Assassin's Creed Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Assassin's Creed Wiki

This is the discussion page for Templars.
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

No title[]

The Article pic is not a Templar, that's one of Richard's knights.

It never actually says that Cain was a Templar and Abel, Adam, and Eve were Assassins, which wouldn't make very much sense. It simply displays the enigmatic Mark of Cain as being the Templars' symbol. In stead of looking to the literal, look to the actual story of Cain and Abel. Cain was mankinds first sinner, and he brought sin into mankind's lineage-in other words, sin=pieces of eden

I don't think they would just make Cain's mark the Templars' logo. I think Cain's personal beliefs had something to do with it as well. Which, I think, makes him the very first follower of the Templars' beliefs. By the way, Those Who Came Before created the Pieces of Eden. Master Sima Yi 11:52, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

How can he be a follower of their belief system if they haven't even been invented yet? Perhaps you mean he is the ideological precursor to the Templars, on whom they base their creed, or maybe it's something deeper like all Templars carry his bloodline. We don't know yet. But in any case, the creators of the Pieces of Eden aren't relevant in an argument about Cain and Abel. He was jealous over the Apple's power and killed his brother nonetheless in order to gain it, which can pretty much be summed up as the epitomy of sin.Rodiggidy 21:21, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Surely the Glyph sequence figuring Cain, stating the "Mark of Cain" is the Templar symbol is pretty conclusive proof that he was the first Templar... Also, Oppenheimer was probably a Templar, as he was mentioned as "O." in a glyph sequence - non-templars, like Telsa, seem to be always referred too with a name rather than just a letter. As for Able, Adam, and Eden, I don't think they were assassins themselves (though A and E seem to be either 'demigods' or at the very least, leaders of the human rebellion against though who came before), I do think there 'line' was the origin of the Assassins, with some of there descenants retaining the immunity to the pieces of eden (like Altair and the assassins who help him out in the final sequence of Assassins Creed 1, and of course Ezio). Of course, "Assassins: Sons of two worlds" might imply A and E aren't the origin of all assassins, and other "demigods" (i.e. human/those who came before hybrids). Yargling 22:24, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Cain was not a templar, and it makes no sense to refrence him as such. You're taking what was meant to be metaphorical and turning it into a literal sense. On the subject of johnson, he signed the civil rights act into law, which means that he blatently went against everything that the Templars hoped to accomplish by killing him. O stands for oswald.

Secondly, it looks like this page was written by a 7 year old.

Others[]

Can someone say where all of the "others" appear in the Glyph sequences and their confirmation of them being Templars? Otherwise, they will be removed as they would be assumptions and not fact. -- Master Sima Yi 15:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Is FDR a templar or not? it's saying that he was probably a templar, but on one of the pieces of eden pages, he's listed under "Templar association".


And secondly, where are you guys getting this info about who is and isn't templars or assassins? besides the glyphs and the characters in the games, themsevles.

The info is from both the glyphs and other in-game media, as well, as the new comics, and other written pieces. And yes, Roosevelt was a Templar. It was spoken of in one of the GLYPH files I believe, can't remember which. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are. :) --Piratehunter (TalkContribs) 20:45, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
It never says that he's a Templar. Only that he had an Apple. Subject One 21:57, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Templars in AC are Atheists/Nihilists/Deists[]

I was a having a debate with my friend about this topic, I know am right , i just can't seem to find any sources to back it up. can anyone help Twomey1993 21:20, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

In the original AC they feared death more than others because they thought after death there was nothing, no world, no heaven, no god. You're right. Check out this guy's last words for proof. --THIEF 06:50, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

That was just Sibrand, though. It's never specifically indicated that any of the others were atheists. Subject One 21:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sibrand is pretty cool. Tyler D'Ambrosio 04:12, July 29, 2011 Templars are not Athiest GHOST2924 18:52, August 13, 2011 (UTC)(UTC)

some are but not all the olny one that might be is sibrandGHOST724 03:24, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Templars are more closer to Nihilists(Believe in no afterlife) and Deists(Believes in the Chirstain god and science but ironicly not such things like miracles, walking on water, and so forth) 75.83.114.81 11:05, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a nihilist, and your definition of nihilism is completely inaccurate. There are many forms of nihilism--my brands are moral nihilism, and existential nihilism--but none of them relate in such a way to the afterlife; you're thinking of atheism. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 00:20, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Raylas 04:20, January 3, 2011 (UTC)Keep an eye out[]

Some religious nutcase Vandilised the Templar page, keep an eye out for this kind of thing. -- Raylas


Yes, and if I were you I would sign my post next time and Do Not Erase Paragraphs Of Info To Replace Them With Only Two Lines. This is against the rules and WILL get you banned if you do it again. Have a nice day. -Assassin-of-Rayne- 01:03, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sixtus IV[]

"Papacy" is currently listed under "Related organizations", with Lineage cited as the source. As far as I can tell, there's no particular evidence that the Papacy, apart from during Rodrigo's rule, was affiliated with the Templars. Subject One 22:32, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, Damascus, Jerusalem, Milan, and Forli shoule be added under "Locations". (Also possibly Masyaf, due to Al Mualim being a Templar.) I just tried to do it myself, but I got lost with the reference format. Once again, I fail at wiki. T-T Subject One 22:57, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Damascus, Jerusalem, Milan, and Forli are not listed under locations because the Templars did not control them at any point and/or have a major base of operations in those cities. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 04:48, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Well, except that the cities were formerly controlled by Abu'l Nuquod, Majd Addin, and Girolamo Riario, who were all templars.
Oh, and Jerusalem is surely a Templar base. It's where the main HQ of the Knights was, on top of the Temple Mount. (before Saladin recaptured the city). Vaxis7 02:30, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

CIA[]

While some of the Rifts say stuff about "the Company", I don't think they were referring to the Central Intelligence Agency, but rather Abstergo Industries. In Rift Cluster 5, part of Henry Kissinger's letter says "Any traces of this plan should appear to implicate the U.S. government. The Company's involvement must remain hidden." If the CIA were to be implicated, U.S. government would be implicated as a result. Therefore, I don't believe they were referring to the CIA. — M.C.Tales 15:50, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Templars are possibly Democrats[]

Has anyone else noticed that the Templars (who want more higher authority and intervention of government) seem to consist of Democrats and Socialists (Boris Yeltsin, Franklin Roosevelt, etc) ? Democrats and Socialists are smiliar to one another in the aspect of placing men over men. This would make the Assassins Republican, correct? Since they believed that men should be able to choose and decide for themselves rather than the government doing it for them.

No. Sign your posts. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 21:04, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
George W. Bush is also a Templar, and he's Republican. It has nothing to do with it, unfortunately. It'd clear up some things. -- Master Sima Yi 22:34, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Repulic means a government where few people represents the most of population (Templar). Democracy means a government where the people has the power to decide about potilics (Free will, therefore, Assassins). Lenin was supported by the assassins (The Fall), while Boris Yeltsin was commended by Margaret Thatcher to disolve the USSR (ACB rifts). I'm not saying that socialist where assassins too, but they share the same ideals, preserve the people's free will to build a society where there's no hierarchy
go guys! The Templars beings can not socialist, they created the capitalist economic system in the united state, and please, make the sequence in AC Broterhood The truth, then you would understand that the main purpose of the Templars are destroying democracy, to destroy the communist order to control the world through capitalism. This is the Templars who overthrow Salvador Allende, communist Prime Minister to be democratically elected in Chile, they also reverse the USSR, so I do not understand why you think that the Templars are communist. And then the Assassins have a Marxist ideology. (sorry for the spelling mistakes, I speak French)- LowikQC 21:33, July 1, 2012 (UTC) added by LowikQC 17:00, july 1, 2012 unsigned comment by 184.162.173.10 (talk · contr)
Let me clear this up, hopefully once and for all: the Assassin-Templar conflict isn't black and white. It's not separated between any political views; not between left and right, communistic and capitalistic, republican or democratic, liberal or conservative. Neither the Assassins and Templars are any of that, they are their own faction and don't support any political form of government or any government at all. The Assassins do strive for pure democracy though, while the Templars strive for a benevolent dictatorship; that doesn't mean that they use a specific form of political government to obtain this goal, at all. Besides, the Templars manipulate any political system to obtain their goals regardless; they have done so with all examples I listed. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 21:04, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
may be, but is still the Templars chose not to manipulate the USSR, for their purpose, and it clearly says, is to destroy democracy and communism to create a perfect world where capitalist and the worker would be safety and do everything that the Templars to their say. The purpose of the Templars is to first create a new world order and a perfect world, like the Nazis. It can thus detect ultra-nationalist ideology on the side of the Templars. LowikQC 21:33, July 1, 2012 (UTC) added by LowikQC 17:20, july 1, 2012
The Templars didn't feel anything towards communism; they just acted like they did to keep their employees in line, because Abstergo was after all, an American corporation. Lenin may have had connections to the Assassins (the Assassins didn't necessarily support Lenin but supported the Russian population's desires for a communistic government), but Stalin was manipulated by the Templars and in the end killed by the Assassins. The only reason why the Templars abolished the USSR via Yeltsin is because they failed to manipulate Gorbachev into pursuing the Templars' goals, so they created propaganda against Gorbachev and communism. Both Thatcher and Yeltsin were successfully manipulated by the Templars, though. Note: they weren't actual Templars, just mere puppets. Also note that the Templars created capitalism, but they aren't capitalists themselves, they only created it to keep workers and companies in line under their regime. And no, the Templars aren't ultra-nationalist, because then they would want one nation to prosper over the rest of the world; in the end, they want peace like the Assassins, but under their own watchful eye. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 21:52, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
That may be true, but as the Altair said in his codex, the pure truth does not exist, because it ia too-quick schemes and possibilities. But for more information, ask at ubisoft. But I still believe that the killers fool more accel to a free and democratic world, and the Templars to a world where everyone would be safe, while absent democracy. But the Templars believe that this is how they have peace, I respect their ideas. but the assassins are on a world accel accel much on freedom of expression. Both sides want peace, only the Templars always use the right before it was The Imperialism, and now it's fascism and capitalism, while keeping the goal of preserving peace. The killers themselves, in my opinion have always been neutral in politics, although they were the source of many revolutions, the killers would therefore in my opinion revolutionaries. Then, the symbol of the order of assassins in Russia had a red star in the symbol of assassins.And for Stalin, saying it are a derivative of communist placed bye the templar for execute the communist are not Stalinist. But weel, I respect your ideas, and i think I'm going, but I hope my ideas will make you think too. LowikQC 22:27, July 1, 2012 (UTC) LowikQC
I never stated my ideas, I stated facts. I've had quite a long discussion with Darby McDevitt (lead writer of Bloodlines, Discovery and Revelations) some time ago and also spoke with Jeffrey Yohalem (lead writer for Brotherhood and The Lost Archive and the writer of the Glyphs and Rifts) and all I said above I took from those conversations, while mixing it in with some game facts... -- Master Sima Yi Talk 22:40, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I understand now. Thank you, now, I had the opinion of the writer-in-Chief, for your interval, now I can finally rest my political consciousness tranquil and quiet play. For now I know that the conflict between Assassins and Templars go beyond simple political motivation. thank you.LowikQC 23:42, July 1, 2012 (UTC) LowikQC

Conflicting Templates[]

This article has both the revamp template and the good article template. Which one is it? Smoke3723 06:17, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

E3 2011 Templar[]

Does anyone know who that guy is? People suggest a descendent of Robert de Sable, but I'm not so sure anymore. After watching an E3 interview, I came to the conclusion that this Templar was a real figure in Ottoman history. I'm trying to find him now, but so far no leads...any ideas? -- Stormbeast 00:26, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Try looking through historical sources....Like byzantine figures. Tyler D'Ambrosio 04:23, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

GHOST2924 05:14, August 13, 2011 (UTC)Templars are not athiest because they clearly believed in God for example 15 Templars would charge in to 50 Saracens and ,win the battle. they won because they had no fear of death and they knew God was on there side and the knew if they died they would go to Heaven. If you still not belive me you probley know nothing about them and the ownly imformation you got is based on the game.

Ghost, this is not a wiki about real life. And they would not always win. Stop. CryptoKiller 14:41, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

"…the ownly imformation you got is based on the game." Well, considering this is a wiki detailing the games, that's something we're proud of. Nobody here cares if the Templar's beleived in a god in reality, only that they were atheist in-game. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 14:50, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Freemasons[]

Well I bought a book about Freemasonry and read a Freemason bible(somewhat, I skimmed through it, my grandfathers uncle had one), and people that, in-game, people who aren't Assassins but have a piece of eden, are Freemasons or Templars. Maybe Templars nor Assassins are Masons, but those who need protection because they have a peice of eden?Ezio Auditore 02:44, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

who's side is ______ on?[]

Nikola tesla

hans chrishton anderson

Jack london

Mark twain

William shakespeare

romulus

remus

sorry for asking im thinking about making fanon and I was curious about these people.

(AlekLightwood13 17:35, May 21, 2012 (UTC))

Tesla is an Assassin ally, the rest aren't mentioned and thus we don't know what their affiliation is. Though Twain was shown in a picture with Tesla in one of the Glyphs. -- Master Sima Yi 17:57, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Can you correct the "SPQR" section?[]

Actually, the title "Infiltrating the SPQR" doesn't mean anything. "SPQR" wasn't a reference to or an abbreviation of any governing body of ancient Rome, namely the Senate. It's an acronym that Romans stamped on their coins to mean that they were issued by "the Senate and the People of Rome" and it afterwards became shorthand for anything that was government-issued. But it never referred directly to a governing body, or even to the governing power itself.

The closest resemblance I can think of is the great seal of the United States, which is a symbol of your government and its purpose is to mark "official" things, if it was known by an acronym. You can't infiltrate that, can you? 

So, I suggest that you correct the title into "Infiltrating the Roman Empire" and the phrase "and the ruling body, the SPQR" into "and the ruling body, the Senate". Also, by the time Caesar was appointed dictator-for-life, the Roman state wasn't yet an empire: it was a Republic. Thank you for reading. 195.81.66.174 12:30, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you change it yourself? (Plus, I'm already revamping the entire page again. But it may take several months to finish.) -- Master Sima Yi Talk 12:32, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
I would have gladly done that myself, but the page is protected to me. Don't know why. 195.81.66.174 15:17, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
You need to be a registered user in order to edit some pages. This being one of them. Crimson Knight Intercom 15:23, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't want to do that. I'm not even an English native speaker, go figure. I'm Italian, as you may want to know. I was asking if somebody wants to kindly correct that paragraph, thanks in advance. 195.81.66.174 15:30, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
Done. Though you should know that most people here are not native English-speakers, which includes myself. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 15:46, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) I will give a tought about that. See you. 195.81.66.174 15:50, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
"I would have gladly done that myself", "Yes, but I don't want to do that". Don't you see how you contradicted yourself? You're not a native English speaker, okay fine, but you were able to use good grammar in your "tl;dr" post.
And I was merely informing you why you couldn't edit. In future, I'll remember to keep such helpfulness to myself, since it is apparently frowned upon now.
PS: Several non-English people use the language better than some English people do themselves. Myself included.
Crimson Knight Intercom 15:55, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

The grammar of this page is terrible-if it could be edited I would correct many tense errors and such. It is disturbing as it is right now. 


126.78.29.228 13:10, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Give us an example. I'd love to see this "terrible grammar" you speak of. Kooala Cupcake. - Leave me a message! 13:40, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Reginald Birch[]

Shouldn't Reginald Birch be added to "Notable Grand Masters"? He was obviously between Ahmet and Haytham, but when I try to add it the infobox gets all glitchy which is why I undo'd my edit twice. Can someone else do it please? Ryder 2012 (talk) 03:57, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

The past tense of "undo" is "undid".
And I'll add him; if you can convince me how he's more notable than a lot of other Templars.
PS: Did you use preview mode before saving your changes? Crimson Knight Intercom 04:00, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the spelling lesson. I just thought of it because despite that he was only seen once in the actual video game, he's got a somewhat bigger part in AC:Forsaken. 66.131.163.32 23:03, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a spelling lesson, it was an English correction.
I still have my doubts as to whether he's notable enough to be included.
Did you use preview to make sure there were no derps? Crimson Knight Intercom 23:10, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Bias[]

It seems the article is biased against templars. Assassins creed has shown not all of the memebers are evil, and that the goal of the order is the same of the assassins, it is merely the method they go about it that is different. Jabberwockxeno (talk) 22:30, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is supposedly biased? -- Master Sima Yi Talk 22:43, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
I second that question. Having read through the article I am struggling to see any bias in it. You should also remember that any information re the Templars (individuals) and whether they could be consider 'good or honourable' would be on their article, not this one. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 10:29, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

There was a interview a while back where Cory or the writher of ACR said that the individuals(Templar or Assassin) view on their order does matter either "good or bad." And like the Assassins article this should have a controversy section.--ACsenior (talk) 18:35, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Rights of Bloodline,[]

I am Christopher Wesley Pattee, after reseaching my lineage it has come to my attention that my bloodline is deeply rooted with the templars. The cross that is used is from my families crest originally. I have searched for those who are themselves warrior like for a long time never knowing where it is I fit in. Now I've discovered where it is I belong, be sure in the following months there will again be a rise for truth in Christ and a gathering of those committed to the original bond we all share.75.128.124.34 14:51, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

What. No really, what. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 15:04, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
.......... --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 15:47, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
This post felt so out of place that it almost opened another tab in my browser.  Allfictions (talk) 22:47, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

The Knights Templar and the Freemasons[]

I notice that the Knights Templar might still exist exist, not just in the Papacy, but by the Freemasons as well. Of course, most of us probably know that the Knights Templar is a philonthropic and chivalric order affiliated with the Freemasons, I think they are the Knights Templar, and maybe some other members of the Freemason order are also Templars, and maybe the others aren't. That must explain the fact that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, two high ranking and well known Freemasons who are also in AC III are against the Templars, while Haytham Kenway, who is also a Mason, is a Templar. So probably the Templars are the actual Knights Templar in the Freemasons with its own supporters and followers who conflict against the other Masons.  And the fact that the Knights Templar are trying to keep itself secret must explain the fact that the Freemasonic Knights Templar do not claim any direct lineal descent from the original Templar order.

Oh, by the way, King Richard I was the leader of the Anglo-Norman Crusaders, the leader of the Knights Templar was Robert de Sable and also, I'm not saying that I believe that the Templars really do still exist, I don't. Buchodude (talk) 10:22, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

As far as AC canon is concerned - and this has been confirmed - the Freemasons are just a group of old religious men sitting around making plans, with no relation to either the Assassins or Templars. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 10:24, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Johnson and Church were Freemasons, Haytham was not. --Alientraveller (talk) 10:53, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

The Freemason insignia is featured on Haytham's cape, but we can't be sure how much that means. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 10:57, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

How did I not notice that? 8| --Alientraveller (talk) 11:01, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps only time will tell... Buchodude (talk) 06:28, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

The Americas[]

Why is there no mention of the Caribean brushfires along with the Seven Year and the American Revolution between the Templars and Assassins? They should be listed in their history because they where in two games.  58.7.78.122 14:42, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

That information is largely covered in the Colonial Assassins and Colonial Rite of the Templar Order articles. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:12, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Yes but neither of them tell of the piracy in the time of Edward Kenway. 58.7.78.122 13:30, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
That is likely because not a lot is known about their actions during that time period; the Assassin-Templar War is largely just background story in Black Flag; it plays second fiddle to Edward's story of personal growth. That said, I'm sure the article will be amended as and when people find the time. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:36, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Members[]

Shouldnt we add Hugues de Payens? Hes mentioned in revelations, and he was one of the founders after all?

He's already mentioned in the article. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 15:23, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the anon means, 'Shouldn't we add De Payens to the Infobox?' My answer would be no; whilst he founded the Templar Order in RL, in the AC universe he is not, to date, a particularly important individual. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:35, January 9, 2014 (UTC)


Templar Origin=[]

Why do not integrate with what is written down on Human-precursor war about templar origins? In particular, this:

"After the Disaster, the leaders of the humans had in their possession multiple Pieces of Eden, and an idea of how best to lead humanity into the future. They were heavily scarred by the knowledge that their former slavers had interfered with their evolutionary destiny, and sought to bring about humanity's "rightful" path by any means necessary. Justified with this belief, they utilized the Pieces of Eden as tools, but were distrustful of any who had made peace with the First Civilization.' Those who represented the Assassins had always wanted to free humanity and envisioned a world where all beings could live according to their own will. As such, the Creed "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" became their philosophy, exemplifying the belief that all were free to determine their own existence. They also believed that the misuse of the Pieces of Eden to control others was against all they had worked and suffered for, as it would enslave humanity once more."

Because that is about the Assassins, not the Templars. Also, please sign your posts. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 22:22, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Notable Templars[]

Instead of listing every single major Templar antagonist under the Notable members parameter in the infobox, shall we limit it instead to the Templars that really are notable and well-known? Just list the ones that had a very big impact on the Order or the world. Manuel Palaiologos, Ahmet and Madeleine are perfect examples of this. In the grand scheme of things, they didn't really make much of an impact compared to the likes of Hugues de Payens, Jacques de Molay and Germain. The same goes for the Assassins. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 18:34, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the list of Templars is getting a bit ridiculous. -- Zero-ELEC (talk) 19:11, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.--Bovkaffe (talk) 20:51, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

General of the Cross[]

Hi!

In one of Unity's files, it is revealed that there is a "General of the Cross", which is the higher rank. Then there are the "Guardians" like Alan Rikkin and, probably, Laetitia England. Should we add that? DipsonDP (talk) 22:05, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dipson, could you link me to the file? I'm working on something else right now and already have more than fifteen tabs open so I can't really be bothered to look xD Crook The Constantine District 22:07, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Database:_10._Reconnaissance_Memo DipsonDP (talk) 22:50, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
That is interesting. Maybe we should send a tweet to Darby first, he might give us a bit of clarification. Crook The Constantine District 23:01, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
I overwhelmed him with questions XD But if ur busy, i can do it.  DipsonDP (talk) 23:08, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually about to go to sleep, so if you want to, go ahead :P Maybe you got a little too excited about that chromosome theory lol. Crook The Constantine District 23:14, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
You should definitely question him about this it sounds very interesting, I always thought Grand Master was the highest position. Abelzorus Prime (talk) 23:21, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why anybody should be contacting Darby about this - or even needs too; the Wiki got on quite fine before this habit of pestering the writers developed. It is quite clear from the source given that the ranks of 'Guardian ' and 'General of the Cross' exist (though I should point out that a no point is it inferred that one rank is higher than the other), and so articles for each should be created, if they have not been already. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 23:46, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed besides contacting writing, I think it's fine as long as they don't bombard him with questions. If it wasn't for the communication between the AC Team and Fans we still would think The Father of Understanding is the same being as Baphomet. Abelzorus Prime (talk) 00:24, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that was a belief some people held... Whilst it's clear IRL that Baphomet is sometimes referred to by that title, I never thought anybody here would assume that IU the two are definitely the same 'individual'. (Upon viewing the diffs for that article, I can see the change to add Baphomet to the top of that article was unsourced). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 00:45, August 21, 2015 (UTC)Guardian
It was because of the side mission in Assassin's Creed Unity in which the Templars have infiltrated the Cult of Baphomet and use "The Father of Understanding" as their password. So I guess some fans assumed that the Cult of Baphomet was worshipping the FoU. Abelzorus Prime (talk) 01:29, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
I know why the assumption was made, I just never thought somebody would actually include it in the article as 'fact'. Side point: I'm not sure one could say that the Templars had infiltrated the Cult, since it's members are fully aware of the Templars' presence. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:16, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
"However, my status as Guardian requires that i first confer with my two colleagues, after which pont we will pass our judgment on to the General of the Cross" Well, to me, it seems like the General is a "Higher Rank", not only because there is only one, but the name... seems a little bit "superior"? DipsonDP (talk) 02:33, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
Or it could simply mean that the General of the Cross is responsible for decisions of such a magnitude, as part of his job role. It doesn't necessarily mean the rank is higher than that of Guardian. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:16, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

It makes one wonder after the latest game, you think it might ever dawn on the Templars who pride themselves on their cunning, that they themselves have been the puppets of Juno possibly from their very inception? She's been a 100 steps ahead of everyone else all this time. Kryptonian25 (talk) 00:51, November 29, 2015 (UTC)

Templar allies vs. Templar puppets[]

Hello everyone. I noticed (just to stick to the six Assassin Seals targets, as examples) that:

So my question is: where does this piece of information come from? How do we know that the formers were mere Templar-manipulated pawns with little or no personal power, while the latters were able to treat with the Order on an equal position? Is it sourced, or simple speculation? --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 23:46, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

Notes for revamp[]

So this is a featured article, but it honestly needs quite a lot of work as well, not nearly as much as the Assassins article back then though. Most of it has to do with philosophy. I recognize that a lot of players don't have the most in-depth grasp of Assassin and Templar philosophy, especially since the American trilogy over-emphasized the simplistic dichotomy of order vs. freedom. The Templar view of Assassins: as a group who wants nothing but free will no matter the cost, is also easier for fans to understand.

Some things I just want to note for now is that, the common rhetoric of Templars, that they seek "order, purpose, and direction" is just rhetoric. We should avoid repeating this as is throughout our article. The reason is because this is vague and fails to describe the complex ideologies of both groups. Assassins traditionally believed strongly in discipline as well. In fact, if I recall, the Assassin perspective is that Templars claim to stand for discipline and order yet lack moral discipline and order in their methods. At the same time, claiming that the Templars desire "purpose" and "direction" in contrast to Assassins implies that the Assassin do not have goals or concrete goals. This stems from Haytham's perspective that the Assassins are only a reactive group who never builds anything, but this is a controversial and heavily debated idea, definitely skewed towards one side, and not all Assassins, such as Ezio or Altaïr would agree, especially given how lengths the former went to rebuilding Rome. In any case, "order, purpose, and direction", this is rhetoric, and vague one at that. They don't accurately explain what the Templars truly are, and it oversimplifies their conflict with the Assassins, which go deeper.

The Templars believe that humanity is inherently prone to corruption, ignorance, and prejudice. They have a pessimistic worldview of them in contrast to the Assassins, which is somewhat touched upon by this article. They also want utopia. As a result, they believe the only possible way to create that utopia is if a select group of qualified individuals, the best of the world's minds, the "enlightened few", shepherd all of humanity. The ones that know what's best for humanity has to steer them in the right direction.

I want to emphasize that I personally do not think that just because a person believes in centralized government, or authoritarianism, or favors "order" over "freedom" in that classic dichotomy, that that makes that person a Templar. I personally think that to be a true Templar, you have to believe that (a) humanity is prone to stupidity (b) want utopia (c) because humanity is so prone to stupidity, the only solution is for it to be controlled by the few that are "enlightened" above others. It's a far more specific mentality. Now obviously, as we see throughout the series, this doesn't even hold true for some Templar characters. Many like Majd Addin and Thomas Hickey are just sadists or hedonists, but obviously in any group, fictional or real-life, there are individuals people can try to argue "are not truly what they profess to be", and that's always controversial. However, I did want to clarify what is pretty key to Templar ideology. It's not just "I like order and purpose"; there's specifics to it. Thankfully, Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide, is much more clear about this than ever, which does remind me that this article needs some updating.

Moderate vs. Radical Templar[]

I personally think that the distinction between moderate and radical Templars is that the former might have reservations on the price for the "enlightened few", whereas the latter does not. I think perhaps that "world domination" might not necessarily be absolute to Templar doctrine, that perhaps they vary on what they mean on "shepherding" humanity, ranging from absolute mind control, to commanding the world by fear and terror, to creating a global state but using less terror and relying more on methods of an "enlightened despot". This is just what I think though. However, the article does try to distinguish between moderate and radical, but it instead poses moderate Templars as just favoring more centralized authority, and sources are not clear about a distinction between moderate and radical Templars. However, I doubt that moderate Templars don't seek global control of humanity in some way whatsoever; sources are pretty clear that that is the central goal of the Templar Order. If you take a Templar who doesn't believe in the New World Order, which is key to their idea of a utopia, then, what kind of centralized control or order are they looking for? Just over a country? How are they different from a regular authoritarian politician? What are they seeking for humanity? To just have more order for a region? The Templar dream of a utopia—and that it can only be created by them—is very much the identity of Templars.

Templars vs. Assassins[]

The Assassins fight for free will not just because they believe it is an inherent right. To put it simply, the Assassins disagree with the Templars because (a) they believe that no one group or person is wise enough to know what's best for humanity (b) they believe that no one group or person is wise enough to be trust with the power for all humanity (c) they have an optimistic worldview that humanity, though prone to faults, can ultimately achieve utopia by learning how to be tolerant of each other and communicate for greater understanding (d) that security and world peace achieved at the cost of what makes humanity human is wrong.

A far deeper, root dispute, that Templar characters pretty much universally never even get close to fathoming, is that the Assassins believe that one has to recognize one's fallibility and teach that even their own group (the Assassins) can be wrong about things—also hence why they disagree utopia requires an enlightened few to take control of the world, because they believe everyone is fallible. In contrast, the Templars believe so simply in "order" and "direction" and solidity and stability and security, that they believe they always have the right answer. They believe that they are the best, the "enlightened ones". Assassins teach against this, and the novel Forsaken describes that this is exactly why Haytham defected. He was lured by the Templar's easy answer that: you are right, you are right to be certain, you do know in contrast to Edward's teaching that he has to question everything. Templar ideology gave Haytham the sense of confidence and certainty that made him comfortable while Assassin ideology argues that this certainty is but an illusion. To an Assassin, utopia is something worth seeking, but the answer is just not that simple as "I love order", and trying to control the world won't lead to it. It's not that the Assassins don't value order, discipline, purpose, and direction, but that they don't think that chanting and pushing these things without finesse, without due consideration for all complicated life is is going to work out.

This article fails to accurately describe these differences between the two groups, though in general it brushes over the topic anyways, so there's not much misinformation.

Introduction[]

The introduction needs to be longer to reflect the length of the article. I expanded on it a little, but I think it's far from acceptable.

Summary[]

I'm just leaving a note here on some thoughts; it would be helpful during the revamp. As always when discussing the philosophy of the series, I got a little long-winded anyways, and I'm thinking maybe in that time, I could've made the necessary changes to the article anyways. However, here I just free-wrote. Putting it all down in concise, organized writing would take much more time. I didn't put a revamp template at the top because I don't think this article is in a desperate condition, which the Assassins article was. I think it's decent, but it does need some work and also updating from newer sources. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 07:59, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Need any help?

Notes for revamp: While I agree with the first paragraph. The use of rhetoric should be limited to the rhetoric that has been defined, such as Monro calling Shay's fight for the people for a purpose or Germain's radical Rite creating chaos with the purpose of making the people want order. For the same reason, "freedom" would have been avoided in the philosophy section of the Assassins page but that's not the case because they have defined what they consider "freedom". Beyond that I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

And this is why elitism should be included in the philosophy section that will explain the Templar philosophy itself. Like with the Assassins section but expanded with sections for corrupt, moderate and extremist Templars and examples for each kind. Seeing as there are fundamental differences between each kind, mostly between moderates and the other two. To highlight the differences further and explain it deeper rather than generalizing and simplifying everything.

While you're right here as well, I'd say we avoid clamiming what's a "true Templar", as I've said. There are 3 known kinds of Templars, hence why there can't be a "true" Templar. As an example you have the Borgia rule that's a Dark Age for the Templar Order because they fought for personal gain, something both moderates and extremists argue against. As Monro said "power is a means to an end, not an end in itself". Something like that and Majd Addim specifically wanted power for himself while the Levantine Rite wanted the city. Replace power with money and their quotes still stands. Apart from that, your bullet points here are true as well. Both Addin and Hickey used the Templars for personal gain, they're corrupt by the definition of corrupt Templar but they was tolerated because they fought for the Templar Order. It's a trivia in Bejamin Church and Hickey's pages explaining it as Church unlike Hickey and Addin, betrayed the Templars because of that, at least to en extent. He did end up arguing for the British Crown after all.

Corruption vs Moderation vs Extremism: I've already touched a bit regarding corruption but it's the easiest to explain as well. Regarding your assumption of the distinction between moderates and extremist. According to Forsaken, Unity(game & novel) and Rogue. Firstly, moderates unlike the rest have doubt, something Haytham and Jennifer(a British Templar according to the Unity novel). Jennifer mentions doubts and question as traits, noticing that Élise had them. Haytham's journal takes it further, as he himself called himself many things regarding his position, although being a moderate doesn't equal defection from the Templars. However some consider moderates for traitors, like the Carrol family but this is a two way street since some moderates consider extremist for traitors. Like Haytham's view of Braddock. The skepticism among moderates are also explained during Élise's childhood where her mother and father encourage her to think for herself, something shown in Rogue to when Shay unknowingly worked with the Templars by his own will. They explained their beliefs subtly but avoided stating what they was because they expected he'd not work with if he knew because of his Assassin training that would result in acting of prejudice against Templars. Unnecessary killing is directly opposed by Élise's moderate faction in their fight against Germain, Haytham says the Templars don't advocate for unnecessary killing and it wasn't part of his Templar training, nor was it part of Shay's and Elise's training, something their stories don't advocate for. And moderates do advocate for a New Word Order, although their approach unlike extremist is more huxlian since they prefer to persuade the people and opponents to their side rather than using fear and terror, it's why harming innocents is mostly a last resort as well. They obviously are willing to unite with Assassins and oppose mind control, while they disagree with the Assasins about freedom, they rather argue for equality. However the equality goes both ways as extremist wants to make all equal by enslaving them. And like all Templars they advocate elitism. Basically moderates A) Unite with the Assasins B) A huxlian approach C) Oppose mind control D) Oppose unnecessary killing E) Skepticism

I don't disagree with the rest but when explaining the general Templar philosophy I'd suggest you stick to what all 3 kinds agree on. For example, all Templars wether corrupt, extremist or moderate advocate for unity, seeing as each individual rite aims to unite their country. I'll admit I'm a bit busy lately, it's why this is so rushed but I've touched what needed to explained to avoid any major misunderstanding regarding the Templars. Tough I'd at least say something, especially regarding moderates consider your distinction between moderates and extremist was mostly what you thought it was. And I'm sorry if I may sound rude, not the intention.--ACsenior (talk) 18:10, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the extraordinarily late reply as I wasn't sure when I could get around to this.
First, I want to clarify that when I mentioned what I think is a "true Templar", I definitely did not mean that I would state that explicitly in the actual article, but it does offer some insight on how to clarify what the Templars are. Even The Essential Guide states that the Templars believe that humanity should be shepherded for a better future, and that the New World Order is their goal. We shouldn't give the impression that the Templars aren't necessarily these things, making them sound more like ordinary authoritarian or conservative politicians, which I think is a point of confusion a lot of fans have.
The distinction between moderate and radical Templars therefore lies in the extent of shepherding humanity and total control, whether that is only through mass surveillance, through a global government, to total mass enslavement physically and/or mentally, to permitting the murders of more moderate Templars. The distinction appears to be in the means.
However, I strongly disagree firmly dividing Templars into moderates and radicals/extremists, as Ubisoft has consistently avoided ever doing that. No source material ever makes these solid divisions, and even if it's clear there are some Templars who are more moderate and some who are more extreme (and that's definitely true), making strict classifications of them in this way would present this as the official view of Assassin's Creed material or Ubisoft, or that these are classifications used in AC sources when they are not. To be more exact, we can use the terms moderates and extremists/radicals, but we shouldn't section them off by these labels, nor should we write as though these are official labels or clear classifications. They should remain only as descriptors.
And finally, when I said that the difference between Templars and Assassins is that the latter endorses skepticism, I don't mean that moderate Templars don't teach thinking for oneself or questioning sometimes. However, the Assassins are unique in that skepticism is central to their very tenet. It's their very creed. In the same way, there are many Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jedi, Sith, out there who can be skeptics, who might encourage or welcome questioning ideas still, but that isn't part of their central doctrines. For the Assassin, their very central idea or defining point is skepticism whereas this is not the case with Templars. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 06:27, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
It's alright, to be honest I didn't expect a fast response given my previous behavior. Even hesitated making that comment. But I'm replying the series and I'll admit I was more wrong than right but we can continue that discussion another time if you want to improve the page further.
Well I've already said a lot of official AC materials that does make those distinctions and explicitly define each kind of Templars. But in their philosophy section you can use it as a kind of introduction section of each kind while explaining their general philosophy. As for the rest of this paragraph, I know and agree.
The distinctions are major ones in terms of methods and beliefs that result in different kinds of New World Order because of how each kind wants to create it. For example, mind control is very different from persuading the people trough benevolent means. And that distinction alone creates two different kinds of NWO, one where people are enslaved by force and there is no free will. The other allow the people to maintain their free will because peoples needs and wants are provided to them and therefore they are under their control, they are persuaded to stay in line by not giving them a reason to turn against those in control. It's Orwell's world against Huxley's world in a sense, as both books give two different means of controlling. The distinctions that are stated in the various AC materials are made clear as day.
Well that's false. A clear example of Ubisoft making a clear devide between various Templars are for example the creation of the Black Cross and the Borgia being the Dark Age of the Templar Order, those stories explicitly states what that define corrupt Templars. Even "The Essential Guide" notes that Templars can become corrupt with a picture of the Borgia as an example. And corruption is if a Templar fight for personal gain wether it's for power or money and Templars.
Now moderates are the most vocal against wars and slaughter of innocents, as those mostly end conflicts and mostly harm innocents as a last resort. Preferring to persuade people instead and use diplomacy to accomplish their goals. That's both a basic observation of how they are shown to operate and includes the fact that the majority of moderates are the most vocal Templars that speak against it. The only Templars in AC3 for example to not speak against any of that is both Hickey and Church while the rest have spoken against the revolution and tried to prevent it. Rogue reinforce all of this. Apart from this you have Birch specifically categorize Haytham as a moderate Templar in Forsaken. Along with him, his step-sister and the De La Serre family advocating both unity with the Assassins and encourage skepticism. And lastly you have Élise writing in a letter to Arno that they oppose mind control. These are distinctions explicitly stated in AC materials with those Templars by those Templars. The content is very clear about this.
Extremist Templars was even actively marketed in Unity's campaign, look up either the e3 demo with a commentary and the making of Unity vids. One of them uses the term, additionally it's the only distinction with the word of god to back it up. In the universe itself you have extremist Templars being the most consequentialist as they are willing to create wars and slaughter innocents to force the people to stay in line to maintain order. It's built on fear rather than persuasion. Germain states exactly why he started the revolution, the glyphs in AC2 have Templars stating why they'd start WW2 and Bradock argued with Haytham about different means of control. They are also the Templars that aim to control minds, something that's been their talking point since the original AC. All of these distinctions and classifications are in various official AC materials published by Ubisoft. These AC sources are exactly why there should be sections dedicated to each kind like how the Assassins page has a section dedicated to corruption. We have already done this thing before but there should be even less to argue about Templars because the sources are clearer and more of. And this is by the games and main books alone, I need to go through the encyclopedias and other guides as well just in case. The more sources, the better.
I know you did and I'm saying moderate Templars encourage it too, it may not be part of the general Templar philosophy but it is part of moderate Templar beliefs. The rest I agree with and is a good point but it doesn't change the distinctions that are used by Ubisoft to devide their Templars.--ACsenior (talk) 09:43, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Has any AC source actually ever explicitly said that there is a strict classification of Templars into a Moderate camp and an Extremist camp, with those labels as the very names of the classification, as an official part of their organization. That's what I mean. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 10:01, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of but it doesn't really change anything because there are official sources stating what various Templars of the Templar Order there are. Something is I've made very clear so far, since I've stated the sources, the content of the sources and the media that explicitly define what kind of Templars they are. There already is classifications by various sources that explain this. So it's not Original Search either.--ACsenior (talk) 10:41, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
As I said before, we aren't in disagreement about that [that Templars varied by degree of moderation and extremism], and by your answer, we aren't in disagreement about the fact that AC sources don't show that Moderate and Extremist were strict, official classifications used by the Templars or Ubisoft as part of their organization. This does matter because it means we shouldn't give a false impression of such by sectioning based on Moderates vs. Extremists or titling sections Moderates and Extremists.
I forgot to mention that when you gave the example of the Templars explicitly calling the Borgias corrupt, that is different, and again we're not in dispute about that either. I'm not talking about corrupt vs. non-corrupt Templar, even if that is related. I'm specifically referring to the appellations of Moderate vs. Extremist.
Again, we can still use the terms to describe Templar figures in writing, I only mean we shouldn't present them as hard classifications with solid lines (hence why we should avoid sectioning by them). It is after all, a spectrum. I also think you're misunderstanding what classification means.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but by your repeated use of italicizations and boldings in that last response, you're getting a little vexed as you did previously. Please, there is nothing to be agitated about. I'm still not quite sure if we're even in disagreement with anything, and if anything, my responses so far should show we aren't (unless you're saying that Ubisoft does divide all Templars in the series neatly into Moderates vs. Templars, which they do not, only during the schism in Unity). I'm only clarifying our direction.
I would dispute that Extremists in Unity is an example of a strict division of Templars by Ubisoft because the Extremist faction in Unity referred to their radicalism relative to other revolutionaries not Templars. Not all Extremists were Templars, some were Hébertists, Énragés, Jacobins, even more moderate Jacobins, etc. "Extremists" in that game is primarily a game play term and mechanic devised as a generalization of all Jacobins, sans-culottes, those more radical than them, and Templars as long as they did not serve with the National Guard because Ubisoft was too lazy to create more diverse groupings that more accurately and clearly distinguished the various factions of the revolution. But this is aside from my point so don't focus too much on this. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 11:14, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Partly correct. We are in an agreement that there are a Templar spectrum with various degrees of Templars. We may be in a disagreement that there isn't any classifications regarding either moderate or extremist Templars. As an example, much like the Templars calling the Borgia corrupt, you have the British Grand Master Birch specifically call Haytham a moderate Templar. And if I remember correctly, Haytham called Bradock an extremist in a conversation with Birch. But you're right we shouldn't give a false impression either, so we need to look things up even further if there's things we are not curtain about. There is a clear distinction but it should be clarified for us to make those sections. I suppose we need to get to an agreement on what that counts as a clarification. Because I'm unsure if you count the examples so far as a classification.
Well what that defines corrupt Templars is the easiest for us to write because both moderates and extremist Templars speak against it. It's the most clarified Templars and wouldn't be a problem to write a section for. In that sense it's less to argue about. While it's more difficult to find clarification for moderate and extremist, the distinctions between however is something that's explained.
We don't appear to disagree that much. I didn't say Ubisoft has divided all Templars but that we have specific examples that explains the different Templars there are.
The novel make the divide clearer but I'm not talking about the non-Templar factions under Templar influence but the Templars themselves in Unity. And not only Unity divide Templars by what they are, I've given a few examples.--ACsenior (talk) 12:18, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
What about a compromise, a paragraph for moderates and extremist but a section for corruption? That's of course if we don't get to an agreement.--ACsenior (talk) 12:25, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
That was actually one of my ideas exactly, but I'm still unsure about a corruption section for the same reason I remain unsure about it for the Assassins article. I personally think a dedicated section for corruption isn't really necessary, and corruption could be discussed off-hand. My opinion is the same for the Assassins. However, since the section remains for the Assassins, it might be good to have one here as well for consistency. It might actually take me a while to get around to revising this though. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 12:46, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Then we should do that until the argument for a section for both kind of Templars is stronger by having better sources. Templar corruption is less arguable by better sources that clarifies it more directly. Since unlike the Assassins, Templars corruption is better clarified and therefore a section for it should be less of an argument because of how clear the sources are about it. Without an explanation of corruption we also risk giving the false impression that Templars fighting for personal gain isn't going against what the Templars stand for. A misconception among Assassins and funny enough, a lot of the fans of the series. Go to any forum, even TvTropes has a lot of things inaccurate. I've read every AC page there. So things like this is needed to further explain things. And as you say, for the sake of consistency since the Assassins page has one for it. I can wait, you're a better writer than me so it will be worth it.
If we do this the structure of the Templar philosophy and methods article should be this: [The general Templar philosophy and methods] Or methods after the philosophy with a section for itself: [The general Templar methods] Either way it will be followed by a paragraph dedicated to only moderates(or extremists). Followed by another paragraph dedicated to only extremist(or moderates). This way we can explain how both operate and think without giving a section to either of them as all we'd do is explain what the different Templars are but without giving a false impression by giving each of them a section for themselves. Meaning no examples of a specific Rite similar to how the Assassins page has examples of corruption. All we'd do is explain, something the sources already do. And ending this with a section about corruption only and with examples like the Assassins corruption section: [Templar Corruption/Corrupt Templars] Example: The Borgia.--ACsenior (talk) 14:52, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is significant to note that later Templars derided the Borgias as a corruption of their goals and that their age was a dark one. That was very explicit, and we cannot leave that detail out. Side-note, yes, TVTropes has some inaccuracies and perpetuates some misconceptions, though I find it is especially the case in regards to Rogue and Unity because marketing and media heavily influenced fans' perceptions of them. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:41, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said and I agree. You're right, it shouldn't be left out. Neither should the Black Crosses since their purpose is to specifically hunt corrupt Templars. True, TvTropes got even worse since those and it started with the pages of Rogue and Unity. Wouldn't say only marketing but willful ignorance too and arrogance, check the AC forum of TvTropes.--ACsenior (talk) 04:12, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Rites[]

I think this whole thing with different Rites has gotten seriously out of hand on the wiki. We don't even know how the order is built up and which countries even had or have their own rites, which makes most of the pages entirely speculative. Templars doing something in a certain part of the world doesn't necessarily mean that there's a specific Templar Rite there. I believe we should delete a lot of these unnecessary and speculative articles.--Bovkaffe (talk) 22:23, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was concerned about this issue too. However, it seemed previously that most other users thought for they should be kept for organizational reasons and that it was fine as long as we specified that the names of certain rites have speculative names. To me, it's not so much that "doing something in a certain pat of the world doesn't mean that there's a specific Templar Rite there" (though that is true too) because I think it's probable that the Templars have divided the entire world such that jurisdiction over any place falls to someone. However, it's more that I think it's entirely possible certain rite don't correspond exactly to a sovereign state's borders. For example, for all we know, the "Mexican Rite" handled the entire Central America, or perhaps the German Rite was responsible for Austria as well during the French Revolution. Maybe an "Indian Rite" handles Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka as well. Conversely, perhaps the United States are divided into multiple rites. We don't know. It's also notable that while we seemed to have assumed that the West Indies Rite was in continuous operation, the War Letters in Rogue actually explain that while Templars tried to operate in the West Indies in the mid-18th century, they didn't have a rite there because it was destroyed in Black Flag. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:32, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
I found that your point about borders simply enforces the point that a lot of those pages shouldn't exist. For instance, the Libyan Rite of the Templar Order page mentions Templars that could have been based in Spain or Italy for all we know. The same applies to the pages about the Assassin branches.--Bovkaffe (talk) 22:56, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
I just want to point out that we should be careful about deleting all of these "Rites" pages. I noticed that you flagged the Levantine Rite whose name is attested in many sources. Some of these obscure Rites might actually have been confirmed; we need to double-check. Also, the Mediterranean Defense minigame in Revelations is meant to show different branches of the Assassins and the Templars vying for control. Each of the cities, the site of Assassin Guilds fights against the local Templar counterpart. While the Templar counterparts is not confirmed to be called "Rites", in practice and function they are since they're regional branches and "Rites" are the Templar counterparts to Assassin Guilds in other sources. So there might be case that every "Rite" that is based off of Mediterranean Defense is valid, only that its name is conjecture because we don't know if they were called rites or not. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:58, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

What's more, do we even know if the Templars are still divided into Rites in the modern day?--Bovkaffe (talk) 22:23, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

The organizational structure as given in The Essential Guide including rites, Guardians, General of the Cross, and the Inner Sanctum is the current, modern structure although the book stops short of describing rites in the modern context. As well, we know that Grand Masters still exist in modern times, and Grand Masters according to this source are defined as leaders of a rite. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:32, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Notable members list[]

The "Notable members" list in the infobox has been the source of some contention before with editors adding and removing characters that they think should or should not make the list. Due to a lack of clear criteria for inclusion, whether or not a Templar is notable enough became an arbitrary affair, and it was not constructive for editors to edit war it out. This is a parallel issue to that encountered in the Assassins article, as discussed here.

The list has been revised based on my discussion with Master Sima Yi, and so for reference I am laying down our thoughts on the matter.

  • Notability is determined from an IU-perspective not an OOU-perspective. Not every major character in the series to us is the most impactful in the lore itself. The vice versa is also true.
  • Whether or not the individual is famous or prominent to public society is not a factor (e.g. Maximilien Robespierre of the French Revolution; significant in history and not insignificant to the Templars, but his public infamy doesn't give him any points)
  • Individuals will not be included simply for being the main protagonist of a game
  • There's not necessarily a hard limit on the list; notability is the primary criteron. However, we used 5 members as a reasonable length.
  • The individual should have had a tremendous impact on the Order, either during his time or especially through his legacy, such as through a great reorganization of the Order

Since this criteria as it is is still rather vague in my opinion, I will explain our choices below.

  1. Hugues de Payens: responsible for reorganizing the Templar Order into a public organization that became infamous during the Crusades
  2. Jacques de Molay: last Templar Grand Master known to the public who became a legendary icon for the Templars to rally around due to his "martyrdom"; he ensured the Templars' continued survival by overseeing their return to the shadows just before he died
  3. Rodrigo Borgia: though he presided over what is known as a dark age for the Templars, being a corrupt and hedonistic Grand Master who did nothing to further the Order's professed goals, his influence was widespread throughout Europe
  4. François-Thomas Germain: orchestrating the French Revolution's radical period, he sought a purge and revolution of the Templar Order itself, so as to build it anew; even in death, he managed to succeed as the Templars from then on exploited not the nobility, not the aristocracy and the church, but acquired global power through the subtle means that we would come to see centuries later Abstergo.
Warren Vidic & Daniel Cross

Unlike with the Assassins' version, I'm more apprehensive about some of our choices. In particular, I strongly believe that a Templar responsible for the Great Purge should be listed. Although one might argue that it was a collective operation where no single individual stands out, since all almost any operation requires coordination by multiple actors, I don't think this necessarily discredits the Great Purge. I believe that Warren Vidic and/or Daniel Cross should be listed. The former was a pioneer of the Animus even if not its inventor and spearheaded the Animus Project that was so pivotal to the current stage of the Assassin-Templar war. It is his actions that would drive Desmond to rejoining the Assassins. He is also the one to turn Daniel Cross into a sleeper agent thereby enabling the Great Purge, and while this may be under orders by superiors such as Alan Rikkin, it may be a point in his favor.

Alternatively, we could list Daniel Cross instead who is the great weapon of the Great Purge; through his sole knowledge, the Templars were able to target Assassins across the world. He is credited as a great "hero" by Warren Vidic and his image was promoted as some sort of an icon for the Templars. I think despite the Great Purge being a collective operation, the Templars themselves used Daniel Cross as the hero that represents their great victory. However, as Master Sima Yi argued, Cross was never a true Templar in mindset and had always been more of a "loose cannon", as Juhani puts it, and a puppet or tool of the Templars.

Rodrigo Borgia

I'm also a bit skeptical of Rodrigo's significance, especially considering how he is disavowed by the Templars as one who set them back due to his selfishness and greed. Master Sima Yi noted his tremendous influence throughout Europe and even as far as Calcutta, India as evidenced by the Contracts in Project Legacy, but this is only implied by the involvement of Borgia soldiers. The implication would be enough I suppose, but I'm also not sure if the Borgia were mentioned in all of the missions in these places.

Shay Cormac

Then I would assume that some of you might argue for Haytham Kenway or Shay Cormac. Both Master Sima Yi and I were more firmly set against the latter because though he was responsible for the purge of the Colonial Brotherhood, he acted under the directions of others. Moreover, I should point out that the purge from Shay's perspective was at least initially more incidental; he felt he was getting into situations where he was "forced" to kill one Assassin after another, and deeper analysis of Rogue I believe, should reveal that he was not really a Templar at heart, but manipulated into their ranks. One of his criticisms of Achilles, that the Assassins wanted to use the Pieces of Eden to dominate the world under the belief they had the right to decide the future for everyone because they knew best is... totally a core facet of Templar ideology... and supplementary sources do clarify that the Achilles hadn't meant to use the Pieces of Eden in such a way. This is one of those examples that calls into question Shay's understanding of Templar ideology.

Haytham Kenway

To not include Shay and Haytham is an example of our criteria that significance from an OOU-perspective should not be taken into account. I was convinced by Master Sima Yi that in the grand scheme of things, Haytham hadn't accomplished much. He established a new rite for the Templars, but he failed to access the Grand Temple as he was sent there to do, and his branch was decisively defeated by his son Connor. I suppose it might be argued that he contributed to the British victory in the Seven Years' War which in the long-run would facilitate the rise of the British Empire, but I feel that is a bit of an indirect connection, and moreover, I'm not convinced the Seven Years' War wouldn't have been won by the British anyways. Haytham is notable to us because he gives the most discourse on Templar ideology and might even be argued to be the archetypal Templar, but was he really that significant to the Templars in their whole of history?

Conclusion

I think that the Templars' list of notable members is more debatable, so especially in light of that, I welcome any and all of you to discuss it here if you have any objections or any questions. :) Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 15:34, September 16, 2017 (UTC)

Removing any reference to the Cult of Kosmos[]

The mentions to the Cult of Kosmos as a proto-Templar group should be removed, since their relation to the Templars is pure speculation and the ACOD in fact implied the opposite by saying the Templars fight for order and the Cult for chaos. The mentions to the Templars already were removed from the article dedicated to the Cult, so the same should be done for not only this article, but the History of the Templas, History of the Assassins and a couple of other artcles and a couple of category pages Heitor d'Araújo (talk) 00:37, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

I could've sworn that our wiki has been making sure to remove all mentions of Cult of Kosmos being a predecessor of the Templars for the exact reasons you've raised. I'm not sure why they reappeared in this article's infobox. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 00:45, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
I want to point out that while the Encyclopedia does seem to explicitly refrain from categorizing the Cult as such I do believe the Magazine issue for the Cult does call them proto-Templars. This is all hearsay though as I own neither. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:44, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the Encyclopedia date to Ezio days? Or is there a newer edition I haven't heard about? :O Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:18, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. I meant Essential Guide for which there is a new one. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:54, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

Cult of Cosmos[]

I believe this has been talked about, but the cult of cosmos isn't a proto-templar group, and should be removed from the page. Dovahkiin5247123 (talk) 01:11, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

Whoops you’re right. We locked this page because someone was spam editing that but forgot to actually revert it. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:18, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

You have made a small mistake, it seems to me[]

It is not a very good idea that a single page is blocked so that only high-level users can edit, everyone has the right to edit. Also I would say that the Cult of Kosmos is a Proto-Templar organization since they have several ideologies in common, such as order, their opposition to democracy, their search for Piece of Eden, control through chaos, ect. It is like the gladiators of Ancient Rome and the footballers of today, why ?, Because the gladiators served to entertain the public through sport, and their amphitheatres were like stadiums. Kraken984 (siniath) 4:02, 09 of May of 2020 (UTC)

@Kraken984 I disagree, The Cult of Kosmos was of chaos and was a radical group from the Cult of Hermes and it seems like it had no direct relation with the Order of Ancients or Templars. Same with Kassandra's group has not relation to the Assassins or Hidden Ones Dovahkiin5247123 (talk) 11:11, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Unlock the page[]

When will the page be unlocked for new editions? It is also necessary to add new information, for example King Alfred as the founder of the Templars. unsigned comment by Ragnarstark7 (talk · contr) 16:44, January 23, 2021 (UTC)

A similar question has been asked before on the Cult of Kosmos talk page, and the answer remains the same: "The Staff will open the page when they feel they have satisfactorily resolved the Templar/Cult issue among themselves, and no sooner." I know we're all chomping at the bit to add ACV's new info that's already on other pages, but all we can do is wait. – Darman (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's been months and the AC Wiki community still hasn't gotten the access to edit the Templars page. I think the Templar/Cult issue is really long past our concerns regarding Assassin's Creed: Valhalla revealing that Alfred the Great of Wessex was the founder of the modern Templar Order. - (Ficboy) 12:59 March 11, 2021 (UTC)
No offense Ficboy, but it was partly because of your edits to the Assassin page that caused us to have to lock that page just several days ago, and I fear a repeat scenario would occur with the Templar page if I were to unlock it. While I know an indirect contribution is not as efficient, if you really have a suggested edit, you can ask for it here. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems counter-intuative to have the page template ask for contributions on a locked page. Vetinari(Appointment) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Would you like to edit the page Vetinari? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The page certainly needs someone to update it in light of Valhalla info - The Order of Ancients is a predecessor to the Templars, concurrent for an unclear amount of time and the door has been opened for whoever's left post-Eivor to become Instruments of the First Will, for example :p - but the way I dip in and out of most articles, I don't think I'm the one to do it. I do think that history section needs a general summary in addition to the behemoth of an article though. Vetinari(Appointment) 19:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll open the page up for edits from the wider community then, and we'll see if it becomes a problem. I am concerned about a history of counter-productive edits in both this article and the "Assassins" article, but it won't do for them to be severely outdated either. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
On the plus side, the Hidden Ones and Assassins are basically said to be the same thing with a name change. ;) Vetinari(Appointment) 21:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Protection[]

The page has been protected for nearly 10 months now. No sign of any revamp or anything. It should be unlocked, pages aren't supposed to be locked for this long. MedievalVibes (talk)

There's no rule that "pages aren't supposed to be locked for this long". In fact, it is common wiki practice for admins to permanently restrict editing for certain high-traffic or major topic pages prone to vandalism, edit warring, or other counter-productive edits. Also, the page has a notice at the top that it is in fact in the process of a revamp. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 10:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement