PDA

View Full Version : A change of heart



jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 01:03 PM
Templars,the force behind opression and corruption.or are they? You see we often get only 1 side of the spectrum,an impression that templars only look after there own power and reputation. Do they truly have a better vision of the world or are they deluded in their quest.is order and controle a more vast and desireble route for the world then Freedom?are they more realistic in mind then assassins are?do you follow the creed without questions or is the father of understanding a more robust believe? Yes we have seen the dark age of the order and yes templars are not your typical "go to people". But are assassins so different ? Are they so honnest and vast in their goal? Revenge has been a motivation for assassins for more then just one's,it results in a bold approach almost careless. We have seen assassins fallen to the corruption of POE and we have Seen Them killing innocent people. They often kill without wondering if it is the right thing to do.(Jacob). Can you look beyond the spectrum? Can you see yourself chosing the cross above the creed? Do you believe in a truce?

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 01:27 PM
Templars,the force behind opression and corruption.or are they? You see we often get only 1 side of the spectrum,an impression that templars only look after there own power and reputation.

I don't think we get any one side. The games objectively show the vast majority of Templars to be a pack of psychotic scumbags who had it not been for the Assassins would have destroyed the world several times in a row.


Do you believe in a truce?

Until the games clarify the Templars have different sides and show them to be complex (most of the times we are told that they are), then no truce can be possible. Good Templars need to be properly explained and clarified before they can have actual dramatic weight.

In the games, the Templars are not really coherent villains. They are just bad guys in the Pulp novel tradition. We are not meant to take them too seriously.

ze_topazio
11-19-2015, 02:18 PM
Just look at the dictatorships of the world, no matter how well intentioned the dictators might have been on their delusions, things always ended terrible for everybody.

Hans684
11-19-2015, 02:47 PM
Templars,the force behind opression and corruption.

Robert, Rodrigo, Cesare, Germain and Starrick.


or are they?

The other kind of Templar are Dedicated Templar Visionaries(in short Good Templars) who follows the Templar principles with full dedication, not petty reasons like power, money or fanatism like those above. They you're asking for is Ahmet, Haytham, Torres and the De la Serre family.


You see we often get only 1 side of the spectrum,an impression that templars only look after there own power and reputation.

That's a common misunderstanding of the Templar goals, as an example you have some Templars viewing the Assassins as Anarchist. It goes both ways.


Do they truly have a better vision of the world or are they deluded in their quest.

Depends on what kind of Templar they are, their goals, methods and if they actually live up to it or in some cases could have lived up to it if it wasn't for them being assassinated.


Is order and controle a more vast and desireble route for the world then Freedom?

Peace is the goal, misguided Templars thinks it's control. To the question itself, order is more consistent than freedom.


Are they more realistic in mind then assassins are?

The Templars are realists, the Assassins are naive.
The Templars are pessimists, the Assassins are optimists.
The Templars have no hope for humanity, the Assassins have hope for humanity.


Do you follow the creed without questions or is the father of understanding a more robust believe?

"Where other men blindly follows the truth, remember..." "...Nothing is true."
I don't blindly follow either side, who I follows the depends on what kind of Assassin and Templar they are, if they'd improve the world or doom it.


Yes we have seen the dark age of the order and yes templars are not your typical "go to people".

We've seen all kinds of Templars.


But are assassins so different ?

No.

Rashid ad-Din Sinan(Al Mualim), Abbas Sofian, Old Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Achilles Davenport, François Mackandal, Ageté, the French Brotherhood for getting Napoleon in power and Hamid.


Are they so honnest and vast in their goal?

Depends on if they live up to what they preach, if not and they actions prove otherwise. Then you get people like those above.


Can you look beyond the spectrum?

Always do.


Can you see yourself chosing the cross above the creed?

I'm not a fanatic nor a blind follower so I choose both.


Do you believe in a truce?

If Ubisoft had released a physical version of Haytham's letters dealing with the principles needed for a truce(based on both ideologies btw, complex stuff), then yes. Until then it's firing in the dark as all the principles isn't known. We can only base it on the attempts at truce we have.

cawatrooper9
11-19-2015, 03:40 PM
I don't think we get any one side. The games objectively show the vast majority of Templars to be a pack of psychotic scumbags who had it not been for the Assassins would have destroyed the world several times in a row.


I'm not so sure that's fair. For the most part, we've seen the Templars from the eyes of the Assassins. Sure, the Animus is objective (or, at least, it's supposed to be- we know that's not entirely true) but that still doesn't fix our perspective. For instance, consider using the Animus to relive the life of a Spanish conquistador. You'd see an enemy in the Aztecs, a group of people with a lifestyle that may not seem savory to you and an enemy that ridiculously outnumbers you. Of course, as we know, the Spanish were the aggressors in the conflict, and despite their numbers disadvantage they had far superior technology and the Aztecs tragically had to face plague as well. So, while such a game could easily play heavily on the sympathies of the Spanish (using La Noche Triste as a sort of "Remember the Alamo" situation), it goes against our general perception of history to feel this way.

In short, everybody typically views themselves as the "good guys"- few people that we recognize as villains think of themselves as such, even many serial killers. And, even an objective view of history can have a skew, if shown through the eyes of someone deeply ingrained in a system of beliefs... much like the Assassins...

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 04:58 PM
The other kind of Templar are Dedicated Templar Visionaries(in short Good Templars) who follows the Templar principles with full dedication, not petty reasons like power, money or fanatism like those above. They you're asking for is Ahmet, Haytham, Torres and the De la Serre family.

and yet some people view ALL templars as deluded madmen with no regard for anything but themselves.hence the remark about looking on both sides of the spectrum.



Depends on what kind of Templar they are, their goals, methods and if they actually live up to it or in some cases could have lived up to it if it wasn't for them being assassinated.

here we have it.most assassins don't get the fact that order can be used as good and would provide more stabiltiy.
i am convinced that if the TRUE templars got some of there ways,assassins would begin to see beyond there creed and understand that some templars might have good views for this world.
assassins seem to be to driven by there creed to be open to that idea.




Peace is the goal, misguided Templars thinks it's control. To the question itself, order is more consistent than freedom.

assassins are to stuborn to realize that.connor being the perfect example.
he's driven by justice and creed without gaining anything in the end.



We've seen all kinds of Templars.

and assassins.the TRUE templar goal is more vast and realistic to live up to while the assassins live up to a mere dream.



Rashid ad-Din Sinan(Al Mualim), Abbas Sofian, Old Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Achilles Davenport, François Mackandal, Ageté, the French Brotherhood for getting Napoleon in power and Hamid.

again proof that there goals makes people focus on dreams;resulting in delusion and frustration.


Depends on if they live up to what they preach, if not and they actions prove otherwise. Then you get people like those above.

resulting in more then 1 side of the spectrum and the brotherhood/order


I'm not a fanatic nor a blind follower so I choose both.

so do i but with a realistic view.

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 05:54 PM
I'm not so sure that's fair. For the most part, we've seen the Templars from the eyes of the Assassins. Sure, the Animus is objective (or, at least, it's supposed to be- we know that's not entirely true) but that still doesn't fix our perspective.

The fact is Rodrigo and Cesare Borgia were shown to be proto-fascists and they were this close to conquering Italy with the Apple in their possession. I am talking about the game version of Rodrigo and Cesare, not the real-life ones. If Ezio hadn't stopped them, the Renaissance would have been over before it truly expanded across Rome and Europe in the 1500s.

Likewise Haytham and Charles Lee wanted to convert America into a totalitarian dictatorship. The alternative of the Founding Fathers and their racist and expansionist political base is a sour choice for Connor but you cannot in any real rational sense defend Haytham and Charles Lee. If those guys had succeeded you wouldn't have such things as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, not one of which would have been established without George Washington. In Black Flag, the Templars want the Observatory for...reasons. In Syndicate, the Templars oppose the likes of Darwin, with David Brewster wanting to end his career and shunning him. Let's not discuss the time they tried to kill Copernicus and other important folks.

The few Templars who you can say has some ambiguity is Al Mualim, Prince Ahmet and probably Crawford Starrick. When Al Mualim says that he can use the Apple to end the Crusades and bring reason and the like, I can totally agree with that perspective. The AC1 Templars really challenged Altair as did Prince Ahmet who challenged Ezio. Like Garnier de Naplouse, Abul Nuqood, Talal...those guys I respect. Crawford Starrick, Pearl Attaway likewise have sound reasons for doing what they do even if I don't agree.

To show Templars as sympathetic, and it can be done, you need to acknowledge their worldview based on what we see before. You need to present an argument based on something we can recognize in real life without that, the Templars will always be one-note villains.

cawatrooper9
11-19-2015, 06:06 PM
The fact is Rodrigo and Cesare Borgia were shown to be proto-fascists and they were this close to conquering Italy with the Apple in their possession. I am talking about the game version of Rodrigo and Cesare, not the real-life ones. If Ezio hadn't stopped them, the Renaissance would have been over before it truly expanded across Rome and Europe in the 1500s.

I think we're all aware they're outliers.


Likewise Haytham and Charles Lee wanted to convert America into a totalitarian dictatorship. The alternative of the Founding Fathers and their racist and expansionist political base is a sour choice for Connor but you cannot in any real rational sense defend Haytham and Charles Lee. If those guys had succeeded you wouldn't have such things as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, not one of which would have been established without George Washington.
Careful now, let's not let American jingoism take hold. While those things might seem nice in theory, let's not forget that the beloved George Washington is responsible in part for the decimation of Connors village. Besides, the end of the game certainly doesn't paint that bright of a picture. I think you're being more than a bit optimistic here- the ambiguity was clearly intentional.


In Black Flag, the Templars want the Observatory for...reasons.
It's the classic Templar Freedom/Privacy vs. Prosperity/Safety debate. What the Templars are doing here is not necessarily wrong, nor is it necessarily right. We frankly don't know enough about what they're trying to do, really, other than get an advantage.


In Syndicate, the Templars oppose the likes of Darwin, with David Brewster wanting to end his career and shunning him. Let's not discuss the time they tried to kill Copernicus and other important folks.
Sure, and the Assassins have killed their fair share of historically significant people as well...


The few Templars who you can say has some ambiguity is Al Mualim, Prince Ahmet and probably Crawford Starrick. When Al Mualim says that he can use the Apple to end the Crusades and bring reason and the like, I can totally agree with that perspective. The AC1 Templars really challenged Altair as did Prince Ahmet who challenged Ezio. Like Garnier de Naplouse, Abul Nuqood, Talal...those guys I respect. Crawford Starrick, Pearl Attaway likewise have sound reasons for doing what they do even if I don't agree.

Sure, I'd agree that some of the Templars were more compelling than others (just as some Assassins are, as well). I'm not arguing for the Templars on an individual basis, but for the group and it's philosophy as a whole.



To show Templars as sympathetic, and it can be done, you need to acknowledge their worldview based on what we see before. You need to present an argument based on something we can recognize in real life without that, the Templars will always be one-note villains.
And you don't think that's been done?
The Templars are villains of the series, don't get me wrong. They have to be, because as I've described, we're playing as Assassins- they're pretty much always at odds. But to say that they're "one-note villains" is a joke, I can't even take that seriously.

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 06:53 PM
I think we're all aware they're outliers.

No True Scotsman...much.


Besides, the end of the game certainly doesn't paint that bright of a picture. I think you're being more than a bit optimistic here- the ambiguity was clearly intentional.

The point of AC3 isn't that Connor was wrong at all. The point is he gets no reward or validation. In AC1 and AC2, defeating the Templars brought you a certain reward or something. If you end AC1, you get to be the Boss of the Assassins and make changes, you get some achievement. In AC2, you defeat Templars you spread Renaissance across the world. In AC3, purely because of who Connor is, they couldn't create that same sense of achievement because it would be false, so Connor defeats the Templars but that doesn't change anything for him or give him what he wants. So it is ambiguous and ambivalent yes and that is intentional, but there's nothing ambiguous about Haytham and Charles Lee's "plan".


Sure, and the Assassins have killed their fair share of historically significant people as well...

Which ones? Which important scientist and artist did the Assassins kill?


And you don't think that's been done?
The Templars are villains of the series, don't get me wrong. They have to be, because as I've described, we're playing as Assassins- they're pretty much always at odds. But to say that they're "one-note villains" is a joke, I can't even take that seriously.

They are one-note villains because that is how they come across in the plots we see. ROGUE had to be ridiculously contrived to create good-guy Templars and even then it's forced and fake. To truly get inside the Templar philosophy you need to acknowledge that. Most fans refuse to confront what it is. The Templars believe in manipulation, they believe in order and they feel that force is justified for the greater good. That is the Templar philosophy. Stuff like the Boston Massacre, the death of a few civilians is justified if it leads to a better and brighter tomorrow. Those lives are an acceptable price for Haytham to pay (obviously without consulting these random people whose names he doesn't know). If you want to defend the Templar philosophy and truly explore it you need to start by defending an act of violence like that, visited on defenseless innocent people. This massacre was done by the Templars themselves, and by Haytham the Wise, not the "outlier" Templars like Borgia.

To truly explore the Templar philosophy you need to get your hands dirty, you need to say that yes some innocent people do have to die (even if it is someone I know/a friend/a family member) for the greater good. If you can't do that and if you pretend that the Templar idea is something other than what we see and hear in the games, that the Templar utopia that they keep talking about is worth ignoring all the actions they do to build that...if you continue to do that, you are being willfully ignorant.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 07:14 PM
to say that templars are the only bad guys is not fair at all. assassins are not real hero's either.
They're both self-righteous, self-absorbed, and aren't going to be solving anyone's problems as long as they're run by extremists (which they have been since their inception).

Complete population control means peace, but... who does the controlling, then? A few select individuals? How are they elected? By their wealth, their intelligence, their influence? We've seen that the Templars aren't incredibly good at working amongst themselves, because every Templar thinks that he or she is the super special unique snowflake that's better than everyone else and deserves to rule.

Complete free in the mind of the assassins will allow anyone to do anything, survival of the fittest. A meritocracy of anarchy. Those with the most intelligence, strength, and ferocity will eventually succeed. Sound familiar? That's human civilization. The winners will band into clans, the clans into tribes, the tribes into societies. They will make their own laws, their own governments, and eventually their beliefs will exist for so long that they become self-evident. But there is always social stratification. There will always be upper, middle, and lower class. And the upper class, inevitably, will do whatever it can to stay in power.having the freedom the assassins want is a mere dream and only the above will come from it.

Both Assassins and Templars want peace, but the extremists of both sides will cause the same endgame: a small elite ruling over the rest. The Templars want Precursor mind control to rule over humanity; the Assassins want human instinct (greed) to rule over humanity. The grunts on the street can talk about ideals and egalitarianism all they want, but in the end, humans are human.yet the the templars know the outcome of their believe while the assassin are to stuborn to realise the result of free will.

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 07:25 PM
to say that templars are the only bad guys is not fair at all. assassins are not real hero's either.

If we want to dicuss the Assassins then we need another thread since this is mainly about the Templars.

The Templars true philosophy says that innocent lives dying for the sake of utopia is fine, okay and justified. We see this practised by them and we hear it justified by them throughout the games, even by the "Good" Templars.

So if we want to discuss any "truce" or reconciliation, people need to address what the Templars actually do and believe. Not make some wish-fulfillment version based on headcannon.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 07:34 PM
for the record i created this thread with BOTH templars and assassin's in mind.

besides did you even bother to read my post about why neither side's should be deemed good or bad?because if you did then you would get some insight as of why the assassin and templars are BOTH wrong.you seem to write the assassins's off as rightfull people who would never cary out a horrendous act,BOTH sides are HEAVILY flawed and neither side is correct,but you seem to only blame templars for having a flawed believe and turning a blind eye to the assassin's believe.getting a truce seems impossible yes,but not only because of the templars.

cawatrooper9
11-19-2015, 07:45 PM
No True Scotsman...much.


No need to abuse that fallacy, I know you're better than that. I'm not saying that they aren't Templars- just that their actions reflect their own personal desires, rather than the Templars. Other Templar groups even recognized this as so! So no, this isn't a "No True Scotsman" situation at all.



The point of AC3 isn't that Connor was wrong at all. The point is he gets no reward or validation.
That's certainly one way to put it, but I wouldn't say that the state that he and many in the nation were left in was from lack of reward, but lack of basic human rights. The powers that he helped establish in the game ended up becoming oppressive, all the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," as The Who might say.


In AC1 and AC2, defeating the Templars brought you a certain reward or something. If you end AC1, you get to be the Boss of the Assassins and make changes, you get some achievement.
Well, after events that we transpire in Revelations, sure.



In AC2, you defeat Templars you spread Renaissance across the world.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this.



In AC3, purely because of who Connor is, they couldn't create that same sense of achievement because it would be false, so Connor defeats the Templars but that doesn't change anything for him or give him what he wants. So it is ambiguous and ambivalent yes and that is intentional, but there's nothing ambiguous about Haytham and Charles Lee's "plan".

How Connor is treated for who he is is an unfortunate (but, also unfortunately accurate) portrayal of how he'd be treated- but you're treating this as if it's the only possible variable in this. Don't forget, Al Mualim wasn't technically a Templar, and the Borgia had basically gone Rogue. The entire situation was completely different than anything that had happened in the games before.



Which ones? Which important scientist and artist did the Assassins kill?
Well, Brewster and Elliotson from Syndicate, for starters- and yes, they may not have been the most ethical of people, but neither is everyone that the Assassins help. As has been pointed out before, for instance, the Medici were hardly as noble as Ezio seemed to think. Again, this all revolved around to being able to see that these things aren't just black and white.




the death of a few civilians is justified if it leads to a better and brighter tomorrow.
That is the very thing that we've done as Assassins in every single game. Sure, the game doesn't recognize them as innocents, but they're not always soldiers or policemen that we're hunting- and when we do end up killing soldiers and policemen, they're often unfortunate casualties in a war that doesn't affect them (such as the guards in ACU and ACS, or ships in Black Flag). This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so infatuated with the Assassin ideology (as am I) that you can't see past it's glaring faults.

Look, I usually agree with you on points, and when I don't I enjoy at least hearing your perspective. But you and I disagree on a fundamental level here, and frankly I'm surprised- you're usually very open to ideas here, but you seem so shut off to the idea that the Templars might be more complex than the average gamer might think. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that you'd only plated the Ezio trilogy. I implore you, if you play through the series again, try to see past this narrow perception.

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 08:20 PM
That is the very thing that we've done as Assassins in every single game.

You are confusing civilians with guards and other Templars. The Assassins separate civilian casualties from their targets and the nature by which they operate, single-man operations and discreet assassinations doesn't allow for a great deal of collateral damage. Likewise, you need to make distinctions between actual policies and choices made by Templars (i.e. Plan Involves Directly Killing Civilians) and the unintended consequences of the Assassin's actions. Like Altair in AC1, by killing Garnier de Naplouse, definitely made life bad for the mentally ill people of the holy land and probably led to a few of them dying, but that was not something he intentionally set out to do, it was an unintended consequence. The Assassins have never deliberately attacked or killed civilians to fulfill their goals. The only time we see it happen is in AC1's first cutscene where Altair kills that worker and the rest of the game has him doing penance for that action. The Templars repeatedly do target civilians and commit war crimes.

I mean after all, when Assassins attack Templars they only attack them, they don't target their families and such. Ezio spared Lucrezia Borgia and another Borgia in the extended universe became an Assassin despite the feud between him and the Borgia. But then what does Prince Ahmet, one of the nicer non-Borgia Templars do? He kidnaps Ezio's girlfriend, an entirely innocent woman and then even when Ezio fulfills his ransom demand he decides to torment him by trying to kill her anyway, why...because "New-world-order"!!! So before making any comparison or equivalence between Assassins and Templars, these basic elements needs to be agreed on.


Sure, the game doesn't recognize them as innocents, but they're not always soldiers or policemen that we're hunting- and when we do end up killing soldiers and policemen, they're often unfortunate casualties in a war that doesn't affect them (such as the guards in ACU and ACS, or ships in Black Flag).

Well the fact is guards and soldiers are fair game especially the likes we see in earlier eras. They are not civilians, they are certainly not shown to be innocent nor can they be considered as such. In AC1, the guards we see in Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus routinely harass the civilians who Altair rescues in these Liberation missions, they oppress men, women and priests. In Brotherhood, the Borgia guards are shown committing atrocities repeatedly in the game. Like Ezio's first mission is about a guy who wants revenge after Borgia guards raped his wife and then killed her. The Borgia Towers, the fact that businesses thrive by killing them, shows that they are not good guys at all. And in the final mission, one of the guards kills a woman on Cesare's orders.

In AC3, most of the guards are racist towards Connor and the British in Boston and New York, as per liberation missions are being jerks. In Black Flag, well the British and Spanish Navies are entirely serving slaveowning empires so these guys are complicit in one of the greatest atrocities in history, so there's no point shedding tears whacking them in that time and place.


...but you seem so shut off to the idea that the Templars might be more complex than the average gamer might think.

The reason for that is that at the end of the day Assassin's Creed is not a very complex series in terms of moral grayness. It seems that way to average gamers in comparison to other franchises and individually there are sparks and moments but on the whole the games themselves don't sustain that level of complexity. In The Godfather you can bring that level of discussion because the story is that complex, same with something like Watchmen. AC is not in that same level but then no games really are.

As for the Templars, it's a fact that when people bring up the complexity of these Templars they talk of AC3 Templars, and even then it's Haytham rather than say Jonathan Pitcairn (along with George Monro, one of two Templars in the games, who is a genuinely nice person). The truly interesting and complex Templars are in AC1 and Syndicate, and after that you have some Templars who give good speeches like Prince Ahmet and Governor Torres, but who despite their likability are basically hypocrites and as such unworthy of respect. Nobody talks about the complexity of the Modern Day Templars, who are a bunch of psychopaths without exception. The Templars I like as characters, villains and in terms of viewpoints are: Talal, Garnier de Naplouse, Abul Nuqood, Jonathan Pitcairn, Thomas Hickey, George Monro, Pearl Attaway, Maxwell Roth and Crawford Starrick but nobody seems to discuss these guys.

Hans684
11-19-2015, 08:40 PM
And yet some people view ALL templars as deluded madmen with no regard for anything but themselves.hence the remark about looking on both sides of the spectrum.

That misunderstanding is cannon among Assassins in the series, take Mary Read. She says they want to control for the sake of control. To say all Templars are mustache twirling villains is outdated since the Revelations. Sydicate might return it it but it doesn't change what has been done.


Here we have it. Most assassins don't get the fact that order can be used as good and would provide more stabiltiy.

Because they don't follow the ideology, they oppose. To comprehend it can be used for good is like teaching a fish to climb. Connor is the only protagonist to see it the other way, he eded up regretting killing Haytham, William and Pitcarin while admitting Haytham's cold words were true. That only says much.


I am convinced that if the TRUE templars got some of there ways, assassins would begin to see beyond there creed and understand that some templars might have good views for this world.

No such thing. There are Corrupt Templars(money or power), Extremist Templars(fanatics mostly), Misguided Templars(those who belive control is the goal) and Dedicated Templar Visionaryies(Templars who live by the Templar princeples). Can't change history either so that can't happen, unless we can another one in an alternate reality.


Assassins seem to be to driven by there creed to be open to that idea.

They confuse freedom and peace, peace was the original goal until Altaïr changed it to freedom.


Connor being the perfect example. He's driven by justice and creed without gaining anything in the end.

Connor is an unlucky boy who gets manipulated, brainwashed and lied to by a fanatical Mentor wanting revenge and gets used like a prostitute by a corrupt slaver nation ruled by privileged cowards fighting for power for themselves(independence, not freedom).


And assassins.

I know, I just told you about them.


The TRUE templar goal is more vast and realistic to live up to while the Assassins live up to a mere dream.

The Templar goal is peace, doesn't matter if you preach paradise or control like Starrick(his plan isn't much to speak of either) if you only want power, to be at the top.


Again proof that there goals makes people focus on dreams;resulting in delusion and frustration.

Al Mualim wanted to enslave the Holy Land. Abbas is corrupt, power and his Brotherhood oppressed Masyaf. Old Ezio has slaughtered innocents. Achilles is corrupt, extremist, fanatical, power hungry(he wanted an Apple Of Eden). His brotherhood destroyed a city, attack and held native villages hostage, attacked surrendering soliders, attempted to poison the colonies with gas, Hope's gangs lead by Assassins oppressed, stole and killed innocents. And the Assassination contracts also targeted innocents. Mackandal's Brotherhood is considered a disgrace by Eseosa, his brotherhood tried to poision the colonies in Sait Dominique, destroyed a city and is known for being brutal. Ageté was part of Mackandal's brotherhood and did nearly nothing after his death. The French Brotherhood got Napoleon in power after he invaded Egypt and got the AOE along with crowning himself. Hamid abuses his deaf slave.

And the Assassins philosophy allow killing of innocents, if you use it as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power. Prime example, Achillies.


Resulting in more then 1 side of the spectrum and the brotherhood/order.

Something that's a good thing since it makes both sides, their ideologies and war more complex and gray.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 08:56 PM
That misunderstanding is cannon among Assassins in the series, take Mary Read. She says they want to control for the sake of control. To say all Templars are mustache twirling villains is outdated since the Revelations. Sydicate might return it it but it doesn't change what has been done.



Because they don't follow the ideology, they oppose. To comprehend it can be used for good is like teaching a fish to climb. Connor is the only protagonist to see it the other way, he eded up regretting killing Haytham, William and Pitcarin while admitting Haytham's cold words were true. That only says much.



No such thing. There are Corrupt Templars(money or power), Extremist Templars(fanatics mostly), Misguided Templars(those who belive control is the goal) and Dedicated Templar Visionaryies(Templars who live by the Templar princeples). Can't change history either so that can't happen, unless we can another one in an alternate reality.



They confuse freedom and peace, peace was the original goal until Altaïr changed it to freedom.



Connor is an unlucky boy who gets manipulated, brainwashed and lied to by a fanatical Mentor wanting revenge and gets used like a prostitute by a corrupt slaver nation ruled by privileged cowards fighting for power for themselves(independence, not freedom).



I know, I just told you about them.






Al Mualim wanted to enslave the Holy Land. Abbas is corrupt, power and his Brotherhood oppressed Masyaf. Old Ezio has slaughtered innocents. Achilles is corrupt, extremist, fanatical, power hungry(he wanted an Apple Of Eden). His brotherhood destroyed a city, attack and held native villages hostage, attacked surrendering soliders, attempted to poison the colonies with gas, Hope's gangs lead by Assassins oppressed, stole and killed innocents. And the Assassination contracts also targeted innocents. Mackandal's Brotherhood is considered a disgrace by Eseosa, his brotherhood tried to poision the colonies in Sait Dominique, destroyed a city and is known for being brutal. Ageté was part of Mackandal's brotherhood and did nearly nothing after his death. The French Brotherhood got Napoleon in power after he invaded Egypt and got the AOE along with crowning himself. Hamid abuses his deaf slave.

And the Assassins Creed allowing killing of innocents, if you use it as a policy of aggression ad unrestricted power. Prime example, Achillies.

the prime example as of why people should think twice before giving only templars the bad stamp.
BOTH sides have rotten apples,neither is better then the other.
BOTH fall under corruption and greed. yet you have people viewing the assassin's as the evergood of this series...

Hans684
11-19-2015, 08:58 PM
the prime example as of why people should think twice before giving only templars the bad stamp.
BOTH sides have rotten apples,neither is better then the other.
BOTH fall under corruption and greed. yet you have people viewing the assassin's as the evergood of this series...

Because the Assassins don't kill innocents, everything I just told you is non-canon.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 09:22 PM
Because the Assassins don't kill innocents, everything I just told you is non-canon.

please inform me how it's non-cannon.
we saw al mualim being corrupted by the apple in ac1
in revelations we saw the fall of abbas to the apple's power resulting in altair killing him aswell.(again they are prone to corruption)
in rogue we saw a very questionable brotherhood that despite what people want to see was careless in it's actions.
ezio did kill(not on purpose) innocent's in revelations by destroying the gunpowder to draw out Manuel Palaiologos.again a rather careless act.
all this happend in official games so again i don't know how it could be non-cannon

VestigialLlama4
11-19-2015, 09:27 PM
please inform me how it's non-cannon.
we saw al mualim being corrupted by the apple in ac1
in revelations we saw the fall of abbas to the apple's power resulting in altair killing him aswell.(again they are prone to corruption)
in rogue we saw a very questionable brotherhood that despite what people want to see was careless in it's actions.
ezio did kill(not on purpose) innocent's in revelations by destroying the gunpowder to draw out Manuel Palaiologos.
all this happend in official games so again i don't know it could be non-cannon

Point is, except for Abbas or Al Mualim (both of them explicitly identified as corrupt Assassins and killed and purged by the Assassins themselves), none of the other actions were deliberately targeting civilians the way Haytham's Boston Massacre was targetting them.

The Templars make actions that directly call for killing people to achieve goals. The Assassins don't do that. Recognizing this distinction is important in large scale history and war crime trials after all.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 09:39 PM
Point is, except for Abbas or Al Mualim (both of them explicitly identified as corrupt Assassins and killed and purged by the Assassins themselves), none of the other actions were deliberately targeting civilians the way Haytham's Boston Massacre was targetting them.

The Templars make actions that directly call for killing people to achieve goals. The Assassins don't do that. Recognizing this distinction is important in large scale history and war crime trials after all.

i'm not talking about killing innocent's only.
what i try to get across is that the brotherhood has been careless and prone to corruption aswell.much like templars are.
both ideals are flawed and NO ideal is entirely correct.
is one side worse then the other?sure! but that does NOT mean that the other side (in this case assassins) are flawless.
you can't point the finger at one side without admitting that the other isn't fully correct either.
that's what i try to say,i respect you but you must see trough the "harmless" facade the brotherhood has.

Hans684
11-19-2015, 09:41 PM
please inform me how it's non-cannon.

It's not.


we saw al mualim being corrupted by the apple in ac1

True.


in revelations we saw the fall of abbas to the apple's power resulting in altair killing him aswell.(again they are prone to corruption)


in rogue we saw a very questionable brotherhood that despite what people want to see was careless in it's actions.

They like many other brotherhoods I've just told you about directly targeted innocents, it's nothing new to the series.


ezio did kill(not on purpose) innocent's in revelations by destroying the gunpowder to draw out Manuel Palaiologos.again a rather careless act.

But he did in on purpose, he started the rebellion at the gate it get in to the arsenal and smoked to death the people of Cappadocia with the goal of killing a Templar. To say he did not know the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. Then again he's a "good guy" so all evil is excused.


all this happend in official games so again i don't know how it could be non-cannon

I'm just playing around, it's difficult to not do it when most ignore half the canon.

jellejackhammer
11-19-2015, 09:45 PM
I



They like many other brotherhoods I've just told you about directly targeted innocents, it's nothing new to the series.



But he did in on purpose, he started the rebellion at the gate it get in to the arsenal and smoked to death the people of Cappadocia with the goal of killing a Templar. To say he did not know the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. Then again he's a "good guy" so all evil is excused.



I'm just playing around, it's difficult to not do it when most ignore half the canon.
so we can finaly agree that both side are flawed ...

Hans684
11-19-2015, 10:05 PM
so we can finaly agree that both side are flawed ...

Yes they are, no matter how much the fanbase ignore it for their hero fantasies, it's wishful thinking.

cawatrooper9
11-19-2015, 10:38 PM
You are confusing civilians with guards and other Templars. The Assassins separate civilian casualties from their targets and the nature by which they operate, single-man operations and discreet assassinations doesn't allow for a great deal of collateral damage. Likewise, you need to make distinctions between actual policies and choices made by Templars (i.e. Plan Involves Directly Killing Civilians) and the unintended consequences of the Assassin's actions. Like Altair in AC1, by killing Garnier de Naplouse, definitely made life bad for the mentally ill people of the holy land and probably led to a few of them dying, but that was not something he intentionally set out to do, it was an unintended consequence. The Assassins have never deliberately attacked or killed civilians to fulfill their goals. The only time we see it happen is in AC1's first cutscene where Altair kills that worker and the rest of the game has him doing penance for that action. The Templars repeatedly do target civilians and commit war crimes.

I mean after all, when Assassins attack Templars they only attack them, they don't target their families and such. Ezio spared Lucrezia Borgia and another Borgia in the extended universe became an Assassin despite the feud between him and the Borgia. But then what does Prince Ahmet, one of the nicer non-Borgia Templars do? He kidnaps Ezio's girlfriend, an entirely innocent woman and then even when Ezio fulfills his ransom demand he decides to torment him by trying to kill her anyway, why...because "New-world-order"!!! So before making any comparison or equivalence between Assassins and Templars, these basic elements needs to be agreed on.


The fact remains that the Assassins are taking the lives that they deem necessary to succeed.

You're correct that the Assassins do not target loved ones, unless they are also Templars, but this is often true of the Templars as well. After all, Charles Lee did not kill Connor as a child.


Well the fact is guards and soldiers are fair game especially the likes we see in earlier eras. They are not civilians, they are certainly not shown to be innocent nor can they be considered as such. In AC1, the guards we see in Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus routinely harass the civilians who Altair rescues in these Liberation missions, they oppress men, women and priests. In Brotherhood, the Borgia guards are shown committing atrocities repeatedly in the game. Like Ezio's first mission is about a guy who wants revenge after Borgia guards raped his wife and then killed her. The Borgia Towers, the fact that businesses thrive by killing them, shows that they are not good guys at all. And in the final mission, one of the guards kills a woman on Cesare's orders.
Of course some of the guards are corrupt. That doesn't mean that the Assassins are justified in killing some random guy (who may well have a family) just because he spotted Ezio on a roof. I can assure that the Assassins don't know the moral bearing of every single guard they kill- it's rather indiscriminate, if you actually think about it.

I really don't want to get too political here, but this seems reminiscent of the current BLM movement. One criticism of the movement is that it is anti-police, but in my experience I've found that the protesters are generally just anti-police corruption. So, rather than waging a war against the police force, they'd rather just see justice be done. Again, not stating my opinion on the matter, and I have no desire to debate this with anyone. Just wanted to draw this parallel, since you seem to think that one's status as a guard (regardless of allegiance) makes them "fair game".



In AC3, most of the guards are racist towards Connor and the British in Boston and New York, as per liberation missions are being jerks. In Black Flag, well the British and Spanish Navies are entirely serving slaveowning empires so these guys are complicit in one of the greatest atrocities in history, so there's no point shedding tears whacking them in that time and place.

First of all, being a "jerk" isn't really grounds for execution. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.
Second- and hear me out- slavery was terrible. Absolutely terrible. But was Edward killing them because they were slaveowners? Or because he needed more metal and wood to upgrade his floating murder ship? :p



The reason for that is that at the end of the day Assassin's Creed is not a very complex series in terms of moral grayness. It seems that way to average gamers in comparison to other franchises and individually there are sparks and moments but on the whole the games themselves don't sustain that level of complexity. In The Godfather you can bring that level of discussion because the story is that complex, same with something like Watchmen. AC is not in that same level but then no games really are.

As for the Templars, it's a fact that when people bring up the complexity of these Templars they talk of AC3 Templars, and even then it's Haytham rather than say Jonathan Pitcairn (along with George Monro, one of two Templars in the games, who is a genuinely nice person). The truly interesting and complex Templars are in AC1 and Syndicate, and after that you have some Templars who give good speeches like Prince Ahmet and Governor Torres, but who despite their likability are basically hypocrites and as such unworthy of respect. Nobody talks about the complexity of the Modern Day Templars, who are a bunch of psychopaths without exception. The Templars I like as characters, villains and in terms of viewpoints are: Talal, Garnier de Naplouse, Abul Nuqood, Jonathan Pitcairn, Thomas Hickey, George Monro, Pearl Attaway, Maxwell Roth and Crawford Starrick but nobody seems to discuss these guys.
Again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm speaking specifically about Templar doctrine here, not about anyone in particular. I'm not saying "Haytham was right", or "Rodrigo wasn't really all that bad"- these are things that you just seem to assume, based on my argument. I'm merely stating that the Templars represent two sides of a coin, a Yin and a Yang I suppose. One is freedom, the other control (or variations thereof, depending on the era). The end goal remains consistent.

VestigialLlama4
11-20-2015, 04:20 AM
what i try to get across is that the brotherhood has been careless and prone to corruption aswell.
much like templars are.

No they are nothing like the Templars. The few times we see corrupt Assassins like Abbas, they are exceptions. The fact is the Templars who are non-corrupt like Haytham Kenway still order the murder of civilians. Calling for the deaths of civilians is standard operating procedure for the Templars regardless if its' Rodrigo Borgia or Haytham, but the very opposite is true of the Assassins.


is one side worse then the other?sure! but that does NOT mean that the other side (in this case assassins) are flawless.

That attitude is childishness itself. The Assassins don't have to be flawless, they make mistakes and their ideas and methods have weaknesses but that does not put them on the same level as the Templars. The heroes being flawed, having weaknesses and the like does not vindicate the villain in any way.


you can't point the finger at one side without admitting that the other isn't fully correct either.
that's what i try to say,i respect you but you must see trough the "harmless" facade the brotherhood has.

This isn't about the brotherhood being "harmless". The point is the games are not as complex as people are making out. The fact is that the Assassins and Templars we see and hear in the games themselves (which by the way is what truly matters...not the transmedia or any fan theory people make up) are clearly divided into Heroes and Villains. In the vast majority it's not really a gray conflict at all. The Templars, with select exceptions are a pack of psychos and scumbags. That's what is there in the game.

Yes the Templars could be more complex figures, like Syndicate points a direction where they can be used in interesting ways. And yes the conflict should be grayer than what we see in the games. But the fact is the games are themselves not deep enough to support this.

VestigialLlama4
11-20-2015, 04:57 AM
The fact remains that the Assassins are taking the lives that they deem necessary to succeed.

So...nobody is saying that the Assassins are "innocent" either.


Of course some of the guards are corrupt. That doesn't mean that the Assassins are justified in killing some random guy (who may well have a family) just because he spotted Ezio on a roof. I can assure that the Assassins don't know the moral bearing of every single guard they kill- it's rather indiscriminate, if you actually think about it.

Well that's assuming they kill all guards, when they can obviously evade them when they get spotted. The guards are a gray area as per the Animus, its not really clear if the Assassins do kill all of them or not, it's up to the player. Like in Black Flag, after you take over a fort you can non-lethally KO the commander in his office rather than kill them.


So, rather than waging a war against the police force, they'd rather just see justice be done. Again, not stating my opinion on the matter, and I have no desire to debate this with anyone. Just wanted to draw this parallel, since you seem to think that one's status as a guard (regardless of allegiance) makes them "fair game".
.... ....
But was Edward killing them because they were slaveowners? Or because he needed more metal and wood to upgrade his floating murder ship? :p


All I am saying is that these guards are not "innocent" and certainly not equivalent to civilians which is what people generally assume is the case. You can say that some of these guards are "Just following orders" but as certain events in the 20th Century showed, that is no longer an adequate or rational excuse that justifies serving a corrupt regime.


I'm merely stating that the Templars represent two sides of a coin, a Yin and a Yang I suppose. One is freedom, the other control (or variations thereof, depending on the era). The end goal remains consistent.

Well the main thing that needs to be asked of people who are utopian types (like Haytham and other Templars are) is if you can actually see glimpses of the perfect world order in any of their actions they take. Mostly they just do brutal deeds and then say as they are dying why they did what they did. The reason why the Templars are not really convincing in the game is that it's very rare that we get to see them vindicated or get glimpses of their order. The exceptions are maybe Garnier de Naplouse and the Syndicate Templars. If we can discuss them fine. It's just that some people think they are not the "true visionaries".

cawatrooper9
11-20-2015, 03:26 PM
So...nobody is saying that the Assassins are "innocent" either.

Well forgive me if I made that assumption. However, I'm not merely saying that they're "not innocent" but also a bit hypocritical.



Well that's assuming they kill all guards, when they can obviously evade them when they get spotted. The guards are a gray area as per the Animus, its not really clear if the Assassins do kill all of them or not, it's up to the player. Like in Black Flag, after you take over a fort you can non-lethally KO the commander in his office rather than kill them.

Of course, that's up to the player- but you'll notice how it doesn't cause desynchronization generally, so it's not out of the Assassins' character.



All I am saying is that these guards are not "innocent" and certainly not equivalent to civilians which is what people generally assume is the case. You can say that some of these guards are "Just following orders" but as certain events in the 20th Century showed, that is no longer an adequate or rational excuse that justifies serving a corrupt regime.

How do you know how "innocent" they are? Sure, they're not technically civilians, but they're not soldiers in a warzone, either. The worst that can be said for many guards is that they attack the Assassins when they see sometimes- but from their perspective, they're trying to take down a heavily armed person running across rooftops who may be associated with the deaths of several high profile individuals in the city (as well as many fellow guards). In a way, that makes them heroic protectors of the city, at least in intent.

At least the Batman had the decency to not kill the police.


Well the main thing that needs to be asked of people who are utopian types (like Haytham and other Templars are) is if you can actually see glimpses of the perfect world order in any of their actions they take. Mostly they just do brutal deeds and then say as they are dying why they did what they did. The reason why the Templars are not really convincing in the game is that it's very rare that we get to see them vindicated or get glimpses of their order. The exceptions are maybe Garnier de Naplouse and the Syndicate Templars. If we can discuss them fine. It's just that some people think they are not the "true visionaries".
Well, the same can be said for the Assassins, as well. When have we ever seen a perfect vision of their freedom go uncorrupted?

VestigialLlama4
11-20-2015, 03:44 PM
Well, the same can be said for the Assassins, as well. When have we ever seen a perfect vision of their freedom go uncorrupted?

You have several examples. You have Monteriggioni, you have Rome in Brotherhood, you have the Davenport Homestead.

The Assassins practise what they preach, they say that cultures, religions and languages are no barriers and we are all human and throughout the games we see Assassins of different nationalitiy and men and women, involved in all kinds of causes.

The Templars on the other hand are mostly rich, old, white dudes who talk benevolently of order where all will be equal but mostly don't show how they are going to practise it.

cawatrooper9
11-20-2015, 03:53 PM
You have several examples. You have Monteriggioni, you have Rome in Brotherhood, you have the Davenport Homestead.


And you think these went uncorrupted? Please. :rolleyes:


The Assassins practise what they preach, they say that cultures, religions and languages are no barriers and we are all human and throughout the games we see Assassins of different nationalitiy and men and women, involved in all kinds of causes.

The Templars on the other hand are mostly rich, old, white dudes who talk benevolently of order where all will be equal but mostly don't show how they are going to practise it.
Now you're getting into specifics again, my friend. I don't know how many times I have to tell you, I'm referring specifically to the philosophies of the two, not necessarily how they are in practice.

VestigialLlama4
11-20-2015, 04:02 PM
Now you're getting into specifics again, my friend. I don't know how many times I have to tell you, I'm referring specifically to the philosophies of the two, not necessarily how they are in practice.

To me it's the same thing, if you don't practise what you preach you might as well not preach because obviously you yourself don't believe in it.

cawatrooper9
11-20-2015, 04:20 PM
To me it's the same thing, if you don't practise what you preach you might as well not preach because obviously you yourself don't believe in it.

The Assassins and Templars.
Republicans and Democrats.
The Joker and Batman.
You and I in this discussion.


When you have two groups with inherently and fundamentally opposed views with neither side willing to give in, you're pretty much going to be stuck in a stalemate. I think that the failures of the Templars and the Assassins are both (in part, but heavily so) each due to the interference of the other. Both groups are politically motivated, and have the best intentions. You see the failings of the Templars, but ignore those of the Assassins. If I haven't made you see that by now, then I suppose nothing can remove that indoctrination.

I'm not sure even what you're arguing against at this point, to be honest. I'm not saying that I agree with the Templars. I'm not saying that the Templars are right. I'm not even saying that the Templars are better than the Assassins. I'm merely suggesting that there is some complexity to this issue, where you refuse to see it- and I'm sorry that you cannot see that.