It seems as though ever since the beginning, the Assassins have always been in the right and the Templars have always been in the wrong (aside from "they're the root of all evil in the world" Assassin bias). The one time that I can recall the Assassins being in the wrong was when Al Mualim was using them for his own gains... granted, he was a former Templar.
So was there at least one time where the Templar's were legitimately in the right and perhaps the Assassins' were in the wrong or have they and always will be the wrong side while the Assassins' are always 100% right on everything that they do? Nkstjoa (talk) 23:59, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* Assassin's Creed is open for interpretation, technically there is no good or bad because both sides goals are the same. The both want world peace essentially, the reason why Templars are seen as the 'bad' guys is because they would take away free will in order to acheive world peace whereas the Assassins give humankind the benefit of the doubt and fight for freedom as well. So who is the bad guy then? It depends entirely on your own personal beliefs and morals. ~ Just my opinion of the situation anyways. bonzi_06 (talk) 05:17, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Assassin's Creed III? If the Templars had succeeded during the Revolution, then not only would the Native tribes likely not have been wiped out, but Juno's plans would have been heavily disrupted by the Temple being discovered. Jamie Jones54842 (talk) 08:54, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Disease had already done most of the work marginalizing the Native Americans. Besides, Charles Lee hated them. --Alientraveller (talk) 12:39, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the fact that they would've disrupted Juno's plans would be more coincidence than anything. Crook The Constantine District 13:33, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Which again comes under exactly what I've just said. bonzi_06 (talk) 11:24, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bonzi 06, there is no good or bad side, the Templars and the Assassin's both want an "Ideal society". However, they disagree on the cure concerning humanity flawed nature. For the Templars it's Order above all and they don't care about the Injustice caused by their system, while the Assassins believe that Freedom will permit humanity to grow even if it cause Chaos.
To be simple, it can be resumed with the situation of a kid playing with fire: - The Templars:"Don't play with fire you will burn yourself.", "I will not let you play with fire, it's for your own good and I don't care if you disagree." - The Assassins:"You should not play with fire but do as you wish.", "So you burned yourself, let's hope you learn from that experience and will not try again." Maxattac (talk) 14:14, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
One done good, one done bad? The entire war is a like a tug of war between two equally strong people, with almost never ending endurance. Occasionally one will pull and take an inch closer to their goal... but the other will eventually pull two inches, giving them a slight lead... and then each one is only ever doing that forever more. So far we have only ever had stories where it is the Assassins take that two inches. As others have said it all depends on each individual's outlook and morals.
I think people are over extreme(-ing) the results of what each Faction wants. The Assassin don't want so much freedom that it can bring chaos... but moderated with rules to stop evil, corruption and crime, while allowing progression, peace and happiness. Likewise, the Templars don't want so much control that we look like a hoard of mindless zombies: but moderated with freedom to give way to ideas, progression and happiness without evil, corruption and crime.
Look at it at a scale between 1 and 100... 1 is Zombie mindlessness Order: and 100 is a chaotic do want you rioting mess. The Templars want 35, and the Assassins want 65. They want their respected ideal in a moderate amount to allow progression and peace while stopping crime and evilness. They fighting over slight differences really: both are ironic in that they practice corruption, evilness and crime themselves. Lord Vespasian (talk) 15:30, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Both orders kill innocents, it's as low they can get. Their equals but different. I wouldn't say either side is "right" judging by the history of both orders but there is situations where one is a lesser evil that the other. Then again both orders shows flaws in humanity helping us evolve trough their endless battle, they do in a way bring balance but with chaos as a price consider all the mess they've made.
Having one side "win"(something that can't happen since you can't kill philosophy) is not gonna end well either, Assassins "winning" would just let the world be as it is but without a proper way of general control. As in "You should not play with fire but do as you wish.", "So you burned yourself, let's hope you learn from that experience and will not try again." Think about someone playing with fire over and over again...chaotic. It's bound to repeat itself, how many wounds would the Assassins let us give ourself for "a better future"?
The Templars "winning" is a bit different. "Don't play with fire you will burn yourself.", "I will not let you play with fire, it's for your own good and I don't care if you disagree." Now it's not bad stoping people from doing mistakes or something stupid like pointing a gun at your own face but how far would the Templars go to stop it? At this point it can go anywhere, different Templars have different views on how to control like the Borgia's(corrupt power hungry bad guys) or Torres(basically today's NSA(The Crystal Skulls and The Observatory)).
While both sing songs of "a better future", their fighting to end the fighting goes against their utopian visions of a better future. They do what they want to stop, they want to end all conflicts and have a peaceful world were people can live equal and good but their war only creates chaos. If they aren't able to solve things peacefully, how is they helping humanity evolve? How is having an never ending war helping humanity evolve? Their war is like the French Revolution, they both agree thing need to change for a better future but they disagree on what kind of future. I honestly don't see how either side can be "good guys" in this war, only lesser evils depending on the situations.--ACsenior (talk) 20:08, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, during basically all of AC3Einsteinium99 (talk) 19:48, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
- They started off nice enough, but they turned into dicks once we took control of Connor, for some reason. --Crimson Knight Intercom 20:06, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Probably for narrative reasons. But not even Haytham liked them. Although never depicted in the game, Forsaken claims that he soon despised the others, and thought of them as arrogant idiots who couldn't get anything done without him.--Bovkaffe (talk) 20:10, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
- I've read Forsaken. Ubisoft failed to make Templars genuinely decent from an Assassin's perspective. I don't see anything more than that. However, Black Flag pulled it off nicely, though that was from the perspective of someone outside the conflict. --Crimson Knight Intercom 20:15, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
Someone may have to correct me on a few things, but Rogue's orange assassins (hereby referred to as orange coats) certainly would not have been well-received by past assassins. They constantly broke the three tenants:
1. They brutalized and even planned assassinations on civilians to "keep them in line".
2. Their noticable orange uniforms aside, they intended to stand out in the crowd as opposed to blending in.
3. Considering they have the assassin's symbol on their flag and constantly take over territories in their name, they definitely more than compromised the Brotherhood.
It almost makes me wonder what hard times the Assassins fell under that led to the creation, as well as tolerance toward the Orange Coats. Were they so desperate to combat the Templars that they were willing to allow any power-hungry brigand to join their order? I suppose to the Assassin's, the worst assassin would still be a better option than the best Templar. Nkstjoa (talk) 19:16, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Those were bandits and thugs working for the Assassins, with one Assassin at the head of each gang HQ. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ Walkie-talkie 19:24, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Those bandits demonstrated Assassin skills like blending and air assassination though - that means they must have been given some shape of training by actual Assassins. Crook The Constantine District 19:25, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
As is, this was one of the first times that I can recall Assassins abusing their power. Of course there's been plenty of examples of Templars that have done so, but I've never really recalled any time in which the Assassins had done the same until the Orange Coats terrorized the towns. Nkstjoa (talk) 19:31, November 21, 2014 (UTC)