Nice, reading your description I like how your interpretation is subtlely made through the image. It's instantly recognisable as AC but the style of the blade and the mood of the image really help convey your idea once you know what it is
The concept sounds more like the reverence of Assassins in reality, but not so much as a person that can be considered an Assassin in the AC world. AC world wise, it sounds more like just a common killer or mercenary who either murders for selfish intent or for money than altruistic reason. At most they could be revered somewhere along the lines of people like Vali cel Tradat or Malfatto, but that's being very lenient. Overall, really love the unique design of the hidden blade and the design scheme of the attire does capture the shape and the colors that are symbolic of an AC assassin. Overall, this culminates into a one of a kind aesthetic concept, but I feel the story concept is just a misinterpretation of it's original intent.
Thank you for your comment! No, they are not common mercenaries. They have their own understanding of the creed, but this guys will never kill for money or because of false pride. They are severe to those, who deserve it. This idea of mine have a deep lowdown, and I can't explain everything. If I draw an analogy, they more like "demons of impartial justice".
From what I've been privileged to obtain from your comment and from the description of your Assassin concept I still feel obligated to refute that this is not an Assassin of the Assassins Creed Universe and have already prepared a rather arduous and lengthy explanation, but I do not wish to cause a public argument that would make my overall intention an act of vanity. Nor do I intend to further insult you than I most likely already have - again that is not my intention - so I'll simply just leave it as agree to disagree. Again, still love the art. Its just the concept is still conflicting. Feel free to disregard me and my opinionated criticisms, but if you are curious as to what I had wrote as a refutation, just send the word and I'll be happy to oblige. Again much respect for you, as an artist and a person
You do realize AU means Alternate Universe and thus it doesn't have to fit in line with AC's universe at all, right?
Like...he could literally make the Assassin's evil and Satanists in an underground society that wear white robes with red highlights and have secret blades -- Assassin's Creed but with a significant difference.
No this would never show up in AC's universe -- it's an AU.
As I have concluded with the actual artist and creator of the concept, we have come to agree to disagree in just the concept's existence. However, just because a concept is possible to exist in an "AU" of an "AU" ( seeing as how Assassin's creed is fictitious and thus an alternate world of it's own), it does not mean it exists as an admirable affiliate of a fictitious "alternate universe" in this universe. In the very... very least, this could present a possibility for that "AU" of an "AU" to be revered as a travesty. That is what I was addressing: this possibility, among others that are far worse, that exists to do harm, whether it be towards an individual's work or the individual himself/herself. But, seeing as how this inquiry of conflict has already been concluded and directly agreed by the creator of the art and the proposer of the inquiry, there be no need to really discuss this any further. I understand, and find it rather admirable for you to candidly defend this art, but what purpose is there for defense if there is no direct conflict? Assurance? Surely not, if both contributors of said "argument" find no direct conflict to be extant, and surely not, if any conflict that could be "supposed" were rather minute and admittedly trivial. So, again, there is no reason to start up something that can't be even consider an "old flame", as the saying goes. I consider my inquiry, not an argument, just that. An inquiry's duty is to request information or to resolve so as to obtain clarity. I have obtained both form the artist when I discussed with him before, thus my actions were fulfilled. Just like what you did... at least from what I have inferred from your actions. You proposed an inquiry so as to seek clarity over a rather old and minute inquiry. And thus, like the artist did, I have don.. or at least I hope... being I've explained my previous comment and my perspective of how to act upon that past comment now. Feel free to continue to believe what you find true, though. I do not want to enforce, encourage, or even lightly suggest what you should think. I just wanted to clarify and explain the truth of my side of the coin.
I got the meaning first time before even stumbling upon this art. Again, as I've said before, I inquired, from the artist directly, his concept's validity as an AU of an AU of this universe, thus, in turn, answering your question with a "yes." However, now I find your act of clarifying your own intentions as such somewhat untrue. the fact that you include the ending specificity directly affiliated with my response proves your intentions were more than just to query as to whether or not I understood the general reverence and meaning of "AU". Were that the case, you would have phrased, as practically all do for conciseness, your conveyances much more straightforward and simplistically such as,"you do know what AU means right?" and that's it. But the fact you decided to add specificity that has no direct affiliation towards the general query, "do I know what AU is?" proves that "that is not all." You may attempt to clarify and justify that your mentioning of specificity to the query of whether I knew what an AU was to the overall circumstance, being my comments reference to the art's concept, was an act of bringing your query more individually affiliated, thus interpreted, but this has been disproved to be considered. For the fact that an individual had the want or desire to reply to a person's comment on a piece of art that is not even their own shows they were not commenting on a comment due to whimsy and boredom, but arbitrary conviction. Thus it is deductively concluded you were not replying to my comment simply to clarify and ask a stranger commentator if he knew an abbreviation's meaning, but you were replying with the individual motivation to refute. Thus, you felt driven to argue rather than query to clarify. I believe I have no more to say then if said possibility is potent within an individual's actions. Thus we both have a reason not to discuss this any further. Still, thanks for the chat.