FANDOM

 
14,817 Pages

This is the discussion page for Jacques de Molay's advisor.
Here, you may discuss improving the article.
To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • Do not insult other people

Killed in 1307

The fact that we can play as this fellow seems to suggest that he was not actually killed in 1307, just heavily wounded. (Genetic memories being passed on, and all that.) --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:46, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Or the thing we saw is a recollection of muliple samples made by Abstergo. Imagine they collected de Carneillon's memories.. Nihil Verum. Omnia Licita 08:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC) 08:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Even if Abstergo got their hands on De Carneillon's memories, it doesn't change the fact that they would have had to extract the Templar's from an ancestor; one who had to have been born after October 13,1307. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:56, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Correct. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 15:26, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

I think they recovered the Templar's remains, and extract the memories from them. I think know they can, like with Desmond and Clay's bodies. Lorenzo.ladogana (talk) 02:16, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, but apparently we can view someone's entire life now. --Crimson Knight Intercom 17:47, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

I've browsed some of Darby's tweets, but it's not very clear to me. It sounds like Abstergo has managed to move past the conception barrier. But at the same time, Darby says that this French Templar's death was an edit, to make the moment more exciting. He was a minor character anyway - for more important characters, it appears it would be made explicitly clear when an edit was made for dramatic effect.
I understand wanting to move past this "sex scene" as the point where we transfer to the next individual in the ancestral line, but god, it makes everything so hard to define. Nothing seems consistent anymore... Crook The Constantine District 18:01, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

The only way I can see this happening is if you physically have a piece of that person's DNA and have sequenced it. But it's a bit beyond me to believe that Abstergo are going out graverobbing as a corporate hobby for every single individual who piques their notice. It would make the harvesting of people's DNA through the blood vials pointless.

If it's meant to be some hand-wavey retcon bullshit about the conception barrier, then no, I don't believe for one second that it's possible. You relive another person's memories through the Surrogate Initiative until they conceive the next in the blood line. Just because you're not the original descendant, it doesn't make you special enough to break pre-established rules. And in all fairness, why would Abstergo want to see Jacques de Molay through someone else's eyes if they could get de Molay's full DNA sequenced anyway? Slate Vesper (talk) 21:26, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the "Conception barrier" is still there. Recently, somebody asked  Darby what Jasca asked, and Darby said that Abstergo manipulated the memory. (As usual, since it was a public Helix playable "Chapter") Why did Abstergo "Killed" the Advisor if he truly didnt die? A Mistery... I think we should change the trivia section and add what i said. i will try to find the Tweet. DipsonDP (talk) 06:14, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/DarbyMcDevitt/status/574929800747466752 Found it :v DipsonDP (talk) 06:26, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

So... if everything we saw about the Advisor may be manipulated, how can we be sure that he fought Carneillon? What if another Templar hid the Sword and the Codex? What we know for sure is that he didn't die in October, so, we should say that the date of his date is unknown. And maybe add a warning saying that what we know about the Advisor is just the manipulated version of Abstergo. Damn... fuck Abstergo >:c DipsonDP (talk) 07:46, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

In that case, define how one manipulates a genetically-encoded memory to introduce an alternate outcome? You can't. The only possible outcome is that the advisor didn't die, but received grievous injuries to the point where it can be displayed that he "died", perhaps passing out from blood loss instead. But he has to have survived for the memory to even be extractable, because Abstergo wouldn't go to the Parisian catacombs for Germain's corpse, and if this guy died much earlier, that's where he'd have been buried, and that'd be a dead end. Slate Vesper (talk) 12:23, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why he couldn't have died. Darby said in that tweet that there isn't any conception barrier when it's surrogate DNA.--Bovkaffe (talk) 12:51, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Surrogate DNA still needs to come from somewhere, and for it to exist and be harvestable outside of having a corpse with enough of a DNA sample (which is unlikely due to the time period and the degradation that can occur), then the next feasible solution is a living descendant. And if a living descendant does exist, a bloodline must exist, which denotes conception. The Surrogate Initiative is just reliving a harvested sample with a non-biological subject playing the puppetmaster as opposed to a biological one. Slate Vesper (talk) 13:14, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Right, so they could have used DNA from the advisor's descendant, and a third party can relive the memories past conception.--Bovkaffe (talk) 14:03, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 100% that's how it works, Bov. I think the an individual's life, with their memories from birth til death, can only be relived when one has the DNA of that individual. Crook The Constantine District 14:34, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

You can only see memories past conception until death if the DNA is harvested from the body. If it's retrieved via genetic memory, nothing past the point of conception can be relived. That's it. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 14:40, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

And if you want to be really pedantic about it, if you were to take a DNA sample from any living individual, that sample would only contain the genetic memories of that person up until the point that their DNA sample was harvested. You couldn't have a blood test at age 30 and then someone use that to relive all your memories until you die, they'd only get your memories up until the point where you had that blood test. Similar idea in why "post-conception" is nonsense, once two people concieve a child, that child only had a genetic memory record of their predecessors up until the point of their conception. That's when one record (or two to be precise) ends and another begins (the conceived's life). Slate Vesper (talk) 14:57, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
So, not deaded? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:09, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Presumably; I've asked Darby about this on twitter, whether or not the advisor actually died in that moment, so hopefully he'll clear that up for us. Crook The Constantine District 15:11, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Or.. or, just maybe, I'm spit balling here, but hear me out I know this is crazy but...
He had a son, fuckin' morons Rummy00 (talk) 11:36, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, there's no need to be throwing childish insults; it's disrespectful and likely to get you banned. Secondly, the discussion here revolves around whether or not the Advisor died in 1307. If he did die, then it is blatantly obvious that it is impossible for him to have had a son after the fact (one from whom the genetic memories could pass down too).
If the Advisor did not die, then the genetic information could only be obtained by 1) a child conceived after this event, or 2) direct extraction of the genetic material from the Advisor's remains. Given that the Assassins' believed retrieving a usable sample from Germain's was impossible (and he died 487 years after this event), the latter is highly unlikely.
As such, the only way Abstergo could 'realistically' retrieve the memories would be through his descendants; QED he did not die. I would suggest you check your facts, and read the discussion before throwing any more insults. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:49, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
What if he had one before he died? Also, Childish insults are usually name calling in a very asinine way, I just promplty called you all fucking morons, unless all insults are childish, you have to elaborate bud. 72.186.227.117 13:00, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't rule out the possibility that he died. Furthermore, even if he survived, that does not mean that he had children. Such an injury would make escape unlikely. If he didn't escape, he would have been arrested with the other Templars. The prisoners from that day were all brutally tortured, and forced to admit that they had committed acts of blasphemy. Afterwards, the lucky ones spent quite some time in prison. The unfortunate ones were burned at the stake by the dozens. Either way, the chances that the advisor eventually had a kid are extremely unlikely, if he survived at all. No one has confirmed it either way. It is still possible that DNA was recovered directly from his corpse. Just because Germain's corpse wasn't properly preserved doesn't mean that the Advisor's body met the same fate. We cannot make assumptions without confirmation. Toolen (talk) 05:26, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the Assassins did not abandon their search for Germain's remnants as they thought the genetic data was too old to be retrievable. That's not said anywhere, and it wouldn't make any sense as they wouldn't have searched for Germain's body in the first place then. The reason they abandoned the search was because Germain's remains were highly unlikely to be found amidst the millions of remains buried in the Paris Catacombs. I don't see this as having any bearing on the advisor's situation, and such a stab wound is a fatal injury for anyone else in the games, so I see no evidence to support why he would live. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 20:04, October 28, 2015 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that the Templars are capable of rewriting and re-editing memories in order to create scenarios that never actually happened, Aveline's supposed defection to the Templar Order at the of Liberation is a pretty good indicator of that. As such, it's pretty obvious that the scenario we saw wasn't entirely reliable. Perhaps Thomas de Carneillon decided to knock the advisor out instead of killing him, for the purpose of interogation. De Carneillon's article makes note of how he doesn't seem to visibly possess a second hidden blade on his right hand, even though that's the hand he stabbed the advisor with. Perhaps the advisor managed to get away scott-free, and his memories were altered to depict his "death" in order to make the Assassins look bad. Perhaps he did get stabbed, but the wound wasn't as bad. Numerous possibilities. That being said, until stated otherwise, I think we shouldn't mention him to have died there unless it's officially confirmed. -- The Wikia Editor (talk) 16:24, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence of that in the memory. All evidence points to his death. De Carneillon had no reason to interrogate him. He was there to retrieve the Sword, and that was it. When he struck down the advisor, it's clear that he still thought that he posessed the sword. He briefly searched the advisor before looking for the blade in the chamber. The fact that the Assassin's hadn't found the blade by the time of the French Revolution supports this. There was no interrogation. We cannot base an article on speculation. I agree with Master Sima Yi. Unless it's confirmed otherwise, we should assume he died. Toolen (talk) 16:53, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

We now know that Abstergo has the specific Sword that the advisor wielded. We also know that some Pieces of Eden can store imprints of consciousness and memories on them like with Shoa Jun and the Box. What if Abstergo's experimenting on the Sword to get it to work again resulted in them pulling the memory. Of course the memory goes beyond when he hides the Sword but what if it still had some connection to the advisor? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:49, December 10, 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Given how the memory select screen narrated by Harry Standjofski identifies the guy as "Jacques de Molay's advisor", and given that we have Armand Bouchart's agent page, I'd suggest moving this to "Jacques de Molay's advisor". Sounds a bit better and slightly more precise than French Templar (1307). --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 16:53, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yay

  1. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 16:53, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Sounds good. --Crimson Knight Intercom 17:49, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  3. No objections. Crook The Constantine District 17:53, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  4. --Bovkaffe (talk) 18:06, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Yay. Nay. One of those. Stormbeast The Helpful Place 20:46, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Nay

Comments

Trivia

I'm thinking the second entry, considering François-Thomas Germain, should be omitted. Unless specifically stated, and to my recollection it hasn't been, that Germain's DNA couldn't be harvested due to decomposition, I think it has more to do with the fact Arno placed the bones in the Parisian catacombs. That's a labyrinth of bones from hundreds/thousands of other people. Trying to find one person's would be impossible, unless there was some sort of physical landmark that would help you find it. Stormbeast The Helpful Place 00:20, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

That is perhaps the most likely outcome. I will remove that section now, given that I recall a snippet somewhere of how they've successfully sequenced genomes from much further back than the 1800s. Slate Vesper (talk) 00:47, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.