• 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
    • 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.