FANDOM


  • Hello, you can call me Cristophorus and I consider myself a Templar. My favorite character is Haytham Kenway and I love AC, it's my favorite game and I like its story. But, this is not a "Meet your partners" forum, so I'll go to the point. Templars' goal and primary objective is to ensure the rise of civilization through control, choosing safety above freedom. One sentence to describe it: "the end justify the means".

    But I find it contradictorious. If they, at least most of them, want a better future for mankind. Why trying to accomplish it through war and genocide? They were responsables in some way of the French Revolution, WWII and (in my country) of the coup d'etat ocurred in September 11, 1973 that still divides it into two sides.

    Are they willing to make that kind of bloodshed? Of course, that's an obvious answer, I know that. But what I'm trying to ask is... why?

    There are Templars, like Shay Cormac, Haytham Kenway, George Monro and many others, that think of those actions as catastrophic. But then I think about Henry Ford and I ask myself... the amount of disaster a strategy can lead. It depends on how "evil" is a person, in this case the Templar in charge?

    I want to know your opinions about it.

    Thanks and sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language.

      Loading editor
    • So... Chileno. Yo soy Argentino. Todo depende de lo que consideres que es "Pasar la raya". Supongo que crees que causar la muerte de todo un ejercito al dejarlos sin su Comandante vale la pena para que echen a Washington y te elijan de Presidente y, supuestmente, mejorar el país con medios cuestionables. Eso es lo que hicieron Lee y Haytham. Vale la pena? Pues muchos dirán no, pocos dirán si, pero no hay manera de saber qué es lo correcto. 

        Loading editor
    • And i personally don't see Shay as a Templar, rather a puppet. He only focused on killing Assassins (In my opinion, they weren't as i don't consider any Assassin that breaks the Creed as one), he barely knew the Templar ideology, neither the Templar's plans. Literally, the AC3 Templars did exactly what the Not-Assassins did on Rogue. Shay wouldn't agree.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, Hi. Nice to see a fellow southamerican here.

      Well, truth be told I don't think that worths it. Maybe I'm too human to be a Templar... Thinking about it, perhaps that's a requirement... kinda. "If you wish to be a Templar, you must be coldhearted and leave your humanity behind". But Haytham's Templar Philosophy was different compared to others, like Abstergo for example. He valued innocent's life and his actions were guided for the future of humankind. Besides, he did exactly what his father, Edward, taught to him. "Think for himself". I'm of those who thinks that Edward would be proud of Haytham.

      Oh, don't be like that with poor Shay. We all know he did more stuff while searching that damned box. Rogue was just the first episode. I hope to see more of Shay... AAAND They are not doing anything of Shay again... right?

        Loading editor
    • Welp, we will be seeing somethings related to Shay in the future. Ubisoft (I don't recall who) said that we would get to know Shay's birthday. Probably just some Initiates thing or like the Hacked Helix Files from Unity and Syndicate. And regarding Haytham, he did directly kill those 3 guards that had told him what he wanted...

        Loading editor
    • Oh, yes. I read something about that. Just I hope they dont forget about 'Connor' or Shay...

      And yes, Haytham killed those 3 Loyalist Commanders just like Altaïr killed those agents after he interrogated them. None of them was innocent, instead they were valuable source of information and they died anyway. As I said, coldhearted.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, you could say it was "necessary". I really hope to see something about Connor and Shay, although, if they had a fight, well, we already know who won because he is alive in 1801, Connor, who trained Eseosa.

        Loading editor
    • With commanders like those, you never know. And yes, 'Connor' would have won. Or perhaps they didnt even fight each other, that would be hilarious.

        Loading editor
    • That's a very loaded question Cris, I am tempted to say that yes, Templars are the bad guys. Why? Well, simply because Ubisoft has written them to be the bad guys. Of course, after AC3, many fans questioned the Templar methods, and many no doubt initially perceived Haytham to be an Assassin, he was so noble and self-sacrificing after all, only to find out that the man was a Templar. I think the answer to your question would depend on perspective, more so than anything qualitative but then again, I also digress. The Assassins fight to safeguard the freedom of humanity, and in doing so, often restore social order. The Templars want to instigate order, but their methods to incite such order often become the cause of ideological and theological, systematic destruction. What I've often found is that the Templars do more harm than good, in their vain quest to rule above all as a single body, they tend to incite chaos. Why? Whenever you take away a social freedom from a populace, the people will revolt and often times even rebel. Such rebellions are the making of chaos, and yeah, we all remember what Haytham said regarding freedom, that it's an invitation to chaos, and he's not wrong, but he also doesn't fully understand what such freedoms even are. The Assassins don't condone lawlessness, if they did, they wouldn't have tenets, to begin with, but rather, the Assassins condone social freedom. They promote humanism, existentialism really. So, yes, I would say that the Templars are bad because they entrap on fundamental freedoms. 

        Loading editor
    • I didn't want to necro this thread, but since SupremeAssassins has already done so :P, let me offer my perspective.

      Obviously, morality is subjective, and understanding this is key to the Assassins' ideology. (However, it's clear that they also ironically have their own moral code). Personally, in spite of my mindfulness of moral relativism, I actually define for myself what is morality to me, and one of the chief criteria is the harming of others. I think that to harm others is fundamentally immoral, but that the reality is that it cannot always be avoided. For example, you might hurt someone in rejecting their romantic advances if you are honestly disinterested (but that will lead to a greater good down the line). You might need to hurt someone to apply medical treatment. So in other words, I see harming others as a basic, default criteria for immorality, but it is not definitive nor absolute, almost like every deed, every action can be assigned moral or immoral "points" where the end value is net positive or negative. And sometimes, as Rebecca says, "there's no other way", and people are faced with two evils and have to decide which is the lesser of the two.

      Without delving into all the other aspects of their ideology, Templars are immoral because they have no prescription against exploiting innocent lives for their dream, and even often say that they are justifiable sacrifices. On the contrary, fundamental to Assassin ethos is that all life is sacred, and that when they do kill, it is only because they were forced to choose between two evils, where the alternative is to allow innocent lives to be abused or slain, and even when they feel forced to kill, they are traditionally taught not to rejoice in it but to acknowledge it wasn't exactly the "good" thing to do. In this way, a huge contrast is that Assassins do not condone killing, ironically, even while they commit out of necessity in theory (not always in practice because there are always those in every faction who don't understand or appreciate the meaning behind their faction fully), and explicitly designate harming innocents as forbidden. Templars do not care about this and love to boast that sacrificing the lives of others, innocents and each other, are justified, even virtuous.

      Pushing aside all the dispute about liberalism, about free will, about epistemology, about personal fallibility and accountability, this contrast should quite clearly show which side is morally superior if your standards of morality is to not hurt innocent people and to refrain from killing wantonly, even if neither are perfect.

        Loading editor
    • "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
      ―Benjamin Church, 1778
      Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood. 
        Loading editor
    • Depends on what kind of Templar we're talking about. I don't consider Moderate Templars like Haytham and Shay for bad guys, considering we're also judging these characters by modern values. The Colonial Rite is a lesser evil than the British, French, Patriots and depending on your perspective it might be better or worse than the Colonial Brotherhood. But the Templars appear to be generalized in this chat, seeing as everyone here see it as two side rather than two sides with various variations of the same group and philosophy. But should I explain the difference between all I might as well write on the Templars page about it because of all the sources I'd have to go trough.

        Loading editor
    • Callum Konstantin wrote:

      "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
      ―Benjamin Church, 1778
      Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood. 

      The line spoken by Benjamin Church is ironically a key idea of the Assassin's Creed itself and echoes their core philosophy. Ironically, Connor did not seem to have caught this given the fact he was taught by a Mentor who notoriously did not understand the Assassins' ideals as well as he should have.

      Assassins are taught to think for themselves and to always be wary of the danger of blind faith and loyalty, and moreover, to strive above superficial labels and black-and-white modes of thinking. Absolute obedience is the very thing that is antithetical to their organization, repudiated in particular by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze, though there are certainly cases of corrupt Assassins like Louis-Joseph Gaultier, Chevalier de la Vérendrye and Al Mualim failing to understand this.

      In fact, the Assassins' main disagreement with the Templars is that while they advocate perspectivism and that no one is absolutely right about everything, the Templars assert their way is the irrevocable truth.

        Loading editor
    • I have to be honest. I fear that many fans are lured by "contrarianism". That is, they subconsciously want to avert siding with the popular, mainstream, and protagonistic faction and so must try to find ways of justifying their support of the antagonists, even if they would not support them in reality. This phenomenon can be seen throughout many franchises, most notably in Star Wars, where polls usually show that more fans support the Galactic Empire than the Alliance to Restore the Republic in spite of the fact that the Empire is literally intended to be space-Nazis and are responsible for wholesale genocide of trillions of people.

      Fans still get into heated debates about how "it's a matter of perspective" and if the rebels were not the protagonists, we would see them as terrorists on the order of the Taliban or al-Qaeda who threaten the order of society. This is in spite of the fact that the Rebel Alliance were founded by Republic loyalists, led by the least corrupt senators of the Galactic Republic and refrained from targeting civilians, and the leader of the Empire orchestrated a galactic civil war that killed trillions of lives to seize power and exterminate the Jedi Order.

      Case in point, fans are too often contrarian, and they also fall victim to the Golden Mean Fallacy. When presented with two factions, they think they're being open-minded by taking the "middle way", assuming that it must always be the most correct by virtue of balance and perspectivism. But that is not correct. When presented with two factions, they may appear to be extremes, when in reality, their values might correspond to say, 1 and 10 rather than -10 and 10, where the midpoint is 5, not 0. (We see this problem especially in American politics, where Americans don't realize that the United States Democrat Party is actually not an extreme left but a moderate right faction compared to most of the world).

      While certainly not all Templars are evil and not all Assassins are benevolent, and there are extremists in both factions, in general, the core Assassin ethos is the concept of personal fallibility (i.e. being able to admit you're wrong), respect for human rights and diversity, and refraining from ever harming innocent people. In contrast, the Templars' primary goal is that they are the only ones in the world enlightened enough to shepherd society, and while individual Templars, like Haytham and Shay may disagree with whether or not innocents constitute acceptable sacrifices for this dream of world domination, the Templar expressly does not have it codified that this is forbidden.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:

      Callum Konstantin wrote:

      "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
      ―Benjamin Church, 1778
      Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood. 
      The line spoken by Benjamin Church is ironically a key idea of the Assassin's Creed itself and echoes their core philosophy. Ironically, Connor did not seem to have caught this given the fact he was taught by a Mentor who notoriously did not understand the Assassins' ideals as well as he should have.

      Assassins are taught to think for themselves and to always be wary of the danger of blind faith and loyalty, and moreover, to strive above superficial labels and black-and-white modes of thinking. Absolute obedience is the very thing that is antithetical to their organization, repudiated in particular by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze, though there are certainly cases of corrupt Assassins like Louis-Joseph Gaultier, Chevalier de la Vérendrye and Al Mualim failing to understand this.

      In fact, the Assassins' main disagreement with the Templars is that while they advocate perspectivism and that no one is absolutely right about everything, the Templars assert their way is the irrevocable truth.

      You forget Arno's free-thinking while it slowly freed France from warfare got him exiled from the Brotherhood. 

      Just like Sebastian Monroe, i agree that free will is precious, but neither the Assassins nor the Templars are the good guys nor the bad guys. The story is set in such a way, Ubisoft could've made the Templars the protagonists instead mate. 

      1. Perhaps in another time, Altair would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights for peace and free will instead, against the Assassins who seek to enslave humanity.

      2. Perhaps in another time, Ezio would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights Rodrigo, the Assassin mentor who seeks to becmome the absolute ruler of Italia. 

      3. Perhaps in another time, Jacob and Evie Frye would've been as Templar Knights who save London from the Mentor and Antagonist, Crawford Starrick. 

      4. Perhaps in another time, Edward Kenway would've been written to become a Templar Knight sho kills the Assassin mentor Torres. 

      See mate, its just how they are written. The organizations don't really matter, merely the ideology. 

        Loading editor
    • Callum Konstantin wrote:

      Sol Pacificus wrote:

      Callum Konstantin wrote:

      "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
      ―Benjamin Church, 1778
      Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood. 
      The line spoken by Benjamin Church is ironically a key idea of the Assassin's Creed itself and echoes their core philosophy. Ironically, Connor did not seem to have caught this given the fact he was taught by a Mentor who notoriously did not understand the Assassins' ideals as well as he should have.

      Assassins are taught to think for themselves and to always be wary of the danger of blind faith and loyalty, and moreover, to strive above superficial labels and black-and-white modes of thinking. Absolute obedience is the very thing that is antithetical to their organization, repudiated in particular by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze, though there are certainly cases of corrupt Assassins like Louis-Joseph Gaultier, Chevalier de la Vérendrye and Al Mualim failing to understand this.

      In fact, the Assassins' main disagreement with the Templars is that while they advocate perspectivism and that no one is absolutely right about everything, the Templars assert their way is the irrevocable truth.

      You forget Arno's free-thinking while it slowly freed France from warfare got him exiled from the Brotherhood. 

      Just like Sebastian Monroe, i agree that free will is precious, but neither the Assassins nor the Templars are the good guys nor the bad guys. The story is set in such a way, Ubisoft could've made the Templars the protagonists instead mate. 

      1. Perhaps in another time, Altair would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights for peace and free will instead, against the Assassins who seek to enslave humanity.

      2. Perhaps in another time, Ezio would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights Rodrigo, the Assassin mentor who seeks to becmome the absolute ruler of Italia. 

      3. Perhaps in another time, Jacob and Evie Frye would've been as Templar Knights who save London from the Mentor and Antagonist, Crawford Starrick. 

      4. Perhaps in another time, Edward Kenway would've been written to become a Templar Knight sho kills the Assassin mentor Torres. 

      See mate, its just how they are written. The organizations don't really matter, merely the ideology. 

      Okay, so I'm a bit concerned about what you are trying to argue. Yes, Ubisoft could've written it so that the Templars espouse the ideology of the Assassins canonically and vice versa, but that is not the case and I find that point totally random and irrelevant. Bringing that up makes it seem like you might be verging towards an Assassin vs. Templar argument, but we should be merely discussing their ideologies as presented canonically.

      Arno's expulsion from the Parisian Brotherhood didn't have to do with free-thinking but because the Council mistook his motives and deeds for vengeance, when in reality, he was just desperate to redeem himself of the guilt of being indirectly responsible for his foster father's death. They didn't expel him over ideology or because they deemed his views heretical per se, like the Jedi might do to dissenters, but over the issue of revenge. Yes they disagreed with his alliance with Élise too, but if that factored into their dislike for him, it would be for that issue specifically, not for him thinking differently per se.

      In any case, the Parisian Brotherhood specifically did their best to steer a balanced, moderate ground in the French Revolution, trying to stem the worst excesses of the Revolution while saving revolutionaries and royalists alike because as they said, these conflicts are not so simple and one shouldn't treat them so simply. They did err when it came to Arno, but that seemed to be more of a case of a misguided high school teacher than a corrupt politician.

        Loading editor
    • Callum Konstantin wrote:
      Sol Pacificus wrote:

      Callum Konstantin wrote:

      "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
      ―Benjamin Church, 1778
      Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood. 
      The line spoken by Benjamin Church is ironically a key idea of the Assassin's Creed itself and echoes their core philosophy. Ironically, Connor did not seem to have caught this given the fact he was taught by a Mentor who notoriously did not understand the Assassins' ideals as well as he should have.

      Assassins are taught to think for themselves and to always be wary of the danger of blind faith and loyalty, and moreover, to strive above superficial labels and black-and-white modes of thinking. Absolute obedience is the very thing that is antithetical to their organization, repudiated in particular by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze, though there are certainly cases of corrupt Assassins like Louis-Joseph Gaultier, Chevalier de la Vérendrye and Al Mualim failing to understand this.

      In fact, the Assassins' main disagreement with the Templars is that while they advocate perspectivism and that no one is absolutely right about everything, the Templars assert their way is the irrevocable truth.

      You forget Arno's free-thinking while it slowly freed France from warfare got him exiled from the Brotherhood. 

      Just like Sebastian Monroe, i agree that free will is precious, but neither the Assassins nor the Templars are the good guys nor the bad guys. The story is set in such a way, Ubisoft could've made the Templars the protagonists instead mate. 

      1. Perhaps in another time, Altair would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights for peace and free will instead, against the Assassins who seek to enslave humanity.

      2. Perhaps in another time, Ezio would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights Rodrigo, the Assassin mentor who seeks to becmome the absolute ruler of Italia. 

      3. Perhaps in another time, Jacob and Evie Frye would've been as Templar Knights who save London from the Mentor and Antagonist, Crawford Starrick. 

      4. Perhaps in another time, Edward Kenway would've been written to become a Templar Knight sho kills the Assassin mentor Torres. 

      See mate, its just how they are written. The organizations don't really matter, merely the ideology. 

      The hypothetical examples you provided don't really work though. The Templars don't fight for free will and the Assassins don't wish to enslave humanity, they want the exact opposite in fact.

      That's not really an example of switched perspectives, it's simply a case of "If they were different, then they'd be different". Well, yeah, I agree.

      Arno's exile is, in my opinion, a good indicator of how the Parisian Brotherhood differed from other contemporary Brotherhoods. The Colonial Brotherhood would have probably been far more approving, or at least less harsh, of Arno's actions. It should be noted that Arno was exiled primarily because he did not consult the Council before taking action, such as killing target without their permission, as well as the fact that they felt that he was primarily driven by revenge. The Parisian Brotherhood was far more controlling and reactionary, at least during the time of the French Revolution.

      Anyway, the ideology of the Assassins emphasizes personal responsibility for one's actions while discouraging their members from believing in absolutes. The Templars, on the other hand, are thoroughly convinced that their beliefs and goals are absolutely correct, and many of them are willing to sacrifice innocents in order to achieve said goals.

        Loading editor
    • All i am pointing out is that do not concern yourself with the organization, sicne it could be scripted the other way around. 

      All i am saying is that the Assassin ideology and the Templar ideology here are both wrong...both are only short term prospects.....both are heaed for the apocalypse. 

      Sebastian Monroe loved free will and peace and that was it. 

      The Assassins speak of free will, but are initiated into a cult...Templars are people with resources initiated into a cult.

      They both are so much more alike than they think, which is why both of them are short term prospects and wrong.

      Complete Freedom = what the Joker(DC) does. 

      Complete Lawfullness = what the Batman(DC) does.

      and both sides have pros and cons...usually more cons than pro...

        Loading editor
    • To combine Free Will and Order.....now that is the perfect ideology. It is the only ideology with long term / full time benefits for the human race. Restricting the chaotic elements of Free Will + Individualism = the only way humanity can remain stable and united. 

        Loading editor
    • I disagree that either are actually cults, but I suppose that's rather subjective. I also think you seem to be harking back to the freedom vs. order dichotomy which is a false binary at the source of so many misinterpretations of both factions.

      In any case, I think you're diverging from the topic of the thread which isn't about whether either side is good or bad, but whether the Templars have ever been good, or whether the Templars are always bad in comparison to the Assassins, whether or not the Assassins are bad as well.

        Loading editor
    • But the Assassins have never actually advocated complete and absolute freedom. They fully understand that some form of government or authority should exist in order to make sure that things don't get chaotic. They did, after all, cooperate with rulers such as Richard I, Saladin, Lorenzo de' Medici, Caterina Sforza, Suleiman I, George Washington, etc.

      We even know of one Assassin Mentor, Yolande of Aragon, who ruled as Queen. The Assassins only oppose authority figures whom they consider to be corrupt. As Ezio told Cesare: "a true leader empowers the people he rules."

      The Assassins, in general, have never been full-on anarchists, with the only exceptions being extremists such as Jack the Ripper.

        Loading editor
    • The Wikia Editor wrote: Arno's exile is, in my opinion, a good indicator of how the Parisian Brotherhood differed from other contemporary Brotherhoods. The Colonial Brotherhood would have probably been far more approving, or at least less harsh, of Arno's actions. It should be noted that Arno was exiled primarily because he did not consult the Council before taking action, such as killing target without their permission, as well as the fact that they felt that he was primarily driven by revenge. The Parisian Brotherhood was far more controlling and reactionary, at least during the time of the French Revolution.

      Off-topic, but it's also important to note the different approaches different Assassins have towards vengeance and hatred. The Italian Brotherhood were patient with Ezio and seemed to treat it as a natural human emotion that needed to be overcome over time. Sure, Mario scolded Ezio for the fury he vented at Vieri's death and thought it was wrong, but he saw learning to move past that as a learning process. Later, Ezio noted that his teachers never gave him the "answers", but guided him to move past these wrongs over time. He learned to let go of revenge through experience. Shao Jun's Mentor Wang Yangming was a bit similar in that regard. He reminded her revenge was wrong but didn't hate her for it.

      On the other hand, Kang pretty much saw it as an unforgivable crime, abandoning Zhang Zhi for it. Kang is pretty similar to the stereotypical Jedi, who sees just being hateful and acting out of hate as evil. The Parisian Brotherhood didn't see one act of what appeared to be vengeance as the final straw, but they did have a stricter stance against it unlike the Italian Brotherhood. I think this may be because the Parisian Brotherhood were more orthodox and established, hence more rigid in their ways. They weren't radical like the Colonial Brotherhood, but they really left an impression on me that they were your typical high school teachers or college professors who aren't corrupt people, but have a harder time listening and understanding the younger people and are too quick to judge.

      You're right, the Colonial Brotherhood probably would have been far more approving, but it might've been because they didn't see vindictive methods as wrong to begin with. I mean it's not like Louis-Joseph got expelled for using excessive force and bombing the Homestead (seriously wth? -_-), and they probably did not mind Kesegowaase's punitive raids.

      Anyways, I think considering these differences is important because we're reminded that obviously, not all Assassins are the same.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:

      The Wikia Editor wrote: Arno's exile is, in my opinion, a good indicator of how the Parisian Brotherhood differed from other contemporary Brotherhoods. The Colonial Brotherhood would have probably been far more approving, or at least less harsh, of Arno's actions. It should be noted that Arno was exiled primarily because he did not consult the Council before taking action, such as killing target without their permission, as well as the fact that they felt that he was primarily driven by revenge. The Parisian Brotherhood was far more controlling and reactionary, at least during the time of the French Revolution.

      Off-topic, but it's also important to note the different approaches different Assassins have towards vengeance and hatred. The Italian Brotherhood were patient with Ezio and seemed to treat it as a natural human emotion that needed to be overcome over time. Sure, Mario scolded Ezio for the fury he vented at Vieri's death and thought it was wrong, but he saw learning to move past that as a learning process. Later, Ezio noted that his teachers never gave him the "answers", but guided him to move past these wrongs over time. He learned to let go of revenge through experience. Shao Jun's Mentor Wang Yangming was a bit similar in that regard. He reminded her revenge was wrong but didn't hate her for it.

      On the other hand, Kang pretty much saw it as an unforgivable crime, abandoning Zhang Zhi for it. Kang is pretty similar to the stereotypical Jedi, who sees just being hateful and acting out of hate as evil. The Parisian Brotherhood didn't see one act of what appeared to be vengeance as the final straw, but they did have a stricter stance against it unlike the Italian Brotherhood. I think this may be because the Parisian Brotherhood were more orthodox and established, hence more rigid in their ways. They weren't radical like the Colonial Brotherhood, but they really left an impression on me that they were your typical high school teachers or college professors who aren't corrupt people, but have a harder time listening and understanding the younger people and are too quick to judge.

      You're right, the Colonial Brotherhood probably would have been far more approving, but it might've been because they didn't see vindictive methods as wrong to begin with. I mean it's not like Louis-Joseph got expelled for using excessive force and bombing the Homestead (seriously wth? -_-), and they probably did not mind Kesegowaase's punitive raids.

      Anyways, I think considering these differences is important because we're reminded that obviously, not all Assassins are the same.

      To be fair, I mostly brought up the Parisian Brotherhood's conduct during the French Revolution as an example of how not all branches think alike. Another good example would be how at least one faction within the Spanish Brotherhood consisted of traditionalists who stil performed the finger removal ceremony and thought of love as something that the Creed forbade.

      To me, the Parisian Brotherhood came across as having operated comfortably for so long that they had trouble dealing with such a radical shakeup of the status quo as the French Revolution. The Colonial Brotherhood around that time had been rebuilt quite recently and would probably have been more accepting and patient with Arno's actions.

        Loading editor
    • Using Monroe as an example for the Assassins flaws is quite bad, considering the fact that he has no real understanding about this conflict or parenting or really anything about this world at all. He is just a very apathetic arnachist.

        Loading editor
    • Lord of Paradise wrote:
      considering the fact that he has no real understanding about this conflict or parenting or really anything about this world at all. He is just a very apathetic arnachist.

      I wouldn't call that a fact, having in mind that he really existed and was a Lieutenant-Coronel during the seven years war.

      In the game, he shows us that there are good people in the Templar Order. Christopher Gist also does that.

      I guess this is only your perspective of him.

        Loading editor
    • Cristophorus35 wrote:
      Lord of Paradise wrote:
      considering the fact that he has no real understanding about this conflict or parenting or really anything about this world at all. He is just a very apathetic arnachist.
      I wouldn't call that a fact, having in mind that he really existed and was a Lieutenant-Coronel during the seven years war.

      In the game, he shows us that there are good people in the Templar Order. Christopher Gist also does that.

      I guess this is only your perspective of him.

      I think Lord of Paradise was referring to Sebastian Monroe, not George Monro.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, really? *reads character's page* Holy cow X'D... Sorry :c

        Loading editor
    • I don't believe that either side are the good guys. Both are villains in their on right. Then again, it's because they're human. Who decides whether an action is good or evil? Personally, I can't really see myself as either an Assassin or Templar.

        Loading editor
    • The way Ubisoft writes them, Templars are usually the bad guys because the game needs one.  That said, because both sides are only human, whether somebody or some group is good or bad depends on who they are.

      Templars can be nice when they're focused on helping people be fed, healthy, prosperous, and content.  The best Templars want human beings to be happy and fulfilled, they just want to limit choice and control people to prevent crime and disorder.

      Assassins want freedom, but sometimes they can go to far, potentially allowing things like anarchy, crime, and poverty, and even doing very Templar-like things just to keep up with the Templars in the arms race between the two.  Universal warrantless surveillance, relying on organized crime for funding and recruiting (let's face it, law abiding average Joes probably don't have the skillset to be good Assassins, whereas lawless rogues like Edward Kenway are more likely to) killing anyone that gets in their way (including innocent guards who're just doing their job) and taking control of or heavily influencing corporations and governments...

      Sometimes I feel that Assassins and Templars are so similar in their methods (due to the reality of the logistics of gaining and maintaining money / power / resources) that the differences in their actual ideology are the only real point of contention, and that even those might be less different than either side might think.  It may be that the feud may continue more out of habit than anything else.  

        Loading editor
    • Arcsalvo wrote:
      The way Ubisoft writes them, Templars are usually the bad guys because the game needs one.  That said, because both sides are only human, whether somebody or some group is good or bad depends on who they are.

      Templars can be nice when they're focused on helping people be fed, healthy, prosperous, and content.  The best Templars want human beings to be happy and fulfilled, they just want to limit choice and control people to prevent crime and disorder.

      Assassins want freedom, but sometimes they can go to far, potentially allowing things like anarchy, crime, and poverty, and even doing very Templar-like things just to keep up with the Templars in the arms race between the two.  Universal warrantless surveillance, relying on organized crime for funding and recruiting (let's face it, law abiding average Joes probably don't have the skillset to be good Assassins, whereas lawless rogues like Edward Kenway are more likely to) killing anyone that gets in their way (including innocent guards who're just doing their job) and taking control of or heavily influencing corporations and governments...

      Sometimes I feel that Assassins and Templars are so similar in their methods (due to the reality of the logistics of gaining and maintaining money / power / resources) that the differences in their actual ideology are the only real point of contention, and that even those might be less different than either side might think.  It may be that the feud may continue more out of habit than anything else.  

      I would have to strongly disagree with you, and, not to be harsh, but I would hazard to say that this is a typical case of moderating a fictional faction's ideology so as to make it more presentable or potentially good if practiced well. Canonically, and without sugarcoating it, world domination is the very core feature of Templar beliefs, not the mere limiting of freedom and choice. You can say that this is the 'mission statement' of the Templars as an organization, so I think to say that the best Templars "only want to limit choice" is an understatement. Not to invoke no true Scotsman, but I think if we define a Templar by adherence to their mission statement, a Templar isn't just an individual whose political philosophy leans more towards authoritarianism, or else any typical conservative politician would be a Templar. Templars have a specific goal: and that is to create a new world order, a world government under their dominion. I suppose a "good" Templar would be one who can actually manage this world order without abusing his or her power and improve the quality of life of the people, but I've read many comments from fans online with the misconception that simply believing in the limiting of freedoms makes a Templar. It is not that simple. Even many Assassins believe in some limits to freedom, and there have also been Templars who are technically liberals who believe in democracy.

      And if Haytham is to go by as the archetypal Templar, then Templars are by and far political realists. Political realists are usually so obsessed with security and order that they neglect quality of life, happiness, and welfare of the people, treating them as elements that can be sacrificed for state security. Templars define world peace by security and stability. In contrast, the Assassins are fairly archetypal liberal internationalists, meaning that they believe that civil rights, quality of life, happiness, and social welfare should not be sacrificed for security and stability. Assassins define world peace not by mere security and stability, but fulfillness of individuals and social harmony, so I find your description that the best Templars only want humans to be happy and fulfilled to be quite dubious.

      As for the Assassins, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this above before as this is a long thread, and I haven't visited this in at least half a year, but I think that proper Assassin philosophy, when taken to the extreme dark end, doesn't manifest in anarchism but in vindictiveness and lack of constructive peace-building. That is, they are so preoccupied with eliminating dictators and enemies of human rights that they can neglect to foment a society based on their humanitarian values. Moreover, I think that the Assassins' aversion to power—because yes, my interpretation is that 'mainstream' Assassins have a dogma against cultivating political power—might also be an obstacle to constructive solutions for the world. But I do not think that the dark side of the Assassins is anarchism at all because Assassin norms is fundamentally opposed to extremism. An Assassin extremist who actually practices Assassin principles is more likely to conflate justice with vengeance than be someone who supports anarchy for freedom's sake. Note that I am not talking about Assassins like Achilles's disciples or Pierre Bellec because they are extremists who violated Assassin principles. I'm referring to when actual Assassin principles are actually practiced to an extreme.

      It is true that Assassins have recruited and managed organized crime (as have the Templars in equal measure from the looks of it), and Assassin methods sometimes tend to resemble that of the Templars. I disagree with your point in that I think questionable acts committed by the Assassins stem not from anarchism because that is not an extreme product of their philosophy, but vindictiveness (conflating justice with revenge and being willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve it) or moral nihilism.

      By the way, "universal warrantless surveillance" and "taking control over corporations and governments" are far more of Templar practices than Assassin practices, especially given Abstergo Industries. I'm wondering if you somehow switched the two factions around.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:
      Arcsalvo wrote:
      The way Ubisoft writes them, Templars are usually the bad guys because the game needs one.  That said, because both sides are only human, whether somebody or some group is good or bad depends on who they are.

      Templars can be nice when they're focused on helping people be fed, healthy, prosperous, and content.  The best Templars want human beings to be happy and fulfilled, they just want to limit choice and control people to prevent crime and disorder.

      Assassins want freedom, but sometimes they can go too far, potentially allowing things like anarchy, crime, and poverty, and even doing very Templar-like things just to keep up with the Templars in the arms race between the two.  Universal warrantless surveillance, relying on organized crime for funding and recruiting (let's face it, law-abiding average Joes probably don't have the skillset to be good Assassins, whereas lawless rogues like Edward Kenway are more likely to) killing anyone that gets in their way (including innocent guards who're just doing their job) and taking control of or heavily influencing corporations and governments...

      Sometimes I feel that Assassins and Templars are so similar in their methods (due to the reality of the logistics of gaining and maintaining money/ power/resources) that the differences in their actual ideology are the only real point of contention, and that even those might be less different than either side might think.  It may be that the feud may continue more out of habit than anything else.  

      I would have to strongly disagree with you, and, not to be harsh, but I would hazard to say that this is a typical case of moderating a fictional faction's ideology so as to make it more presentable or potentially good if practiced well. Canonically, and without sugarcoating it, world domination is the very core feature of Templar beliefs, not the mere limiting of freedom and choice. You can say that this is the 'mission statement' of the Templars as an organization, so I think to say that the best Templars "only want to limit choice" is an understatement. Not to invoke no true Scotsman, but I think if we define a Templar by adherence to their mission statement, a Templar isn't just an individual whose political philosophy leans more towards authoritarianism, or else any typical conservative politician would be a Templar. Templars have a specific goal: and that is to create a new world order, a world government under their dominion. I suppose a "good" Templar would be one who can actually manage this world order without abusing his or her power and improve the quality of life of the people, but I've read many comments from fans online with the misconception that simply believing in the limiting of freedoms make a Templar. It is not that simple. Even many Assassins believe in some limits to freedom, and there have also been Templars who are technically liberals who believe in democracy.

      And if Haytham is to go by as the archetypal Templar, then Templars are by and far political realists. Political realists are usually so obsessed with security and order that they neglect the quality of life, happiness, and welfare of the people, treating them as elements that can be sacrificed for state security. Templars define world peace by security and stability. In contrast, the Assassins are fairly archetypal liberal internationalists, meaning that they believe that civil rights, quality of life, happiness, and social welfare should not be sacrificed for security and stability. Assassins define world peace, not by mere security and stability, but fulfillment of individuals and social harmony, so I find your description that the best Templars only want humans to be happy and fulfilled to be quite dubious.

      As for the Assassins, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this above before as this is a long thread, and I haven't visited this in at least half a year, but I think that proper Assassin philosophy, when taken to the extreme dark end, doesn't manifest in anarchism but in vindictiveness and lack of constructive peace-building. That is, they are so preoccupied with eliminating dictators and enemies of human rights that they can neglect to foment a society based on their humanitarian values. Moreover, I think that the Assassins' aversion to power—because yes, my interpretation is that 'mainstream' Assassins have a dogma against cultivating political power—might also be an obstacle to constructive solutions for the world. But I do not think that the dark side of the Assassins is anarchism at all because Assassin norms is fundamentally opposed to extremism. An Assassin extremist who actually practices Assassin principles is more likely to conflate justice with vengeance than be someone who supports anarchy for freedom's sake. Note that I am not talking about Assassins like Achilles's disciples or Pierre Bellec because they are extremists who violated Assassin principles. I'm referring to when actual Assassin principles are actually practiced to an extreme.

      It is true that Assassins have recruited and managed organized crime (as have the Templars in equal measure from the looks of it), and Assassin methods sometimes tend to resemble that of the Templars. I disagree with your point in that I think questionable acts committed by the Assassins stem not from anarchism because that is not an extreme product of their philosophy, but vindictiveness (conflating justice with revenge and being willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve it) or moral nihilism.

      By the way, "universal warrantless surveillance" and "taking control over corporations and governments" are far more of Templar practices than Assassin practices, especially given Abstergo Industries. I'm wondering if you somehow switched the two factions around.

      Sol has managed to completely transfer all my thoughts and feelings into a well composed short essay. I was originally planning to compose a response but I found myself repeating many of his points and merely fortifying them rather than thinking of my own ideas. 

      So, to add to his arguments rather repeat them, I will say the following: the Assassins, as I have said before, are humanists... they promote existentialism. Think about the Creed and how that compares to real-world ideas. Every Assassin, even centuries apart, believes in the same thing. They believe in the freedom of others, they believe in the freedom of themselves. It is Free Will at its absoluteness. The Assassins believe that freedom is an invitation for contemplation, for introspection. Assassins such as Arno Dorian have said that the Creed is a warning, not an invitation for whims and desires. The Creed warns against choices and actions by inciting these words, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted." The Creed is about understanding that you are an agent of change, an agent of moral freedom and about understanding that despite things, your choices will define your life, for better or worse. I would say more, but I'm a humanist first and foremost and have little love for Templar ideology. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.