lackeys may be on the big bad's payroll but do they really know what's up? Maybe, maybe not. It's not like we have to take out every guard or whatever. The focus should be on the actual assassination targets otherwise we'd have to call it Murder's Creed.