PDA

View Full Version : Heroic Templars



GreatBeyonder
09-30-2012, 03:24 AM
I realize the series is called Assassin's Creed for a reason, but I would like to see positive Templar characterization. Some, like the original Templars and the ones in Revelations seem to have good intentions, but then they commit some atrocity that makes them a clear cut villain. I wouldn't mind a Templar character who was also something a hero.

Do they exist?

Assassin_M
09-30-2012, 03:25 AM
Copernicus ? But, Nah... Rodrigo wanted him killed, so...

But he was a Templar, though... holding on to his Belief until Rodrigo ordered a hit on him..

LoyalACFan
09-30-2012, 03:30 AM
I think Ercole Massimo is the closest we've gotten, despite his lack of backstory or effective characterization. He wanted to end all wars and create peace with whatever he found in the Pythagorean vault. He didn't really commit any "atrocities" other than kidnapping and interrogating Leonardo (and we've seen the Assassins participate in violent interrogations as well) but since Leo was one of the good guys, Ercole got offed pretty quick.

SteelCity999
09-30-2012, 03:36 AM
Some of the Templars had good intentions - sort of. Their end goal was peace but the methods they used to attain them were questionable. In some respects, the Borgia had a good idea by creating a united Italy in a time of unruly monarchs and dukes but their methods made them villians. Peace through absolute control.

NewBlade200
09-30-2012, 03:43 AM
I don't think they want you to think about killing nice people too much. It's a bit hard to side with the hero once the target adopts an orphan and talks Hitler out of WW2

DavisP92
09-30-2012, 03:44 AM
The majority of the templars in AC1 had good intentions (at least the ones i remember).

rileypoole1234
09-30-2012, 03:47 AM
I think all of the Templars have good intentions, they just go about things the wrong way.

Jexx21
09-30-2012, 05:09 AM
In a way, the Templar ideals make sense, creating peace through out the world through order. But since not everyone accepts order, they must use the apple to create very strong subliminal messaging, effectively controlling people. I don't believe that the Templars want to turn people into slaves, however.

The Assassins want to keep free will, they don't want people to follow the rules because they have to, but because they want to.

It's an anomaly though, if the Templars win, there'll probably be world peace; if they lose, world peace most likely won't be achieved.

It's kind of weird to think about.. how much of your personal freedoms would you give up to achieve Utopia? To be honest, in real life I probably couldn't choose a side.

TheDanteEX
09-30-2012, 06:04 AM
The problem with the Assassins' ideology is that they don't have seem to have a plan to create world peace. Instead of working towards a goal, they seem to be solely preventing the Templars from succeeding, maybe hoping peace will come about through the wisdom of man's progression or something like that? Keeping the world from becoming brainwashed is an achievement of course, but a world in which people live by the Assassin's philosophy sounds a lot more undisciplined. Even the popular "Nothing is true" saying was deemed cynical by Sofia.

However, it's understandable that nearly a millennium of war has turned the feud into more than just a difference in opinion. Not to mention each individual of the respective orders has their own set of beliefs.

there76
09-30-2012, 07:11 AM
The problem with the Assassins' ideology is that they don't have seem to have a plan to create world peace. Instead of working towards a goal, they seem to be solely preventing the Templars from succeeding, maybe hoping peace will come about through the wisdom of man's progression or something like that? Keeping the world from becoming brainwashed is an achievement of course, but a world in which people live by the Assassin's philosophy sounds a lot more undisciplined. Even the popular "Nothing is true" saying was deemed cynical by Sofia.

However, it's understandable that nearly a millennium of war has turned the feud into more than just a difference in opinion. Not to mention each individual of the respective orders has their own set of beliefs.

The fact that there is no plan for world peace is the entire point of the Assassins ideology. Having the assassins implementing a plan for world peace would go against there idea of free will. The assassins are fighting for a world where free will exists, and that world peace will come eventually through the will of the people. People should be able to choose their own futures, and not some organization like the Templars or Assassins.

LoyalACFan
09-30-2012, 07:38 AM
The fact that there is no plan for world peace is the entire point of the Assassins ideology. Having the assassins implementing a plan for world peace would go against there idea of free will. The assassins are fighting for a world where free will exists, and that world peace will come eventually through the will of the people. People should be able to choose their own futures, and not some organization like the Templars or Assassins.

Exactly. The Assassins are dedicated to ending tyranny with the belief that humanity, if freed from oppression and need, will naturally forge peace without the need for puppet masters behind the scenes.

GreatBeyonder
10-02-2012, 08:38 AM
They have no plan but to kill people. Terrific. :p

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-03-2012, 03:09 PM
"The Assassins are dedicated to ending tyranny with the belief that humanity if freed from oppression and need will naturally forge peace without the need for puppet masters behind the scenes". Okay, but for all the Templars' "evil deeds", "wrong ways", the majority of the ones doing the evil are the Assassins. Yeah, as the series has progressed, the Templars have become more black and white to suit the FICTIONAL story. But it's the Assassins who brutally murder people. It's the Assassins who think the only solution is to kill their enemies. Just looking back at AC1, does it not strike you as kind of ironic that the Templars are made out to be evil, yet Altair kills the, arguably, innocent people he interrogates? The Assassins hold the idea that if left to their own devices, people will naturally be peaceful, that the only reason there's war and corruption and evil is that the Templars exist. OK. People naturally clash and conflict, fight against each other, and don't get along. Sorry, but anarchy doesn't work. There has to be some order. And there has to be some kind of guideline that establishes this peace. Of course, there will never be world peace. I could get on a religious, Christian soapbox but I won't. Needless to say, there's nothing wrong with wanting order. And, without a peaceful religion or something like that which provides a foundation for the way people live, the only other way to peace is to control most aspects of peoples' lives. That's why there are so many people who are religious, whatever religion. Because it provides a foundation. For atheists, some fundamental set of beliefs provides a foundation. Without a foundation that promotes peace, you won't have that. And, if one, outside of religion, wants to have universal world peace, then you'd have to have some kind of order and control, not necessarily for the peaceful people, but for those who would disrupt that peace. So, while the Assassins make for good video game protagonists in a game about killing, in the real world, the Templar way is the better way, the more practical way, and the more attainable way. While the real modern-day Assassins would be your anarchists or your terrorists. I bet most of you would not support the Assassins if they existed in real life.

SteelCity999
10-03-2012, 03:41 PM
While the real modern-day Assassins would be your anarchists or your terrorists. I bet most of you would not support the Assassins if they existed in real life.

This is probably the worst analogy you could come up with. Terrorists use terror against leaders and innocent civilians to affect change in everyone else towards their beliefs or to just plain kill those that do not believe in what they do. There is nothing anti-control about them. They are all about control and fear - just like the Templars but in a different way. Anarchy is no means of control which is not what the Assassins are about either.

By what you are saying, you are implying that all of the radical terrorist groups in some way resemble the Assassins in this game - which is not true - nor does it reflect the ideals behind the Assassins in the game.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 03:49 PM
Blablablablabla...

You people should join the army or something.
But please don't ruin my favorite franchise :).

Go play your war games and fight all these evil terrorists.
Be scared of them....they will **** your life up....you're not safe here anymore! RUN !!!!!!!





Ah well, ignorance is bliss...
*sigh*

GreatBeyonder
10-03-2012, 05:32 PM
This is probably the worst analogy you could come up with. Terrorists use terror against leaders and innocent civilians to affect change in everyone else towards their beliefs or to just plain kill those that do not believe in what they do. There is nothing anti-control about them. They are all about control and fear - just like the Templars but in a different way. Anarchy is no means of control which is not what the Assassins are about either.

By what you are saying, you are implying that all of the radical terrorist groups in some way resemble the Assassins in this game - which is not true - nor does it reflect the ideals behind the Assassins in the game.

Mr. Fleming has a point. The only distinction between Assassins and real terrorist groups is that the AC writers try to give you unsympahetic characters to kill, and if they were indeed good people in real life, then pretend they murdered your family or were involved in some whacky consouracy to rule the world in order to sooth the gamer's conscience. If you're going to play a game where you kill people for a political ideology, then you kind of have to roll with it.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-03-2012, 05:56 PM
This is probably the worst analogy you could come up with. Terrorists use terror against leaders and innocent civilians to affect change in everyone else towards their beliefs or to just plain kill those that do not believe in what they do. There is nothing anti-control about them. They are all about control and fear - just like the Templars but in a different way. Anarchy is no means of control which is not what the Assassins are about either.

By what you are saying, you are implying that all of the radical terrorist groups in some way resemble the Assassins in this game - which is not true - nor does it reflect the ideals behind the Assassins in the game.

So then explain to me just how "noble" or good it is to just kill off those you believe to be evil? Because the bottom line with the Assassins is this: If the person is a Templar, then kill him. Show me in REAL history, not AC fictional history (which, yes, is fiction) where assassinations actually were a good thing. Of some of the more well known ones - Julius Caesar, Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, MLK, etc (the last 3 being more modern examples) - those were considered not only bad by the public but weren't at all helpful. In the AC history, the first is done by assassins, but the last 3 are done by Templars. Bull. The templars don't assassinate. Just give me an example where, in the real world, assassinations are looked upon with favor. An assassination is generally something that is frowned upon. Now, sure, real-life Assassins wouldn't go blow up a group of civilians. But they'd be the ones strapping bombs to cars and blowing up "evil" diplomats, in a visible manner so that everyone could see the death of the individual (which, by the way, is the way that the assassinations are carried out). Tell me that's not like what terrorists do in the Middle East and other nations, where they blow up people they don't like. Sure, we like to believe that the protagonists would be heroes in the real world, but they wouldn't be.

And, I guess, the only reason it bothers me that the AC franchise is so black and white, good and evil, instead of being a gray area, is because it's something that should be a gray area. And it's really sad when you have people on Youtube (and, honestly, being on Youtube doesn't make anyone dumber than if they were on here) thinking that the AC fictional history is real. For all the "this is the history that matters", it's not plausible. With the main goal of the Templars (to bring about peace through order, security, stability, control - because people are basically a mob), nothing in that goal says that this control has to come through fear, that this order has to come through tyranny. The goal itself is a good goal, and something that actually works in the real world - hence why you have governments that have laws. So with a goal like that, YES, you could have a "heroic" Templar. You could have a Templar who is like Connor, who has a sense of justice.

And, honestly, the problem with the Templars in the Assassin's Creed franchise is that, while their goal is to bring peace through order and control, the Templars that Ezio, and most likely Connor, fight aren't about bringing peace through order and control. They only want power. That's a deviation from what the Templars are supposed to stand for. While the characterization of the heroes in the franchise has improved, with more developed characters, the characterization of the Templars has gotten worse. The story and message of the story would be much more interesting if the story were a gray area, and the line between good and evil was blurred.

Oh, and De Filosoof, I am in the US Army. And, no, I don't want terrorists appearing up in Assassin's Creed. I don't think that the Assassins should be terrorists in the game. I think that the Assassins should have the mindset that the only solution is killing people they don't agree with. And I think the Templars should actually follow what they believe and not be just power hungry villains. They say they want peace through order, then THAT is what they should be after, regardless of what power or how much power they have.

And I think the dumbest thing the franchise has done is to make people who are still alive out to be evil. And not only people who are alive. People in the last 100 years. The game shouldn't have said that Churchill and Roosevelt were Templars. It shouldn't have taken political sides by saying that the 2000 US election was a Templar plot. Because when they did that, then you get the sense that this game is just meant to be a medium for liberal propaganda. When the focus should have been on Assassins vs Templars.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 06:19 PM
Oh, and De Filosoof, I am in the US Army.


Aaah, that explains a lot :).
Thanks for informing me!

Oh, and do you realize you're actually fighting for terrorists yourself? The terrorists in the white house and pentagon?

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?...
Aaaah the irony :).

freddie_1897
10-03-2012, 06:24 PM
there are quite a few people here who are in the army. quite surprising really.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 06:31 PM
there are quite a few people here who are in the army. quite surprising really.

Indeed. But we can't really blame them for their ignorance, they've been conditioned to serve "their" country.
Maybe they will open their eyes one day like this veteran.

SteelCity999
10-03-2012, 06:49 PM
So then explain to me just how "noble" or good it is to just kill off those you believe to be evil? Because the bottom line with the Assassins is this: If the person is a Templar, then kill him. Show me in REAL history, not AC fictional history (which, yes, is fiction) where assassinations actually were a good thing. Of some of the more well known ones - Julius Caesar, Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, MLK, etc (the last 3 being more modern examples) - those were considered not only bad by the public but weren't at all helpful. In the AC history, the first is done by assassins, but the last 3 are done by Templars. Bull. The templars don't assassinate. Just give me an example where, in the real world, assassinations are looked upon with favor. An assassination is generally something that is frowned upon. Now, sure, real-life Assassins wouldn't go blow up a group of civilians. But they'd be the ones strapping bombs to cars and blowing up "evil" diplomats, in a visible manner so that everyone could see the death of the individual (which, by the way, is the way that the assassinations are carried out). Tell me that's not like what terrorists do in the Middle East and other nations, where they blow up people they don't like. Sure, we like to believe that the protagonists would be heroes in the real world, but they wouldn't be.

And, I guess, the only reason it bothers me that the AC franchise is so black and white, good and evil, instead of being a gray area, is because it's something that should be a gray area. And it's really sad when you have people on Youtube (and, honestly, being on Youtube doesn't make anyone dumber than if they were on here) thinking that the AC fictional history is real. For all the "this is the history that matters", it's not plausible. With the main goal of the Templars (to bring about peace through order, security, stability, control - because people are basically a mob), nothing in that goal says that this control has to come through fear, that this order has to come through tyranny. The goal itself is a good goal, and something that actually works in the real world - hence why you have governments that have laws. So with a goal like that, YES, you could have a "heroic" Templar. You could have a Templar who is like Connor, who has a sense of justice.

And, honestly, the problem with the Templars in the Assassin's Creed franchise is that, while their goal is to bring peace through order and control, the Templars that Ezio, and most likely Connor, fight aren't about bringing peace through order and control. They only want power. That's a deviation from what the Templars are supposed to stand for. While the characterization of the heroes in the franchise has improved, with more developed characters, the characterization of the Templars has gotten worse. The story and message of the story would be much more interesting if the story were a gray area, and the line between good and evil was blurred.

Oh, and De Filosoof, I am in the US Army. And, no, I don't want terrorists appearing up in Assassin's Creed. I don't think that the Assassins should be terrorists in the game. I think that the Assassins should have the mindset that the only solution is killing people they don't agree with. And I think the Templars should actually follow what they believe and not be just power hungry villains. They say they want peace through order, then THAT is what they should be after, regardless of what power or how much power they have.

And I think the dumbest thing the franchise has done is to make people who are still alive out to be evil. And not only people who are alive. People in the last 100 years. The game shouldn't have said that Churchill and Roosevelt were Templars. It shouldn't have taken political sides by saying that the 2000 US election was a Templar plot. Because when they did that, then you get the sense that this game is just meant to be a medium for liberal propaganda. When the focus should have been on Assassins vs Templars.

Look up the definitions for terrorist and assassin. They are two different items altogether. That's not to say an assassin can't be a terrorist, or vice versa. BUT by going with your examples and definitions, all sovereign states that have secretly put hits out on others are terrorists. You can't use definitions interchangeably to suit your point.

I'm not arguing one is more justified than the other but you can't rationally group people together as a whole because of generalizations. The original Syrian Assassins the game is based on were not by definition terrorists.

freddie_1897
10-03-2012, 06:51 PM
and lets face it. things like 9/11 weren't very... subtle. its not really like the assassins to do that. they wouldn't blow up two towers killing thousands of innocents just to kill one man

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-03-2012, 06:58 PM
Indeed. But we can't really blame them for their ignorance, they've been conditioned to serve "their" country.
Maybe they will open their eyes one day like this veteran.



Not ignorance. This discussion has nothing to do with the United States. Terrorism is wrong, period. That's not something that I'm conditioned to believe.

Sure, governments order hits on people. But I find issue with a group that is supposedly good but whose only solution is violence against those they disagree with. I just don't see that as good when compared to the Templars. And I see terrorists among those who would consider killing their enemies their first and only solution to their problems. And that's why I wish there'd be more of a gray area between the Assassins and the Templars. In the games, you see the Templars being cruel, some of them killing, most of them doing things like stealing from people. Yet the Assassins main purpose, as Assassins, is to kill. I just don't think it should be a clear cut "Assassins are good, Templars are evil". And, contrary to what Ubisoft may say about the Assassins and the Templars, that's how it plays out in their games.

freddie_1897
10-03-2012, 07:02 PM
one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

most terrorism is wrong, but it depends on who your terrorising and what the cause is. Nelson Mandela was technically a terrorist but he had just views that people agreed with. would you say that he was wrong? his terrorism freed the blacks from decades of mistreatment.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 07:03 PM
and lets face it. things like 9/11 weren't very... subtle. its not really like the assassins to do that. they wouldn't blow up two towers killing thousands of innocents just to kill one man



Here's a very interesting documentary/lecture about 9/11.
It's up to you to watch it or not, but it has some very informative stuff in it nonetheless :).

The world opperates a little more complex than most people think.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 07:20 PM
Not ignorance. This discussion has nothing to do with the United States. Terrorism is wrong, period. That's not something that I'm conditioned to believe.

Sure, governments order hits on people. But I find issue with a group that is supposedly good but whose only solution is violence against those they disagree with. I just don't see that as good when compared to the Templars. And I see terrorists among those who would consider killing their enemies their first and only solution to their problems. And that's why I wish there'd be more of a gray area between the Assassins and the Templars. In the games, you see the Templars being cruel, some of them killing, most of them doing things like stealing from people. Yet the Assassins main purpose, as Assassins, is to kill. I just don't think it should be a clear cut "Assassins are good, Templars are evil". And, contrary to what Ubisoft may say about the Assassins and the Templars, that's how it plays out in their games.

Well, they never actually tried to portray the assassins realistically like they are/were in real life. Just like templars aren't here anymore in real life but they portray a certain modern-day group of people who are very real.
It's a nice creative mixture between fiction and non-fiction for the creators to show people their vision on the world.
You shouldn't take the whole assassin/templar stuff too seriously.
It's the message behind it that's important.

words from Jeffrey Yohalem in an interview about AC:

ACII had the Glyphs which provided background material on how the Templars have manipulated history. Brotherhoodhas the Clusters, which took the conspiracy to modern day: the Bush administration, deepwater horizon oil spill (http://www.fastcompany.com/1703753/hardcore-history-and-modern-conspiracy-behind-scenes-writer-assassins-creed-brotherhood#), and the Supreme Court ruling on corporate donations for elections are all featured.
I wanted to speak about now. I'd never really seen a game do that, really bring the real world into the game. Photos from the Internet taken this year in reality. As creators, I feel it is our duty to say something to players, to engage in a conversation about our world. I believe that today's world is being hijacked by selfish agendas and many politicians/corporations believe that people can be convinced to do anything through propaganda and advertising. One of the major themes of Assassin's Creed has always been to encourage players to think, to see the truth rather than sit back passively and allow others to control them. I wanted to bring that discussion into people's living rooms.

The clusters infer that corporations have too much power in the America. And the story with the Borgias infer that religion can be destructive. Would you consider the game activist?
It really has to do with the Assassin philosophy: to allow people to look at the world around them in a new way and question it, to give them the freedom to choose. A lot of times in life, others want us to just do something for their own reasons, without questioning it. We try to encourage people to ask "Why?"

Mr_Shade
10-03-2012, 07:24 PM
Guys....


Lets drop the highly emotive political stuff..


If you can't discuss the topic without starting heated discussions about real world terrorist attacks then I'm locking the thread.

There are people who are still affected by the real world attacks - so it has no place on a game forum..


These forums are rated E for everyone - so no political stuff please...

end of.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 07:30 PM
Guys....


Lets drop the highly emotive political stuff..


If you can't discuss the topic without starting heated discussions about real world terrorist attacks then I'm locking the thread.

There are people who are still affected by the real world attacks - so it has no place on a game forum..


These forums are rated E for everyone - so no political stuff please...

end of.

Political? It's a lecture about 9/11 with scientists, experts from the construction industry etc.
Why censor it?

Jxspyder
10-03-2012, 07:37 PM
Gonna split this up some.


So then explain to me just how "noble" or good it is to just kill off those you believe to be evil? Because the bottom line with the Assassins is this: If the person is a Templar, then kill him. Show me in REAL history, not AC fictional history (which, yes, is fiction) where assassinations actually were a good thing. Of some of the more well known ones - Julius Caesar, Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, MLK, etc (the last 3 being more modern examples) - those were considered not only bad by the public but weren't at all helpful. In the AC history, the first is done by assassins, but the last 3 are done by Templars. Bull. The templars don't assassinate. Just give me an example where, in the real world, assassinations are looked upon with favor. An assassination is generally something that is frowned upon. Now, sure, real-life Assassins wouldn't go blow up a group of civilians. But they'd be the ones strapping bombs to cars and blowing up "evil" diplomats, in a visible manner so that everyone could see the death of the individual (which, by the way, is the way that the assassinations are carried out). Tell me that's not like what terrorists do in the Middle East and other nations, where they blow up people they don't like. Sure, we like to believe that the protagonists would be heroes in the real world, but they wouldn't be.
The problem is that you're making an absolute case that, quite simply, isn't absolute. You can't use fiction to justify real life. And you can't discard bits and pieces of the fiction that you don't like. If the fiction says that there were 3 assassinations perpetrated by the Templars, than guess what....the Templars do indeed believe in assassination. Hell, AC 2 makes this absolutely clear even without the Subject 16 content.

Also, just no. There was no rule that "if you were a Templar, you were dead." If that was the case, Maria Thorpe would not have survived.

And after that, you're still pretty much absolutely not even remotely correct. Go kill a civilian in any of the AC games....1/2/Brotherhood/Revelations....and I'm absolutely positive that 3 will follow suit. Then come back and tell us what it says when you kill that civilian. Oh, that's right....Assassins don't kill civilians. The Templar's, however, seem to have no problem whatsoever with it. Innocent civilians, women, children....I'm more than happy to compare the numbers with you, if you'd like.


And, I guess, the only reason it bothers me that the AC franchise is so black and white, good and evil, instead of being a gray area, is because it's something that should be a gray area. And it's really sad when you have people on Youtube (and, honestly, being on Youtube doesn't make anyone dumber than if they were on here) thinking that the AC fictional history is real. For all the "this is the history that matters", it's not plausible. With the main goal of the Templars (to bring about peace through order, security, stability, control - because people are basically a mob), nothing in that goal says that this control has to come through fear, that this order has to come through tyranny. The goal itself is a good goal, and something that actually works in the real world - hence why you have governments that have laws. So with a goal like that, YES, you could have a "heroic" Templar. You could have a Templar who is like Connor, who has a sense of justice.
No, it really shouldn't. Because it's not meant to be a gray area story. The fact that some people are stupid shouldn't cause Ubisoft to change their game.

And I'd absolutely disagree that the main goal of the Templars is even remotely good. Their main goal is absolute power for a ruling elite over all others. And is instigated through murder, fear, and control....very bad things that violate basic human rights. And this has been the theme of AC since the very beginning. Look at the targets you assassinated in the first game. A murderer, a slave trader, a man who "experiments" on innocent victims who were kidnapped, and another murderer who felt those who were poor were the cause of the wrong in the world. And that's just the first 4 targets from AC1.

Also, again no. You absolutely couldn't have a Templar who is like Connor, unless it's one of the few who were lied to and deceived into believing what they were doing actually was for a greater good for all. Which in the games, is very rare. Most know exactly what they're doing......gaining power unto themselves and their organization through theft, intimidation torture, and murder.


And, honestly, the problem with the Templars in the Assassin's Creed franchise is that, while their goal is to bring peace through order and control, the Templars that Ezio, and most likely Connor, fight aren't about bringing peace through order and control. They only want power. That's a deviation from what the Templars are supposed to stand for. While the characterization of the heroes in the franchise has improved, with more developed characters, the characterization of the Templars has gotten worse. The story and message of the story would be much more interesting if the story were a gray area, and the line between good and evil was blurred.
And now you're making that same mistake that you earlier called people out for being stupid for. Go back up to the last paragraph you wrote, and reread how people who believe that the fictional history of the game is actually true are stupid. Then take two seconds to reread above, where you're doing the same thing....thereby calling yourself out for being stupid. The Templars in the game's story are exactly like the Templars that Ezio, Altair, Connor, and Desmond are fighting against. Because that's the way the game's fictional storyline goes. The Templars in this fictional story is a group that is trying to control the world in a bid to take absolute power. They aren't the Knights Templar. They aren't the Gnostic Templars. They are the fictional Templar Order of Assassin's Creed.

And again, no, the portrayal hasn't gotten worse. It actually hasn't really changed that much, if at all. Other than a fleshing out of what the Templar order in AC means, stands for, and what they're trying to do, nothing has changed. Certainly not their motivations or beliefs.


Oh, and De Filosoof, I am in the US Army. And, no, I don't want terrorists appearing up in Assassin's Creed. I don't think that the Assassins should be terrorists in the game. I think that the Assassins should have the mindset that the only solution is killing people they don't agree with. And I think the Templars should actually follow what they believe and not be just power hungry villains. They say they want peace through order, then THAT is what they should be after, regardless of what power or how much power they have.
I'm an Army veteran, not that it matters. The Assassin's Order aren't terrorists. If any organization could have that label, and be compared to common day terrorists, it'd be the Templar Order. And if the Templar Order actually followed through on what they say, there likely wouldn't be a story to play. Intentions, especially intentions that aren't even real, are useless when compared to actions.


And I think the dumbest thing the franchise has done is to make people who are still alive out to be evil. And not only people who are alive. People in the last 100 years. The game shouldn't have said that Churchill and Roosevelt were Templars. It shouldn't have taken political sides by saying that the 2000 US election was a Templar plot. Because when they did that, then you get the sense that this game is just meant to be a medium for liberal propaganda. When the focus should have been on Assassins vs Templars.
It's not dumb at all. It's building a fictional alternate universe by utilizing things that people can connect to. Which is why there's that warning that pops up before the game launches, telling you that the contents of the game are a work of fiction.

Mr_Shade
10-03-2012, 07:40 PM
Political? It's a lecture about 9/11 with scientists, experts from the construction industry etc.
Why censor it?It's a highly personal event to many, and even though it may be an insightful documentary - it's highly likely to start provoking political / social discussion concerning the events leading unto to and after 9/11and not really suitable for these forums, nor are comments dismissing certain peoples choices to join fighting forces around the world.

Which has started already...

These forums are not a place for it - no matter how certain people feel about freedom of speech - these forums are not the place for any agenda's.

Assassin_M
10-03-2012, 07:42 PM
This thread is weird..

Full of bias and some strange thought...

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-03-2012, 07:47 PM
Gonna split this up some.


The problem is that you're making an absolute case that, quite simply, isn't absolute. You can't use fiction to justify real life. And you can't discard bits and pieces of the fiction that you don't like. If the fiction says that there were 3 assassinations perpetrated by the Templars, than guess what....the Templars do indeed believe in assassination. Hell, AC 2 makes this absolutely clear even without the Subject 16 content.

Also, just no. There was no rule that "if you were a Templar, you were dead." If that was the case, Maria Thorpe would not have survived.

And after that, you're still pretty much absolutely not even remotely correct. Go kill a civilian in any of the AC games....1/2/Brotherhood/Revelations....and I'm absolutely positive that 3 will follow suit. Then come back and tell us what it says when you kill that civilian. Oh, that's right....Assassins don't kill civilians. The Templar's, however, seem to have no problem whatsoever with it. Innocent civilians, women, children....I'm more than happy to compare the numbers with you, if you'd like.


No, it really shouldn't. Because it's not meant to be a gray area story. The fact that some people are stupid shouldn't cause Ubisoft to change their game.

And I'd absolutely disagree that the main goal of the Templars is even remotely good. Their main goal is absolute power for a ruling elite over all others. And is instigated through murder, fear, and control....very bad things that violate basic human rights. And this has been the theme of AC since the very beginning. Look at the targets you assassinated in the first game. A murderer, a slave trader, a man who "experiments" on innocent victims who were kidnapped, and another murderer who felt those who were poor were the cause of the wrong in the world. And that's just the first 4 targets from AC1.

Also, again no. You absolutely couldn't have a Templar who is like Connor, unless it's one of the few who were lied to and deceived into believing what they were doing actually was for a greater good for all. Which in the games, is very rare. Most know exactly what they're doing......gaining power unto themselves and their organization through theft, intimidation torture, and murder.


And now you're making that same mistake that you earlier called people out for being stupid for. Go back up to the last paragraph you wrote, and reread how people who believe that the fictional history of the game is actually true are stupid. Then take two seconds to reread above, where you're doing the same thing....thereby calling yourself out for being stupid. The Templars in the game's story are exactly like the Templars that Ezio, Altair, Connor, and Desmond are fighting against. Because that's the way the game's fictional storyline goes. The Templars in this fictional story is a group that is trying to control the world in a bid to take absolute power. They aren't the Knights Templar. They aren't the Gnostic Templars. They are the fictional Templar Order of Assassin's Creed.

And again, no, the portrayal hasn't gotten worse. It actually hasn't really changed that much, if at all. Other than a fleshing out of what the Templar order in AC means, stands for, and what they're trying to do, nothing has changed. Certainly not their motivations or beliefs.


I'm an Army veteran, not that it matters. The Assassin's Order aren't terrorists. If any organization could have that label, and be compared to common day terrorists, it'd be the Templar Order. And if the Templar Order actually followed through on what they say, there likely wouldn't be a story to play. Intentions, especially intentions that aren't even real, are useless when compared to actions.


It's not dumb at all. It's building a fictional alternate universe by utilizing things that people can connect to. Which is why there's that warning that pops up before the game launches, telling you that the contents of the game are a work of fiction.


Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. It's just, I got the sense from some of the Templars in AC1 that they did sorta believe that they were doing things for the better. Maybe I just misinterpreted them. But I got that sense that, while they were seeking to control people, some of the targets actually did think that was the better thing to do. Like Garnier for example. At the very least, those Templars were doing things that on the surface appeared to be good things. Whereas Templars in the other games were blatantly evil. As I said, maybe that's just me.

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 07:50 PM
Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. It's just, I got the sense from some of the Templars in AC1 that they did sorta believe that they were doing things for the better. Maybe I just misinterpreted them. But I got that sense that, while they were seeking to control people, some of the targets actually did think that was the better thing to do. Like Garnier for example. At the very least, those Templars were doing things that on the surface appeared to be good things. Whereas Templars in the other games were blatantly evil. As I said, maybe that's just me.

"power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

It isn't that weird that many templars became "evil". It's pretty logical actually.

hadarm18
10-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Peace?Is it worth sacrificing your freedom and free will for peace and let the few individuals have power above others just in the name of peace and end to all conflict?

You see if templars would achieve their goals there will be no more wars and bloodshed.Ofc ppl would lost their freedom and they would simply become slaves to serve ideas of the few templar individuals who would enforce it.Just imagine the power they would have.Those individuals that would rule us all will have their freedom and free will which means they could kill,rape,steal and do any crime they want.Remeber MAJD ADDIN?

Anyway lets just say that templars would forbid ppl to play videogames beacuse they make ppl violent?Would you obeyed that rule and sacrifice your main source of harmless fun?Ofc you would beacuse you wouldnt have any choice...

I just cant see templars as the good guys beacuse their arent.
Lets just say that they are in dark-gray area where assassins are in bright-gray moral area.

Btw its impossible for templars to achieve that beacuse POE doesnt work on ppl that are offsprings of TWCB and human race
And most of them are assassins like Altair and Ezio and ofc Connor,Desmond etc

B_Crispino
10-03-2012, 07:58 PM
"Terrorists use terror against leaders and innocent civilians to affect change in everyone else towards their beliefs or to just plain kill those that do not believe in what they do."

That wasnt very smart

Jxspyder
10-03-2012, 08:21 PM
Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. It's just, I got the sense from some of the Templars in AC1 that they did sorta believe that they were doing things for the better. Maybe I just misinterpreted them. But I got that sense that, while they were seeking to control people, some of the targets actually did think that was the better thing to do. Like Garnier for example. At the very least, those Templars were doing things that on the surface appeared to be good things. Whereas Templars in the other games were blatantly evil. As I said, maybe that's just me.

There's a saying.....the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can believe you're doing things for the better, but when you torture innocents in mad experiments, kill others simply because they don't believe what you tell them to believe, or because they slighted you in some way.

And yeah, there was the occassional Templar who actually tried to do good for the people....but Garnier absolutely wasn't one of them. Garnier was a raving lunatic who tortured people in the name of "experimentation" in his hospital. Most of whom were kidnapped innocents. Or did you forget about that whole "break the guys legs because he's trying to leave" bit? The Templars in AC 1 were every bit as blatantly evil as the Templars Ezio dealt with.

MasterSimaYi
10-03-2012, 08:36 PM
Of some of the more well known ones - Julius Caesar, Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, MLK, etc (the last 3 being more modern examples) - those were considered not only bad by the public but weren't at all helpful. In the AC history, the first is done by assassins, but the last 3 are done by Templars. Bull.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Martin Luther King are not mentioned in any Assassin's Creed medium.


The templars don't assassinate.

This is not up to you to decide. As proven by examples such as Doge Giovanni Mocenigo and John F. Kennedy, the Templars plotted to eliminate their political enemies. This fact has been established since the very beginning.


And, I guess, the only reason it bothers me that the AC franchise is so black and white, good and evil, instead of being a gray area, is because it's something that should be a gray area.

Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Assassin's Creed: The Chain (and as said by Corey May, Assassin's Creed III) all show that the Assassin-Templar conflict is in a morally gray area, not in a black and white one. People just either do not see this or refuse to see it because the protagonist are Assassins, so they automatically think they are the good guys.


And, honestly, the problem with the Templars in the Assassin's Creed franchise is that, while their goal is to bring peace through order and control, the Templars that Ezio, and most likely Connor, fight aren't about bringing peace through order and control. They only want power.

The Borgia only cared about power and greed, which has been described in the Abstergo Files and the Encyclopedia as the "Dark Age of the Order." Not everyone Ezio fights was power hungry. Have you forgotten Ahmet and the other Ottoman/Byzantine Templars already?


Oh, and De Filosoof, I am in the US Army. And, no, I don't want terrorists appearing up in Assassin's Creed. I don't think that the Assassins should be terrorists in the game.

Good thing they aren't then. The only allusion to terrorism in the games is a mention of 9/11 in the Clusters in Brotherhood, and that's it.


And I think the dumbest thing the franchise has done is to make people who are still alive out to be evil. And not only people who are alive. People in the last 100 years. The game shouldn't have said that Churchill and Roosevelt were Templars. It shouldn't have taken political sides by saying that the 2000 US election was a Templar plot. Because when they did that, then you get the sense that this game is just meant to be a medium for liberal propaganda. When the focus should have been on Assassins vs Templars.

No currently living real person is an actual Templar. Churchill and Roosevelt were Templar puppets, not Templars. George W. Bush was a Templar puppet as well, but this does in no way imply that Ubisoft is pro-democrat. Lyndon B. Johnson was described as being "one of them" in the Glyphs, and on the Abstergo network website Vidic mentioned having an appointment at Blair House in December 2010, implying possible Templar/Abstergo influence in the Obama administration. And by saying that they are making "people who are still alive out to be evil," you are only fueling the belief that Templars are all 'evil.'


No, it really shouldn't. Because it's not meant to be a gray area story.

Wrong. This was the case for the Borgias in Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, but that is it.


And I'd absolutely disagree that the main goal of the Templars is even remotely good. Their main goal is absolute power for a ruling elite over all others. And is instigated through murder, fear, and control....very bad things that violate basic human rights. And this has been the theme of AC since the very beginning. Look at the targets you assassinated in the first game. A murderer, a slave trader, a man who "experiments" on innocent victims who were kidnapped, and another murderer who felt those who were poor were the cause of the wrong in the world. And that's just the first 4 targets from AC1.

Did you only pay attention to what their professions were and what they did, rather than listen to their motives during their last words?


The Templars in this fictional story is a group that is trying to control the world in a bid to take absolute power.

No; the Borgia were. I don't remember Robert de Sable, Ahmet or Warren Vidic ever talking of power, only of achieving peace. Their methods for achieving and securing peace differ largely from the Assassins, but their absolute goal is peace. They do not believe that the people will achieve that themselves, they believe it has to be enforced. They believe that the end justifies the means, and merely because you don't agree with that sort of ethics does not mean your interpretation of them is fact.


Ofc ppl would lost their freedom and they would simply become slaves to serve ideas of the few templar individuals who would enforce it.

The Assassins are the only ones to speak of free will. The Templars don't intend to turn people into slaves, they believe the people have to be guided, manipulated and steered to achieve true peace. And in AC canon, that's practically already happening in the society we live in. The Templars invented capitalism to control the free markets, Abstergo owns the majority of the world's major companies and uses their services and products for their ideology of a New World Order. Of course the Templars haven't achieved their goals yet, but are our day-to-day lives all that bad?


Btw its impossible for templars to achieve that beacuse POE doesnt work on ppl that are offsprings of TWCB and human race

Well, good for the Templars that all offspring of the First Civilization and humans died centuries ago then... :)

hadarm18
10-03-2012, 09:01 PM
The Assassins are the only ones to speak of free will. The Templars don't intend to turn people into slaves, they believe the people have to be guided, manipulated and steered to achieve true peace. And in AC canon, that's practically already happening in the society we live in. The Templars invented capitalism to control the free markets, Abstergo owns the majority of the world's major companies and uses their services and products for their ideology of a New World Order. Of course the Templars haven't achieved their goals yet, but are our day-to-day lives all that bad?

Well, good for the Templars that all offspring of the First Civilization and humans died centuries ago then... :)

They are trying to enslave us in a way you cant deny that
When you take somebodys free will it is enslavment and with POE they want to that exactly

Sorry didint know that all offsprings of TWCB and humans died and to be honest i only follow story through main games and sometimes i read wikia

GreatBeyonder
10-03-2012, 09:11 PM
Hey, I finally have a truly sympathetic Templar for you guys.

Santa Claus! Since the Templars own both the Church AND Coca-Cola, old Saint Nick must be a Master Templar of the Inner Sanctum. The man has Eagle Vision or how welse did you think he knew who was naughty or nice? And not to mention his ability to scale rooftops at ease! And the flying reindeer are almost certainly the last flying reinder from the First Civilization... makes perfect sense in AC continuity!! No, I'm dead serious!!

MasterSimaYi
10-03-2012, 09:12 PM
They are trying to enslave us in a way you cant deny that
When you take somebodys free will it is enslavment and with POE they want to that exactly

I can deny that, because I don't see any confirmation of that or implication to it. The only concrete explanation on what Eye-Abstergo will do is this, from the Abstergo Files in Revelations:

"The latest reports pertaining to Earth and space weather, more specifically solar flare projections, suggest that December 21 remains the most opportune time to launch the EYE-ABSTERGO satellite. A minor setback might force us to reschedule, but we are confident the issue will soon be resolved. Since the EYE will be the cornerstone of our Akashic Satellite Plexus, we have mobilized all our resources towards that goal.
Upgrades for the Akashic Satellite Plexus have been completed and the network is now adequately shielded. Despite the rise in solar flare activity, the ASP should remain fully operational, even if the worse projections were to materialize.

Once in low-Earth orbit, the EYE, enhanced by an Apple of Eden, will boost our observation capabilities. More importantly, it will act as an amplifier for the Apple.

Furthermore, preliminary analysis suggests we will have the means to locate individuals with potential, but far less certain is the EYE's ability to harvest raw data or awaken in humans what should have been ours from the moment of our creation."

It's easy to say that the Templars want to enslave everyone and that they want to take away free will, when we experience almost everything from the eyes of an Assassin.


Sorry didint know that to be honest i only follow story through main games and sometimes i read wikia

Even William Miles said that he did not have the "right genes to properly wield [the Apple]," so it's not clear as to whether or not he would be immune to the Apple's effects if they were to be used on him. Desmond is a different case, as a significant higher amount of his ancestors were descended from the First Civilization (offspring is not really used to refer to people from thousands of generations later). Only about one in ten million people has a similar concentration of First Civilization DNA, meaning there are about... 70 other people in the world who are like him, genetically.

Jxspyder
10-03-2012, 09:39 PM
Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Martin Luther King are not mentioned in any Assassin's Creed medium.
Actually, Franz Ferdinand is mentioned in the AC universe. But not MLK.


This is not up to you to decide. As proven by examples such as Doge Giovanni Mocenigo and John F. Kennedy, the Templars plotted to eliminate their political enemies. This fact has been established since the very beginning.
You should probably add Jesus to that list.


Did you only pay attention to what their professions were and what they did, rather than listen to their motives during their last words?
I did. Intentions don't mean a lot when judged against their actions. Especially when their actions tended to have the exact opposite affect than what they said they were trying to achieve.



No; the Borgia were. I don't remember Robert de Sable, Ahmet or Warren Vidic ever talking of power, only of achieving peace. Their methods for achieving and securing peace differ largely from the Assassins, but their absolute goal is peace. They do not believe that the people will achieve that themselves, they believe it has to be enforced. They believe that the end justifies the means, and merely because you don't agree with that sort of ethics does not mean your interpretation of them is fact.
Promises of power in the new world in return for joining the Templar Order would be why I see Robert de Sable as looking for more than simply achieving peace. And their absolute goal is peace....with them in power. Absolute rule over others is more than simply a difference in method.



The Assassins are the only ones to speak of free will. The Templars don't intend to turn people into slaves, they believe the people have to be guided, manipulated and steered to achieve true peace. And in AC canon, that's practically already happening in the society we live in. The Templars invented capitalism to control the free markets, Abstergo owns the majority of the world's major companies and uses their services and products for their ideology of a New World Order. Of course the Templars haven't achieved their goals yet, but are our day-to-day lives all that bad?
They also caused WW2 in a bid to keep people under Templar control and furthered the oil crisis by overthrowing the government of Iran and formed the Iranian's secret police Savak with the sole goal of terrorizing it's people. Let's not kid ourselves here. The Templar New World Order is about creating a ruling elite. Straight from AC1.



Well, good for the Templars that all offspring of the First Civilization and humans died centuries ago then... :)
Except for, you know, Clay Kaczmarek who died just before Desmond was found...and Desmond himself. Both of who have genetic ties to the First Civilization. Who likely aren't the only 1 in 10 million or so whom Warren Miles states has enough First Civilization DNA to manifest Eagle Vision.

MasterSimaYi
10-03-2012, 10:02 PM
Actually, Franz Ferdinand is mentioned in the AC universe. But not MLK.

Where exactly would that be?


You should probably add Jesus to that list.

And many more, I just used two examples.


I did. Intentions don't mean a lot when judged against their actions. Especially when their actions tended to have the exact opposite affect than what they said they were trying to achieve.

That is a matter of ethics, and what people deserve to be the right thing to do, not a fact. That last sentence is also not entirely true, as you could hear some of Garnier's mentally unstable patients being happy with his treatment and thankful to the doctor, for example.


Promises of power in the new world in return for joining the Templar Order would be why I see Robert de Sable as looking for more than simply achieving peace. And their absolute goal is peace....with them in power. Absolute rule over others is more than simply a difference in method.

Of course, the Templars believe that they are the ones who can rule over humanity best, and they have a clear and high-regarded hierarchy. How that is a difference in method, is due to your differing view of how you look at the conflict. You clearly don't believe in seeing the Templars as anything other than evil.


They also caused WW2 in a bid to keep people under Templar control and furthered the oil crisis by overthrowing the government of Iran and formed the Iranian's secret police Savak with the sole goal of terrorizing it's people. Let's not kid ourselves here. The Templar New World Order is about creating a ruling elite. Straight from AC1.

Yes, and with free will wars and feuds have been caused for the entirety of humanity's history, and the Assassins didn't have the intention to resolve them all. Ezio also caused the deaths of several innocents by creating riots in Constantinople's harbor and by blowing up the armory inside Derinkuyu. The Narodnaya Volya were not branded terrorists for no reason, and the Assassins also assisted in the deportations of Soviet immigrants back to Russia in the Palmer Raids here. Let's not kid ourselves here. The Assassins also do whatever it takes to achieve their goals as much as the Templars do.


Except for, you know, Clay Kaczmarek who died just before Desmond was found...and Desmond himself. Both of who have genetic ties to the First Civilization. Who likely aren't the only 1 in 10 million or so whom Warren Miles states has enough First Civilization DNA to manifest Eagle Vision.

Desmond Miles and Clay Kaczmarek are both the offspring of two humans.

Azula2005
10-03-2012, 10:08 PM
Screw templars

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-03-2012, 10:29 PM
Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Martin Luther King are not mentioned in any Assassin's Creed medium.



This is not up to you to decide. As proven by examples such as Doge Giovanni Mocenigo and John F. Kennedy, the Templars plotted to eliminate their political enemies. This fact has been established since the very beginning.



Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Assassin's Creed: The Chain (and as said by Corey May, Assassin's Creed III) all show that the Assassin-Templar conflict is in a morally gray area, not in a black and white one. People just either do not see this or refuse to see it because the protagonist are Assassins, so they automatically think they are the good guys.



The Borgia only cared about power and greed, which has been described in the Abstergo Files and the Encyclopedia as the "Dark Age of the Order." Not everyone Ezio fights was power hungry. Have you forgotten Ahmet and the other Ottoman/Byzantine Templars already?



Good thing they aren't then. The only allusion to terrorism in the games is a mention of 9/11 in the Clusters in Brotherhood, and that's it.



No currently living real person is an actual Templar. Churchill and Roosevelt were Templar puppets, not Templars. George W. Bush was a Templar puppet as well, but this does in no way imply that Ubisoft is pro-democrat. Lyndon B. Johnson was described as being "one of them" in the Glyphs, and on the Abstergo network website Vidic mentioned having an appointment at Blair House in December 2010, implying possible Templar/Abstergo influence in the Obama administration. And by saying that they are making "people who are still alive out to be evil," you are only fueling the belief that Templars are all 'evil.'



Wrong. This was the case for the Borgias in Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, but that is it.



Did you only pay attention to what their professions were and what they did, rather than listen to their motives during their last words?



No; the Borgia were. I don't remember Robert de Sable, Ahmet or Warren Vidic ever talking of power, only of achieving peace. Their methods for achieving and securing peace differ largely from the Assassins, but their absolute goal is peace. They do not believe that the people will achieve that themselves, they believe it has to be enforced. They believe that the end justifies the means, and merely because you don't agree with that sort of ethics does not mean your interpretation of them is fact.



The Assassins are the only ones to speak of free will. The Templars don't intend to turn people into slaves, they believe the people have to be guided, manipulated and steered to achieve true peace. And in AC canon, that's practically already happening in the society we live in. The Templars invented capitalism to control the free markets, Abstergo owns the majority of the world's major companies and uses their services and products for their ideology of a New World Order. Of course the Templars haven't achieved their goals yet, but are our day-to-day lives all that bad?



Well, good for the Templars that all offspring of the First Civilization and humans died centuries ago then... :)

The major leaders during WW2 were Templars. Bush was a puppet, yes, but the WW2 leaders were definitely Templars. Also, while Ubisoft has claimed that the conflict is a gray area, the Assassins are portrayed as being altruistically good and the Templars as evil. The organizations themselves aren't gray areas. That's something I wish was the case. Because, regardless of what you say, the portrayal in the game has been Assassins good Templars evil.

Funbun777
10-03-2012, 11:02 PM
De filosoof you need to shut up You know nothing and your just offending people

De Filosoof
10-03-2012, 11:06 PM
De filosoof you need to shut up You know nothing and your just offending people

Butthurt?

So what exactly do you know?
Please tell me.

MasterSimaYi
10-03-2012, 11:13 PM
The major leaders during WW2 were Templars. Bush was a puppet, yes, but the WW2 leaders were definitely Templars. Also, while Ubisoft has claimed that the conflict is a gray area, the Assassins are portrayed as being altruistically good and the Templars as evil. The organizations themselves aren't gray areas. That's something I wish was the case. Because, regardless of what you say, the portrayal in the game has been Assassins good Templars evil.

No. I was under that impression too, but when I brought that up when talking with Jeffrey Yohalem (who wrote the Glyphs and Clusters) quickly corrected me by saying that Stalin and Hitler were Templar puppets, not Templars. The Glyphs do not explicitly say anywhere that they are Templars, only that the Templars engineered the war.

I don't particularly see some of Ezio's actions I listed above as 'good,' but it's hard to erase Ezio's benevolent personality with one game. I would really advise you to read The Fall and especially The Chain, that will shed a whole different light on the matter.

Jexx21
10-04-2012, 03:45 AM
Who do you support Sima?

Calvarok
10-04-2012, 03:48 AM
How anyone can say that the Assassins are not a grey organization when you look at their insane body-count is a mystery to me.

Assassin_M
10-04-2012, 03:58 AM
This thread turned into one hell of a big mess..

People judging others, people calling TERRORISTS..

It saddens me that to this day, people still argue the meaning of "Terrorist"

This thread is sad..

GreatBeyonder
10-04-2012, 04:04 AM
I'm going through the ACB Clusters and apparently Mao Ze**** (Mao Tse-tung)was an Assassin puppet. Also in the comics, Lenin is an Assassin ally. It makes my stomach curl if the Assassins were supporting people like that as long as they weren't Templar. There's a character in ACR who is a former Assassin, but turned against them because the Assassins supported the Ottomans who conquered his country. The Assassins do seem much greyer once you move away from the Renaiissance. (Although Lorenzo Medici and Caterina Sforza were incredibly nasty people, even in their bios.)

If you imagine Ezio as a cultured hitman who murdered for revenge, money, and sex, he seems more like a villain protagonist.

Hmm... perhapd the writers knew what they were doing, after all...

Jexx21
10-04-2012, 04:09 AM
I'm not sure who I would support..

While I definitely agree with the Assassins that everyone should have free-will, I also believe the Templar idea that humanity isn't going to achieve world peace without 'guidance'.

The problem is, we don't really know the true motives of the Templars and Abstergo. It's never fully explained to us what they are fighting for. Are they truly Decepticons? The Assassins aren't truly Autobots, as according to Optimus Prime the Autobots kill as a last resort/self-defense.

The Assassins and the Templars are not groups I would join in real life.

MasterSimaYi
10-05-2012, 04:59 PM
Who do you support Sima?

I think I will just stay uninvolved. :P


I'm going through the ACB Clusters and apparently Mao Ze**** (Mao Tse-tung)was an Assassin puppet. Also in the comics, Lenin is an Assassin ally. It makes my stomach curl if the Assassins were supporting people like that as long as they weren't Templar. There's a character in ACR who is a former Assassin, but turned against them because the Assassins supported the Ottomans who conquered his country. The Assassins do seem much greyer once you move away from the Renaiissance. (Although Lorenzo Medici and Caterina Sforza were incredibly nasty people, even in their bios.)

If you imagine Ezio as a cultured hitman who murdered for revenge, money, and sex, he seems more like a villain protagonist.

Hmm... perhapd the writers knew what they were doing, after all...

I mentioned that Mao Tsetung (really, censoring that?) thing to Jeffrey as well, and he told me that the Assassin insignias were not placed at certain spots for any specific reason. They are completely random. He said that Mao Ze**** is a Templar [puppet] as well; the insignia was there for another reason, not to say that Mao was Assassin-affiliated. Police officers aren't Assassins either. :P Also, on a different note, the Assassins don't 'use' puppets (at least, so far as we know).

Lenin was not specifically an 'ally' of the Assassins, the Assassins opposed the Tsar alongside the Bolsheviks because they were eager to replace the Tsardom with a populist government.

GreatBeyonder
10-06-2012, 12:26 AM
I mentioned that Mao Tsetung (really, censoring that?) thing to Jeffrey as well, and he told me that the Assassin insignias were not placed at certain spots for any specific reason. They are completely random. He said that Mao Ze**** is a Templar [puppet] as well; the insignia was there for another reason, not to say that Mao was Assassin-affiliated. Police officers aren't Assassins either. :P Also, on a different note, the Assassins don't 'use' puppets (at least, so far as we know).

Lenin was not specifically an 'ally' of the Assassins, the Assassins opposed the Tsar alongside the Bolsheviks because they were eager to replace the Tsardom with a populist government.

I understand. *seriously did not think Mao was an Assassin in any sense, but the way they made that cluster...*

MasterSimaYi
10-06-2012, 12:38 AM
I understand. *seriously did not think Mao was an Assassin in any sense, but the way they made that cluster...*

Indeed, it was very confusing... I was under the impression that he was Assassin-affiliated as well because of that. Which would have been quite odd, especially when you consider he was often compared to Qin Shi Huang, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who were all coincidentally Templar puppets...

Jexx21
10-06-2012, 01:04 AM
Chairman Mao?

Mozart wonders about Chairman Mao!

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-06-2012, 02:26 AM
Indeed, it was very confusing... I was under the impression that he was Assassin-affiliated as well because of that. Which would have been quite odd, especially when you consider he was often compared to Qin Shi Huang, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who were all coincidentally Templar puppets...

I'm still bothered by the change that they are templar puppets. Why would Hitler shoot a double and try to go meet with Churchill. Why would an assassin kill someone who wasn't a templar? Well, nevermind, then again, the Templars don't support slavery so chances are they don't support genocide I guess (Hitler and Stalin). But, with what the Templars stand for, it's still possible that you could have a not-so-evil Templar.

MasterSimaYi
10-06-2012, 11:12 AM
I'm still bothered by the change that they are templar puppets. Why would Hitler shoot a double and try to go meet with Churchill. Why would an assassin kill someone who wasn't a templar? Well, nevermind, then again, the Templars don't support slavery so chances are they don't support genocide I guess (Hitler and Stalin). But, with what the Templars stand for, it's still possible that you could have a not-so-evil Templar.

It's not a change, Jeffrey Yohalem is the one who wrote the Glyphs and he always intended them to be as such. Same as Darius I, Xerxes I, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Gaius Julius Caesar, Cleopatra VII, Caligula; they were all Templar puppets, not real Templars. I listed all of them in here: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Category%3ATemplar_Puppets

The Assassins did not kill only Templars. Ezio also killed the Inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition, who were not real Templars, and also killed Girolamo Savonarola and his lieutenants. They fight against anyone who oppresses the people or who attacks them.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
10-06-2012, 11:47 AM
It's not a change, Jeffrey Yohalem is the one who wrote the Glyphs and he always intended them to be as such. Same as Darius I, Xerxes I, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Gaius Julius Caesar, Cleopatra VII, Caligula; they were all Templar puppets, not real Templars. I listed all of them in here: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Category%3ATemplar_Puppets

The Assassins did not kill only Templars. Ezio also killed the Inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition, who were not real Templars, and also killed Girolamo Savonarola and his lieutenants. They fight against anyone who oppresses the people or who attacks them.

Man, I thought all those guys were Templars. Wow. Thanks for that.

GreatBeyonder
10-06-2012, 07:06 PM
I'm very curious about what the Templars thought after learning of the Holocaust. In real life, its not something that we really learned about until after the war ended.

Jxspyder
10-07-2012, 08:22 PM
Where exactly would that be?
Project Legacy.


That is a matter of ethics, and what people deserve to be the right thing to do, not a fact. That last sentence is also not entirely true, as you could hear some of Garnier's mentally unstable patients being happy with his treatment and thankful to the doctor, for example.
That's interesting, since the Templars don't believe in ethics or morality. Their intentions are to bring peace....yet they're not creating peace. For that matter, how are we to assume that their version of "peace" is any different than that of, say, Girolamo Savonarola?

And what about the ones who don't want to, and quite clearly aren't mentally unstable? Like the guy who escaped and had his kneecaps bashed in? There's a reason he was banished from France, and a reason that so many of the people avoid his little house of horrors.




Of course, the Templars believe that they are the ones who can rule over humanity best, and they have a clear and high-regarded hierarchy. How that is a difference in method, is due to your differing view of how you look at the conflict. You clearly don't believe in seeing the Templars as anything other than evil.
Probably because I don't believe in slavery as being anything other than evil.



Yes, and with free will wars and feuds have been caused for the entirety of humanity's history, and the Assassins didn't have the intention to resolve them all. Ezio also caused the deaths of several innocents by creating riots in Constantinople's harbor and by blowing up the armory inside Derinkuyu. The Narodnaya Volya were not branded terrorists for no reason, and the Assassins also assisted in the deportations of Soviet immigrants back to Russia in the Palmer Raids here. Let's not kid ourselves here. The Assassins also do whatever it takes to achieve their goals as much as the Templars do.
Aside from the fact that I've never disputed that innocents can and do die because of the Assassin's actions, I'm curious about your point here. When the Templar's cause violence and death in innocents, it's towards a noble cause, yet when the same happens due to the actions of the Assassin's, it's somehow a terrible thing?

Also way to straw-man, and completely gloss over the point I was making. Templar New World Order = creation of a ruling elite, ruling over brainwashed slaves without morals or ethics, with the majority of the Templars whom we deal with showing no interest in the betterment of the people, but rather the advancement of themselves over all others. Which has been established through every single iteration of game.



Desmond Miles and Clay Kaczmarek are both the offspring of two humans.
And are direct descendants of Those Who Came Before. The fact that the other guy used the wrong word aside, the point he was trying to make is absolutely valid.

MasterSimaYi
10-07-2012, 09:37 PM
Project Legacy.

Franz Ferdinand is not mentioned in Project Legacy. He is not mentioned anywhere at all.


That's interesting, since the Templars don't believe in ethics or morality. Their intentions are to bring peace....yet they're not creating peace. For that matter, how are we to assume that their version of "peace" is any different than that of, say, Girolamo Savonarola?

And what about the ones who don't want to, and quite clearly aren't mentally unstable? Like the guy who escaped and had his kneecaps bashed in? There's a reason he was banished from France, and a reason that so many of the people avoid his little house of horrors.

I did not say the Templars believe in ethics or morals and that is not relevant to the point I am making. The Templars' belief that the end always justifies the means belongs to the most common ethics, and in their view there are no other correct ones. I was applying the ethics to you, in the sense that you do not have to agree with the Templars. The Assassins have also yet to make peace, so I do not see what point you are trying to make. Peace under the Templars is also not something we have seen so I fail to see how it is comparable to what Savonarola intended to do for Florence.

As for Garnier's slaves, they were all mentally unstable. Running away from Garnier doesn't make him mentally stable (even if it would have made him free from his torture). Garnier was a torturer, yes, but that is not a point I am trying to debunk. Peace does not mean that everyone can do what they want, it is a broad concept. This does not indicate that the Templars don't want peace.


Probably because I don't believe in slavery as being anything other than evil.

I have yet to see where exactly it is stated that the Templars want to turn everyone into slaves. All I see for Eye-Abstergo is them wanting to unlock the true potential of humanity - what should always have been theirs (the sixth sense) - and keep an eye on humanity. The Templars have always been men of science who want to better humanity. They do believe that they are the ones who should guide humanity (which I agree with is not right), but I have yet to see any indication that they want to enslave humanity to do their bidding. Which is also speculation at this point, as it is not explicitly stated anywhere. A passage from the Encyclopedia for you (no, the Encyclopedia is not Abstergo propaganda that puts the Assassins in a bad light and the Templars in a good one):

"As with any other organization with a long history, the Templar Order's goals and methods have evolved. The main concern of the true Templars has however always remained the same: the betterment of humanity. These men and women have always believed that they would reach this noble objective through scientific and technological progress. Since the discovery of the Pieces of Eden, ages ago, Templars have aimed to understand, use and control such wondrous artifacts; firstly to protect mankind from itself, and secondly to ensure a better future for all. Although some would say that they have taken drastic measures to acquire Pieces of Eden or push scientific advancement, Templars trust that their methods are not only the right ones, but the only tools that can ensure the fulfillment of their goal.

While on the surface the Templars share similar goals with their age-old enemies, the Assassins, their ideals and methods differ greatly. While the Assassins strongly believe in freewill, Templars hold the notion that humanity must be guided. The leaders of the Templar Order took it upon themselves to do just that--which, in their minds, is more important than the antiquated notion of freewill."

And a passage from the Abstergo Files:

"The latest reports pertaining to Earth and space weather, more specifically solar flare projections, suggest that December 21 remains the most opportune time to launch the EYE-ABSTERGO satellite. A minor setback might force us to reschedule, but we are confident the issue will soon be resolved. Since the EYE will be the cornerstone of our Akashic Satellite Plexus, we have mobilized all our resources towards that goal.
Upgrades for the Akashic Satellite Plexus have been completed and the network is now adequately shielded. Despite the rise in solar flare activity, the ASP should remain fully operational, even if the worse projections were to materialize.

Once in low-Earth orbit, the EYE, enhanced by an Apple of Eden, will boost our observation capabilities. More importantly, it will act as an amplifier for the Apple.

Furthermore, preliminary analysis suggests we will have the means to locate individuals with potential, but far less certain is the EYE's ability to harvest raw data or awaken in humans what should have been ours from the moment of our creation."


Aside from the fact that I've never disputed that innocents can and do die because of the Assassin's actions, I'm curious about your point here. When the Templar's cause violence and death in innocents, it's towards a noble cause, yet when the same happens due to the actions of the Assassin's, it's somehow a terrible thing?

Also way to straw-man, and completely gloss over the point I was making. Templar New World Order = creation of a ruling elite, ruling over brainwashed slaves without morals or ethics, with the majority of the Templars whom we deal with showing no interest in the betterment of the people, but rather the advancement of themselves over all others. Which has been established through every single iteration of game.

You are twisting my words. My intention was to point out that the Assassins aren't all goody-goody as you are trying to make them out as while portraying the Templars as pure evil, while the both of them did obvious bad things (and both did their good things). When both the Assassins and Templars cause unnecessary death, be it on civilians or each other, it is obviously a bad thing. The actions of both organizations are done in the names of their own noble causes; I never implied differently.

I will not go into the second paragraph as I have already done that above.


And are direct descendants of Those Who Came Before. The fact that the other guy used the wrong word aside, the point he was trying to make is absolutely valid.

Which I have already acknowledged.


Inevitably it all comes down to the Assassins striving for a pure democracy and the Templars striving for a benevolent autocracy. I personally am more supportive of a democracy, but I do not see either organization as being black or white. Both have their obvious flaws, good intentions and bad actions. If I cannot change your view on the Templars, I think we needn't go into this further and we will just have to agree to disagree. :)

De Filosoof
10-07-2012, 09:44 PM
tell it like it is Jxspider :D.
Happy i'm not the one on these forums who thinks templars are pretty ****ed.
And the AC creators clearly don't agree with the templar philosophy either, it's pretty obvious and has been clearly stated in the games and in different types of media.

Assassin_M
10-07-2012, 09:45 PM
We see the Templars as evil, because we only saw it from the Assassin Perspective..

De Filosoof
10-07-2012, 09:46 PM
We see the Templars as evil, because we only saw it from the Assassin Perspective..

Not entirely true because we know many things the templars did.
But yeah, i'm not going into these kind of discussions anymore.
There's just no point if it isn't obvious to people.

Assassin_M
10-07-2012, 09:52 PM
Not entirely true because we know many things the templars did.
But yeah, i'm not going into these kind of discussions anymore.
There's just no point if it isn't obvious to people.
Nah Its fact..

Did we ever see it from the Templar Side ? No.. end of story..

Did we have a Templar explain it to us ? The very example we have of people actually having some sort of understanding about the Templar Ideology is proof in of itself..Does that make anyone who finds sentiment in the Templar cause ***** up ? Nope..

MasterSimaYi
10-07-2012, 09:53 PM
Happy i'm not the one on these forums who thinks templars are pretty ****ed.

I doubt you needed this thread for that.


And the AC creators clearly don't agree with the templar philosophy either, it's pretty obvious and has been clearly stated in the games and in different types of media.

That must be why we play all these games as an Assassin and experience most of the other media from the view of an Assassin...


There's just no point if it isn't obvious to people.

This I will agree with however... Suppose we will have to wait for Ubisoft to hand everything to us on a silver platter. As long as that doesn't happen, it will be just opinions conflicting with each other, and it's no point going into it further.

itsamea-mario
10-07-2012, 09:55 PM
Not entirely true because we know many things the templars did.
But yeah, i'm not going into these kind of discussions anymore.
There's just no point if it isn't obvious to people.

We know some of what they did, but we don't know everything they did or more importantly why they did it.
Imagine having the templar perspective, then you have these guys who go around killing anyone who stands in their way, declaring themselves judge jury and executioner, all in the name of preserving peoples freedom to do terrible things to each other. Would they not seem a bit evil too?

De Filosoof
10-07-2012, 10:04 PM
We know some of what they did, but we don't know everything they did or more importantly why they did it.
Imagine having the templar perspective, then you have these guys who go around killing anyone who stands in their way, declaring themselves judge jury and executioner, all in the name of preserving peoples freedom to do terrible things to each other. Would they not seem a bit evil too?

Yeah, but it's a game. You kill in games.
So i agree that the assassin's aren't the perfect good guys either because they had to make a complete pacifist game to achieve that (walk around as Gandhi or something like that).

It's basically a fictional story to make people think about real life events
to show people different philosophies and why some of those philosophies could turn out to be a huge problem in real life.
Like Jeffrey Yohalem said: "One of the major themes of Assassin's Creed has always been to encourage players to think, to see the truth rather than sit back passively and allow others to control them. I wanted to bring that discussion into people's living rooms".

In real life there's clearly a war of the mind going on and the AC creators realise this. They want to put their 5 cents in in a creative way.
people really should stop taking everything about AC too literally and start seeing the message it's trying to deliver.

It's just a work of fiction with a message behind it.
If people can't see that they're either pretty ignorant or stupid in my opinion.

Jxspyder
10-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Franz Ferdinand is not mentioned in Project Legacy. He is not mentioned anywhere at all.
Actually, he's mentioned in both Project Legacy, and in the timeline of AC: Initiates.



I did not say the Templars believe in ethics or morals and that is not relevant to the point I am making. The Templars' belief that the end always justifies the means belongs to the most common ethics, and in their view there are no other correct ones. I was applying the ethics to you, in the sense that you do not have to agree with the Templars. The Assassins have also yet to make peace, so I do not see what point you are trying to make. Peace under the Templars is also not something we have seen so I fail to see how it is comparable to what Savonarola intended to do for Florence.

As for Garnier's slaves, they were all mentally unstable. Running away from Garnier doesn't make him mentally stable (even if it would have made him free from his torture). Garnier was a torturer, yes, but that is not a point I am trying to debunk. Peace does not mean that everyone can do what they want, it is a broad concept. This does not indicate that the Templars don't want peace.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Templar idea of peace is a new world order in which people are controlled through the Apple....aka, mind-washing/slavery. Which was the exact same peace that Savonarola created. Imposing his will and beliefs on others, and forcing them to follow it. No, we haven't seen the "peace" the Templars want yet...because it hasn't come to pass. But we DO know that these are their intentions....as they've been stated for quite a while, and backed up in nearly every entertainment medium that covers the topic.

As for Garnier, first off, not everyone who was a "patient" of his was mentally unstable. Second, he was exceptionally unstable himself. Third, you were trying to hold up Garnier as a paragon of Templar virtue and helpfulness, when the man is mentally unstable, cruel, vicious, and cares more about himself and his practices than his "patients", many of whom were kidnapped and brought to him.



I have yet to see where exactly it is stated that the Templars want to turn everyone into slaves. All I see for Eye-Abstergo is them wanting to unlock the true potential of humanity - what should always have been theirs (the sixth sense) - and keep an eye on humanity. The Templars have always been men of science who want to better humanity. They do believe that they are the ones who should guide humanity (which I agree with is not right), but I have yet to see any indication that they want to enslave humanity to do their bidding. Which is also speculation at this point, as it is not explicitly stated anywhere. A passage from the Encyclopedia for you (no, the Encyclopedia is not Abstergo propaganda that puts the Assassins in a bad light and the Templars in a good one):

"As with any other organization with a long history, the Templar Order's goals and methods have evolved. The main concern of the true Templars has however always remained the same: the betterment of humanity. These men and women have always believed that they would reach this noble objective through scientific and technological progress. Since the discovery of the Pieces of Eden, ages ago, Templars have aimed to understand, use and control such wondrous artifacts; firstly to protect mankind from itself, and secondly to ensure a better future for all. Although some would say that they have taken drastic measures to acquire Pieces of Eden or push scientific advancement, Templars trust that their methods are not only the right ones, but the only tools that can ensure the fulfillment of their goal.

While on the surface the Templars share similar goals with their age-old enemies, the Assassins, their ideals and methods differ greatly. While the Assassins strongly believe in freewill, Templars hold the notion that humanity must be guided. The leaders of the Templar Order took it upon themselves to do just that--which, in their minds, is more important than the antiquated notion of freewill."

And a passage from the Abstergo Files:

"The latest reports pertaining to Earth and space weather, more specifically solar flare projections, suggest that December 21 remains the most opportune time to launch the EYE-ABSTERGO satellite. A minor setback might force us to reschedule, but we are confident the issue will soon be resolved. Since the EYE will be the cornerstone of our Akashic Satellite Plexus, we have mobilized all our resources towards that goal.
Upgrades for the Akashic Satellite Plexus have been completed and the network is now adequately shielded. Despite the rise in solar flare activity, the ASP should remain fully operational, even if the worse projections were to materialize.

Once in low-Earth orbit, the EYE, enhanced by an Apple of Eden, will boost our observation capabilities. More importantly, it will act as an amplifier for the Apple.

Furthermore, preliminary analysis suggests we will have the means to locate individuals with potential, but far less certain is the EYE's ability to harvest raw data or awaken in humans what should have been ours from the moment of our creation."
Well, thanks. What does the EYE do again? It enhances the powers of the Apple. And what are the powers of the Apple they so desperately crave? The ability to manipulate and control the human mind. Going to dig out my dictionary right quick, and what do we have?

Slavery: The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

Spin it however you feel like, the purpose of the EYE is to control humanity, and to force the will and beliefs of the Templars over all others. Leaving themselves as a powered elite ruling over all others.



You are twisting my words. My intention was to point out that the Assassins aren't all goody-goody as you are trying to make them out as while portraying the Templars as pure evil, while the both of them did obvious bad things (and both did their good things). When both the Assassins and Templars cause unnecessary death, be it on civilians or each other, it is obviously a bad thing. The actions of both organizations are done in the names of their own noble causes; I never implied differently.

I will not go into the second paragraph as I have already done that above.
Now who's twisting words? Again, I've never said that the Assassin Order was perfect, or without fault whatsoever. However, once again, as I consider enforced slavery as a generally evil thing, and enforced slavery being the ultimate goal of the Templar's New World Order, I'm kind of forced to consider the Templar's as an overall "evil" organization.

And as I've pointed out, above, what you went over is complete ho***..given that it glosses over certain key aspects, and completely ignores others. Which, once again, has been true throughout every iteration of this franchise.



Which I have already acknowledged.


Inevitably it all comes down to the Assassins striving for a pure democracy and the Templars striving for a benevolent autocracy. I personally am more supportive of a democracy, but I do not see either organization as being black or white. Both have their obvious flaws, good intentions and bad actions. If I cannot change your view on the Templars, I think we needn't go into this further and we will just have to agree to disagree. :)
You say benevolent autocracy, but I'm pretty sure you mean benevolent authoritarianism.....when the truth is more along the lines of absolute totalitarianism.

And the reason you have utterly failed to change my views on the Templars is the fact that you either ignore or gloss over pertinent facts that relate to your attempt to paint the Templars in some noble light. Like above, where you seem to forget that the whole purpose of using the EYE to enhance the Apple of Eden is to enhance it's abilities to control and manipulate others. Or, per the definition, slavery.

sasukeuchiha50
10-23-2012, 10:12 PM
I realize the series is called Assassin's Creed for a reason, but I would like to see positive Templar characterization. Some, like the original Templars and the ones in Revelations seem to have good intentions, but then they commit some atrocity that makes them a clear cut villain. I wouldn't mind a Templar character who was also something a hero.

Do they exist? Robert De Sable is probably the only Templar I liked.

xx-pyro
10-23-2012, 10:20 PM
Both groups are equally guilty is my opinion honestly. The Assassin's kill Templars because the Templar's don't agree with Assassin ideology, isn't that the same thing as breaching their right to their own opinions and thoughts/beliefs? In a real life situation without PoE's I would definitely be more supportive of the Templar ideology, not total control, but guidance to achieve peace for sure.

Jxspyder
10-23-2012, 10:31 PM
Both groups are equally guilty is my opinion honestly. The Assassin's kill Templars because the Templar's don't agree with Assassin ideology, isn't that the same thing as breaching their right to their own opinions and thoughts/beliefs? In a real life situation without PoE's I would definitely be more supportive of the Templar ideology, not total control, but guidance to achieve peace for sure.

Would the Assassin's stop if there were no Templars trying to assert domination? Would the Templars stop if there were no assassin's trying to stop them?

Based on everything I've read/watched/played, one of these has a "yes" answer, and the other has a "no" answer. So I'd say that your suggestions as to why they do what they do might be a bit off.

GreatBeyonder
10-24-2012, 12:33 AM
Would the Assassin's stop if there were no Templars trying to assert domination? Would the Templars stop if there were no assassin's trying to stop them?

Based on everything I've read/watched/played, one of these has a "yes" answer, and the other has a "no" answer. So I'd say that your suggestions as to why they do what they do might be a bit off.

Its a good question. I personally think the biggest issue with Assassins is how they tend to ignore non-Templar tyrants and support cruel regimes if they support Assassins. Lorenzo de Medici, Caterina Sforza, Agostino Barbarigo, and the Ottomans were just as nasty as Rodrigo Borgia... I think this makes them just as bad as the Templars in many ways. That, and all the murder and stealing...

The Assassins focusso much on fighting Templars, they often lose sight of why they fight them.

xx-pyro
10-24-2012, 01:43 AM
Would the Assassin's stop if there were no Templars trying to assert domination? Would the Templars stop if there were no assassin's trying to stop them?

Based on everything I've read/watched/played, one of these has a "yes" answer, and the other has a "no" answer. So I'd say that your suggestions as to why they do what they do might be a bit off.

If the Assassin's stopped when the Templars were defeated and let other tyrants rule would that not show that the only argument the Assassins have is with Templars? And that they don't really care about tyranny as a whole, rather they just care about beating the Templars? That argument is invalid sorry. Assassins are no better than Templars.

E. The post above me says the exact same thing actually so this is fairly irrelevant.