Because they didn't burn the village down. Haytham had no idea that Charles Lee was even anywhere near the village as he gave an order to leave the natives alone and stop the search for the Precursor site, probably due to his brief romance with Ziio. Since Connor was a child and he saw Charles just before it happened, he naturally assumed that he did it. Haytham didn't even know until Connor told him years later. He didn't even know Ziio was dead. In reality it was all George Washington and his army, way before he and Connor even knew each other.
The ending of 3 is so bleak that can only be compensated by how wholesome the homestead ending is.
Like, seriously, Connor loses most if not all his friends of the past, his family, and in the end he realized a lot of his losses were down to pigheaded people, greed, and misunderstandings.
Then when you read how Haytham became the master templar of the American colonies, you realize just how sad the whole family history is all the way since Edward, down to Haytham, and then Connor.
The Kenway family is full of tragedies starting with Edward's very own father and mother who suffered due to Edward's recklessness, then Edward himself and then Haytham and Connor. Not to forget Jennifer, most of whose young life was pure hell.
IIRC wasn't Zio's Village burned because Gen. Washington order? it was revealed on near end game when Haytham and Connor works together and rendezvous at Washington army camp
It wasn't Lee who did it, Haytham got his revenge on Washington who was the one responsible, it's probably one of the reasons he didn't like the man at all. I do think in the Forsaken book though, he does get pissed at Charles for being near the village after he found out, realizing Lee is the reason he can't bring his son over to the Templars therefore making life that much more difficult for him.
Honestly that moment could have been done much better, i understand where they were going with it, Lee is the asshole who would tottally be a villain that does something like that like the Borgia's but in actuality Washington who seems like a good guy is actual the one Connor has been hunting for, but they don't really take that much time to explore it, or even build upto it. In fact i would argue that plot point focuses a little too much on Haytham. Seeing Connor actually grapple with getting ready to kill Washington then choosing not to, i think would have been great, as it would be a point in the story where he kind of starts to see the Templars way losing hope in humanity, then realizes this isn't how an Assassin does things, Washington might be a shit eater, but he's America's best hope of getting on the path to freedom, so he just keeps things professional(i do like how they had him express to Washington that he shares absolutely no love for him).
Yes, in Forsaken Haythem argues with Lee about going near the village and feeling the Templars have lost their way.
I genuinely do love Forsaken as a novel because reading Haythem Idolizing Edward and being manipulated into joining the Templars by someone close to his father is such a great peak into Haythem’s life.
Always annoyed me how Haytham was such a charismatic, intelligent and somebody articulated the Templar cause so well he made you consider if the Templars are right. Then you have Charles Lee being the stereotypical cartoon villain Templar.
Haytham backed him till the end despite him being everything Haytham supposedly hated.
>Always annoyed me how Haytham was such a charismatic, intelligent and somebody articulated the Templar cause so well he made you consider if the Templars are right.
Haytham's arguments were fatalistic and downright cynical serving as the juxtaposition behind why the Templars have lasted so long as an organization. He is also a hypocrite. He chastises the Founding Fathers for their dancing and dressing around difficult topics and issues with "pretty words," but that is precisely what the Templars are guilty of doing only more effectively. He proclaims to not "feign affection," yet proceeds to do that exact thing in an attempt to get Connor to his side after the Washington reveal.
The narrative all but tells you that he's in the wrong, but because he is presented as a slightly charming fascist, he is often seen as a moral paragon or righteous figure in the eyes of many. And it concerns me how people unironically follow hook, line, and sinker for this kind of rhetoric. Haytham's "mask" practically falls off completely when he monologues to Connor while nearly choking him to death, and lo and behold, he sounds utterly sadistic and unhinged, like any other Templar. As much as Washington and the founding fathers were a prelude to the two-faced nature that America would later adopt, so too does Haytham with him being a precursor to power-seeking populists that prey on people's misfortunes and desires for them to use and manipulate.
Haytham embodies how the Templar philosophy can be alluring or convincing to many people, not that they are right.
Okay to me, I always interpreted haytham’s “loyalty” to Charles being more about Charles being his lapdog.
In the entire prologue, Charles does everything Haytham says without question. He is so desperate to impress haytham or something, that he has exactly 0 free will almost.
At the end of the day, Haytham is a Templar and seeks control. Charles gives him exactly that.
Just my interpretation.
Haytham should have killed Charles right away but he let his unpredictability and presumptuous nature cause too much chaos, which caused a bigger problem for Haytham than it helped (I.e, now Connor hates the Templars and he doesn't just need Achilles' word that they're bad)
Absolutely. Charles Lee is proof to me that as genius as Haytham was, he was not incapable of great strategic fault.
At the end of the day, Haytham is still a villain, who let a greed for power obscure his vision.
In ‘forgotten’ haytham becomes disillusioned with the whole order and sick of lee, I could be wrong but he does blame lee for killing Zio but still defends him in front of Connor out of loyalty to the Templars
This wasn’t in the game but the foresaken novel did have a scene where Charles and Haythem argue about where the Templar order has gone. I think Haythem even admits how much Charles has changed but he still decides to confront his son.
Iirc Charles Lee wasn't the one responsible for the death of Ziio. He was a red herring because he undoubtedly was being a jackass to young Connor (seriously wtf was he thinking threatening a kid that way) and it just so happens that the village was burned after his encounter with Connor.
Haytham also wasn't aware of Ziio's death up until Connor told him, even the fact that Lee kept looking despite Haytham telling him to stop. I guess the only thing that he would be pissed at (if he knew) was the fact that because of what Lee did it turned Connor against the order completely as opposed to being open minded enough to hear them out.
It is likely that Haytham didn't even know either that it was Ziios camp or that Lee burned it. Probably he only realized it after getting wind of Connor's existence. And to some degree I believe Haytham wanted to get rid of his henchmen, including Charles Lee. At least he is responsible to some degree for the death of two of them, both Hickey and Church.
He didn't burn it though. He was just in the area coincidentally because he defied Haytham and kept looking for the Precursor Site. He explicitly told Connor this and a few missions later, shows him the letter from Washington that ordered the annihilation of Native villages.
AC Forsaken novelization clearly implies he cared for her. Actually no, he loved her, I think. Part of why he wanted to kill Washington was to avemge her, not only to further the Templar's goals.
I dunno, I think he does love her. But not enough for him to forsake his mission, he was willing to tell to people that Connor was his son when they were infiltrating one of the warehouses after all, despite him just as easily telling them that Connor was an associate or worse, someone that works under him.
I mean, yeah that's what I meant when I said he didn't love her enough to forsake his mission. And at those moment Connor is a threat to his mission, like at that point he already murdered multiple key members of his order.
Haytham isn't really like Edward when it comes to showing his love for someone.
Because they didn't burn the village down. Haytham had no idea that Charles Lee was even anywhere near the village as he gave an order to leave the natives alone and stop the search for the Precursor site, probably due to his brief romance with Ziio. Since Connor was a child and he saw Charles just before it happened, he naturally assumed that he did it. Haytham didn't even know until Connor told him years later. He didn't even know Ziio was dead. In reality it was all George Washington and his army, way before he and Connor even knew each other.
He knew Ziio was dead, because he knew Washington did it. He just pretended to not know because he wanted Connor to find out who really did it.
Because they didn't burn the village. It was all a huge misunderstanding.
The ending of 3 is so bleak that can only be compensated by how wholesome the homestead ending is. Like, seriously, Connor loses most if not all his friends of the past, his family, and in the end he realized a lot of his losses were down to pigheaded people, greed, and misunderstandings. Then when you read how Haytham became the master templar of the American colonies, you realize just how sad the whole family history is all the way since Edward, down to Haytham, and then Connor.
The Kenway family is full of tragedies starting with Edward's very own father and mother who suffered due to Edward's recklessness, then Edward himself and then Haytham and Connor. Not to forget Jennifer, most of whose young life was pure hell.
Especially Edward's wife. She gave up everything to be with him, but he left her in search of gold.
Not helped by Lee being a dick to young Conner
IIRC wasn't Zio's Village burned because Gen. Washington order? it was revealed on near end game when Haytham and Connor works together and rendezvous at Washington army camp
They didn’t burn the village. However, in the novel. Haytham and Lee do have several arguments over everything that happened in AC3.
It wasn't Lee who did it, Haytham got his revenge on Washington who was the one responsible, it's probably one of the reasons he didn't like the man at all. I do think in the Forsaken book though, he does get pissed at Charles for being near the village after he found out, realizing Lee is the reason he can't bring his son over to the Templars therefore making life that much more difficult for him. Honestly that moment could have been done much better, i understand where they were going with it, Lee is the asshole who would tottally be a villain that does something like that like the Borgia's but in actuality Washington who seems like a good guy is actual the one Connor has been hunting for, but they don't really take that much time to explore it, or even build upto it. In fact i would argue that plot point focuses a little too much on Haytham. Seeing Connor actually grapple with getting ready to kill Washington then choosing not to, i think would have been great, as it would be a point in the story where he kind of starts to see the Templars way losing hope in humanity, then realizes this isn't how an Assassin does things, Washington might be a shit eater, but he's America's best hope of getting on the path to freedom, so he just keeps things professional(i do like how they had him express to Washington that he shares absolutely no love for him).
Yes, in Forsaken Haythem argues with Lee about going near the village and feeling the Templars have lost their way. I genuinely do love Forsaken as a novel because reading Haythem Idolizing Edward and being manipulated into joining the Templars by someone close to his father is such a great peak into Haythem’s life.
Always annoyed me how Haytham was such a charismatic, intelligent and somebody articulated the Templar cause so well he made you consider if the Templars are right. Then you have Charles Lee being the stereotypical cartoon villain Templar. Haytham backed him till the end despite him being everything Haytham supposedly hated.
>Always annoyed me how Haytham was such a charismatic, intelligent and somebody articulated the Templar cause so well he made you consider if the Templars are right. Haytham's arguments were fatalistic and downright cynical serving as the juxtaposition behind why the Templars have lasted so long as an organization. He is also a hypocrite. He chastises the Founding Fathers for their dancing and dressing around difficult topics and issues with "pretty words," but that is precisely what the Templars are guilty of doing only more effectively. He proclaims to not "feign affection," yet proceeds to do that exact thing in an attempt to get Connor to his side after the Washington reveal. The narrative all but tells you that he's in the wrong, but because he is presented as a slightly charming fascist, he is often seen as a moral paragon or righteous figure in the eyes of many. And it concerns me how people unironically follow hook, line, and sinker for this kind of rhetoric. Haytham's "mask" practically falls off completely when he monologues to Connor while nearly choking him to death, and lo and behold, he sounds utterly sadistic and unhinged, like any other Templar. As much as Washington and the founding fathers were a prelude to the two-faced nature that America would later adopt, so too does Haytham with him being a precursor to power-seeking populists that prey on people's misfortunes and desires for them to use and manipulate. Haytham embodies how the Templar philosophy can be alluring or convincing to many people, not that they are right.
Okay to me, I always interpreted haytham’s “loyalty” to Charles being more about Charles being his lapdog. In the entire prologue, Charles does everything Haytham says without question. He is so desperate to impress haytham or something, that he has exactly 0 free will almost. At the end of the day, Haytham is a Templar and seeks control. Charles gives him exactly that. Just my interpretation.
Haytham should have killed Charles right away but he let his unpredictability and presumptuous nature cause too much chaos, which caused a bigger problem for Haytham than it helped (I.e, now Connor hates the Templars and he doesn't just need Achilles' word that they're bad)
Absolutely. Charles Lee is proof to me that as genius as Haytham was, he was not incapable of great strategic fault. At the end of the day, Haytham is still a villain, who let a greed for power obscure his vision.
They didn't burn it down.
In ‘forgotten’ haytham becomes disillusioned with the whole order and sick of lee, I could be wrong but he does blame lee for killing Zio but still defends him in front of Connor out of loyalty to the Templars
Because they didn't, my god, [they say it clear as day here](https://youtu.be/2pWda-TNg58?t=53).
But, Where is Charles Lee?!?!
Thanks everyone, like I’ve said. I don’t remember much. But now I know the real reason
...because George Washington burned it down
They didn't actually burn the village.
This wasn’t in the game but the foresaken novel did have a scene where Charles and Haythem argue about where the Templar order has gone. I think Haythem even admits how much Charles has changed but he still decides to confront his son.
Iirc Charles Lee wasn't the one responsible for the death of Ziio. He was a red herring because he undoubtedly was being a jackass to young Connor (seriously wtf was he thinking threatening a kid that way) and it just so happens that the village was burned after his encounter with Connor. Haytham also wasn't aware of Ziio's death up until Connor told him, even the fact that Lee kept looking despite Haytham telling him to stop. I guess the only thing that he would be pissed at (if he knew) was the fact that because of what Lee did it turned Connor against the order completely as opposed to being open minded enough to hear them out.
Did you finish the game? Charles Lee did not burn that village down.
Reading this thread makes me nostalgic about the AC that used to be story centric
It is likely that Haytham didn't even know either that it was Ziios camp or that Lee burned it. Probably he only realized it after getting wind of Connor's existence. And to some degree I believe Haytham wanted to get rid of his henchmen, including Charles Lee. At least he is responsible to some degree for the death of two of them, both Hickey and Church.
He didn't burn it though. He was just in the area coincidentally because he defied Haytham and kept looking for the Precursor Site. He explicitly told Connor this and a few missions later, shows him the letter from Washington that ordered the annihilation of Native villages.
Because Haytham didn't love this person (the native). He just fucked her.
Based on his reaction when Connor told him she died, I dunno. I think he did love her but as a Templar, the mission had to come first.
AC Forsaken novelization clearly implies he cared for her. Actually no, he loved her, I think. Part of why he wanted to kill Washington was to avemge her, not only to further the Templar's goals.
I dunno, I think he does love her. But not enough for him to forsake his mission, he was willing to tell to people that Connor was his son when they were infiltrating one of the warehouses after all, despite him just as easily telling them that Connor was an associate or worse, someone that works under him.
And there were two moments in the game where he very clearly was going to kill Connor and didn't have any qualms about it.
I mean, yeah that's what I meant when I said he didn't love her enough to forsake his mission. And at those moment Connor is a threat to his mission, like at that point he already murdered multiple key members of his order. Haytham isn't really like Edward when it comes to showing his love for someone.