PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else think Assassin's Creed could use more kinds of factions?



JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2014, 11:08 PM
...Aside from just Templar and Assassin?

AC: Unity kind of implied this with templars and assassins teaming up to fight some common enemy. But that common enemy is probably just the crazy mob and the corrupt government of France.

I'm talking about having new groups of people with philosophies different from the Assassin's and Templars.

For example:
Templars believe in order.
Assassins believe in freedom.

How about a faction that is moderate? One that believes some things (like ownership) should be controlled and others (like rights) should be up to individuals? Of course, not all moderates would believe in the same thing. Like in real life, some moderates believe in certain things over others. But no moderate would be aligned enough to be considered a templar or assassin. And these people call themselves moderate because they refuse to be defined by 1 belief.

Another philosophy thingy could be self-interest. Where preference to order or freedom changes depending on how it benefits the person.

Of course, these factions/philosophies wouldn't actually be called moderate or self-interest. These are just ideas of what could be added so the Assassin franchise can feel less 1 dimensional in some aspects.

Thoughts?

SixKeys
04-06-2014, 11:14 PM
Erudito is already kind of like that, I think. They've just barely been utilized since their introduction in the series, for whatever reason.

In any case, the assassins and Templars didn't start out as two extremist groups. I hate that they've been described as such by devs in recent years. The end goals of the two groups are ultimately the same: world peace. They just believe in different means of getting there. The assassins aren't anarchists and the Templars aren't tyrants, that's an oversimplification (one that was being touted a lot last year during the marketing for Black Flag). If the devs would treat the two philosophies as two sides of the same coin rather than as extreme versions of existing ideologies, the games would benefit from that.

JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2014, 11:17 PM
Erudito is already kind of like that, I think. They've just barely been utilized since their introduction in the series, for whatever reason.

In any case, the assassins and Templars didn't start out as two extremist groups. I hate that they've been described as such by devs in recent years. The end goals of the two groups are ultimately the same: world peace. They just believe in different means of getting there. The assassins aren't anarchists and the Templars aren't tyrants, that's an oversimplification (one that was being touted a lot last year during the marketing for Black Flag). If the devs would treat the two philosophies as two sides of the same coin rather than as extreme versions of existing ideologies, the games would benefit from that.

I know they're not tyrants and anarchists. But Order and Freedom are both ways they believe peace can be achieved.

Someone like a moderate would believe both can achieve peace but in different aspects.

And a self-interested person would believe in whichever helps them feel they are at peace. :P

Mosts groups goals are "peace" anyway. The difference is their perspective on peace.

SixKeys
04-06-2014, 11:23 PM
Alta´r: You held fire in your hands old man. It should have been destroyed.
Al Mualim: Destroy the only thing capable of ending the Crusades and creating true peace? Never.
Alta´r: Then I will.
Al Mualim: We'll see about that...
(And of course he doesn't.)

Jubair Al-Hakim: Why? Why have you done this?
Alta´r: Men must be free to do what they believe. It is not our right to punish them for thinking what they do, no matter how much we disagree.
Jubair Al-Hakim: Then what?
Alta´r: You of all people should know the answer. Educate them. Teach them right from wrong. It must be knowledge that frees them, not force.
Jubair Al-Hakim: They do not learn, fixed in their ways as they are. You are naive to think otherwise. It's an illness, for which there is but one cure.
Alta´r: You're wrong. And that's why you must be put to rest.
Jubair Al-Hakim: Am I not unlike those precious books you seek to save? A source of knowledge with which you disagree? Yet you are rather quick to steal my life.
Alta´r: A small sacrifice to save many. It is necessary
Jubair Al-Hakim: Is it not ancient scrolls that inspire the Crusaders? That fill Salah al-Din and his men with a sense of righteous fury? Their texts endanger others, bring death in their wake. I too, was making a small sacrifice. It matters little now. Your deed is done. And so am I.

Al Mualim: What is the Truth?
Alta´r: We place faith in ourselves; we see the world the way it really is, and hope that, one day, all mankind might see the same.
Al Mualim: What is the world, then?
Alta´r: An illusion. One which we can either submit to; as most do, or transcend.
Al Mualim: What is it to transcend?
Alta´r: To recognize nothing is true, and everything is permitted. That laws arise, not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our creed does not command us to be free; it commands us to be wise.
Al Mualim: Do you see now why the Templars are a threat?
Alta´r: Where as we would dispel the illusion; they would use it to rule.
Al Mualim: Yes. To reshape the world in an image more pleasing to them. That is why I sent you to steal their treasure. That is why I keep it locked away. And that is why you kill them. So long as even one survives, so too does their desire to create a new world order.

SixKeys
04-06-2014, 11:33 PM
Mosts groups goals are "peace" anyway. The difference is their perspective on peace.

That's exactly the point. There can be no moderation in such cases. The assassins don't want complete freedom and the Templars don't want complete control. Both groups' goal is to teach people to think for themselves, and hope that those people will wise up, i.e. come to the same conclusion as them. The Templars desire temporary order, achieved through force and control, because they believe it's the only way to get people to calm down and listen to reason long enough. It's the same reason normal society has prisons. We put people in prison and other rehabilitation facilities because we hope that in time they will come to reconsider their harmful actions and adopt a different, more reasonable point of view. Would you say having prisons is unreasonable? Do you believe we need a "moderate" option for prisons?

JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2014, 11:35 PM
That's exactly the point. There can be no moderation in such cases. The assassins don't want complete freedom and the Templars don't want complete control. Both groups' goal is to teach people to think for themselves, and hope that those people will wise up, i.e. come to the same conclusion as them. The Templars desire temporary order, achieved through force and control, because they believe it's the only way to get people to calm down and listen to reason long enough. It's the same reason normal society has prisons. We put people in prison and other rehabilitation facilities because we hope that in time they will come to reconsider their harmful actions and adopt a different, more reasonable point of view. Would you say having prisons is unreasonable? Do you believe we need a "moderate" option for prisons?

Yes.

There's always moderation.

There's no true such thing as black or white.

Best analogy I can think of is like how there's different branches of republicans and democrats but there's still moderates and other parties. All have different perspectives of peace.

Though it's less moderate "option" and more like moderate "perspective"

JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2014, 11:43 PM
Though I guess Eurodito might be moderate or count as some other faction.

SixKeys
04-06-2014, 11:43 PM
Yes.

There's always moderation.

There's no true such thing as black or white.

Best analogy I can think of is like how there's different branches of republicans and democrats but there's still moderates and other parties. All have different perspectives of peace.

Though it's less moderate "option" and more like moderate "perspective"

For what it's worth, I agree with you in principle. It's just that as we have seen both in the games and in real life, major changes can take hundreds if not thousands of years to achieve. I think having two groups in the game that can go to extremes real human beings generally don't is a good way to make gamers think about how these issues are being handled in the real world and whether they're being handled right. Throwing a moderate group into a fantasy scenario might just water down the stark contrast that makes us think so hard about these issues. Like, what would a moderate group do in the game? Tell both factions "killing is bad, mmmkay?" Okay, um....end of the game, folks. I guess we can all stop playing now. Storywise I just don't think it would be interesting.

JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2014, 11:46 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with you in principle. It's just that as we have seen both in the games and in real life, major changes can take hundreds if not thousands of years to achieve. I think having two groups in the game that can go to extremes real human beings generally don't is a good way to make gamers think about how these issues are being handled in the real world and whether they're being handled right. Throwing a moderate group into a fantasy scenario might just water down the stark contrast that makes us think so hard about these issues. Like, what would a moderate group do in the game? Tell both factions "killing is bad, mmmkay?" Okay, um....end of the game, folks. I guess we can all stop playing now. Storywise I just don't think it would be interesting.


You're right. Theres also the problem of appealing to the masses

I-Like-Pie45
04-07-2014, 12:01 AM
they could always bring back the hermeticists, followers of romulus, or that 1st Civ cult if they needed to pad out a game with xtra factions and the three we have so far just aren't cutting it

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 12:18 AM
I don't think moderate groups are the answer here for more factions. Truthfully the Assassins and Templars are moderates because their philosophies and goals are very similar thus why they are often seeking the same goal but by different means. They want peace and one tries to do it using free will, and the other by control, disillusion with one can convert a person to the other. What they need are Radical groups. Factions that are truly Anarchist, or completely tyrannical a far left and right group that is even at odds with the Assassins and Templars, who are more moderate in the respective sides. That would make things interesting IMO

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 12:21 AM
I don't think moderate groups are the answer here for more factions. Truthfully the Assassins and Templars are moderates because their philosophies and goals are very similar thus why they are often seeking the same goal but by different means. They want peace and one tries to do it using free will, and the other by control, disillusion with one can convert a person to the other. What they need are Radical groups. Factions that are truly Anarchist, or completely tyrannical a far left and right group that is even at odds with the Assassins and Templars, who are more moderate in the respective sides. That would make things interesting IMO

Everyone wants peace. Just because two factions both have the same generic goal of peace, doesn't neccessarily make them similar.

A pacifist and a dictactor may both want peace but their methods and perspective on peace differ greatly.

Templars and Assassins have radical groups within themselves. There are different kinds of them. Pacifist, radical, etc.

And even non-assassin super anarchists exists. They're called pirates. Darby said that himself.

RatonhnhakeFan
04-07-2014, 12:26 AM
? They just added another faction in AC4, Instruments of the First Will (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Instruments_of_the_First_Will), they may very well be the common enemy of Assassins & Templars in Unity and modern story moving on

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 12:30 AM
? They just added another faction in AC4, Instruments of the First Will (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Instruments_of_the_First_Will), they may very well be the common enemy of Assassins & Templars in Unity and modern story moving on

I guess. But I'm looking for factions that aren't obviously messed up in the head.

I-Like-Pie45
04-07-2014, 12:33 AM
I guess. But I'm looking for factions that aren't obviously messed up in the head.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Hermeticists

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 12:36 AM
Everyone wants peace. Just because two factions both have the same generic goal of peace, doesn't neccessarily make them similar.

A pacifist and a dictactor may both want peace but their methods and perspective on peace differ greatly.

Templars and Assassins have radical groups within themselves. There are different kinds of them. Pacifist, radical, etc.

And even non-assassin super anarchists exists. They're called pirates. Darby said that himself.

I know what you mean. I was meaning more along the line of having those radical groups within the more mainstream become a separate entity at odds with the main groups. To compare it to American politics it would be like the Assassins and Templars are Republicans and Democrats, but within those parties you have extreme elements that are often at odds with the whole. for instance the ultra conservative Tea Party, or on the ultra liberal side the Communists or Green party. I was talking about radical factions that are more extreme than the Assassins and Templars. A faction that is TRUE anarchist(the assassins are not but do support more freedom). and a faction that supports brutal, cruel, dictatorship so that there can be peace by force(Templars are willing to use force or totalitarian methods, but aren't willing to force everyone to do anything, just control by power) So an extreme group could be associated with their philosophies. You know what I mean?

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 12:38 AM
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Hermeticists

That works. They need to be used more.


I know what you mean. I was meaning more along the line of having those radical groups within the more mainstream become a separate entity at odds with the main groups. To compare it to American politics it would be like the Assassins and Templars are Republicans and Democrats, but within those parties you have extreme elements that are often at odds with the whole. for instance the ultra conservative Tea Party, or on the ultra liberal side the Communists or Green party. I was talking about radical factions that are more extreme than the Assassins and Templars. A faction that is TRUE anarchist(the assassins are not but do support more freedom). and a faction that supports brutal, cruel, dictatorship so that there can be peace by force(Templars are willing to use force or totalitarian methods, but aren't willing to force everyone to do anything, just control by power) So an extreme group could be associated with their philosophies. You know what I mean?

yeah...I just thought extremist templars already exist....(don't know about assassins though)

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 01:03 AM
Just like in real life, one person's moderate is another person's extremist. That's why there are so many splinter groups in every major religion or political movement. You say you're looking for groups that "aren't obviously messed up in the head". Who would fit such a bill?

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:11 AM
Just like in real life, one person's moderate is another person's extremist. That's why there are so many splinter groups in every major religion or political movement. You say you're looking for groups that "aren't obviously messed up in the head". Who would fit such a bill?

Darby said it himself that the "Instruments of the first will' are a small group because he couldn't imagine a large population sharing that unusual belief of "yay enslavement'

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 01:16 AM
Darby said it himself that the "Instruments of the first will' are a small group because he couldn't imagine a large population sharing that unusual belief of "yay enslavement'

Yes they would clearly be very small, yet those who want to be the enslavers would be a larger group. This isn't quite the Templars, they use force, but they maintain the illusion of free will by acting through and manipulating governments, etc. An extreme group would try to seize control for themselves and literally completely control people(like Al Mualim did in AC1 he was too extreme for the Templars, thus why he had them killed so he could have complete control) A group like this could be very dangerous and splinter from the Templars, thinking they didn't go far enough. The same can happen with the assassins, a fringe group could decide that sure the assassins fight for freedom, but they don't expose themselves as liberators, and allow for governments and other institutions to exist leaving opprotunities for the same fight to be fought again and again. So a more radical pure anarchist faction could splinter from the assassins since the assassins don't take things far enough.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 01:19 AM
Yes they would clearly be very small, yet those who want to be the enslavers would be a larger group. This isn't quite the Templars, they use force, but they maintain the illusion of free will by acting through and manipulating governments, etc. An extreme group would try to seize control for themselves and literally completely control people(like Al Mualim did in AC1 he was too extreme for the Templars, thus why he had them killed so he could have complete control)

This brings up a good point: TWCB are actually the extremists of the AC world. Then you have the Instruments of the First Will sect, who are humans and therefore ultimately have human interests at heart, but still believe in the ideals of the First Civ and want to be enslaved by them. Templars are more moderate than either group.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:21 AM
Yes they would clearly be very small, yet those who want to be the enslavers would be a larger group. This isn't quite the Templars, they use force, but they maintain the illusion of free will by acting through and manipulating governments, etc. An extreme group would try to seize control for themselves and literally completely control people(like Al Mualim did in AC1 he was too extreme for the Templars, thus why he had them killed so he could have complete control) A group like this could be very dangerous and splinter from the Templars, thinking they didn't go far enough. The same can happen with the assassins, a fringe group could decide that sure the assassins fight for freedom, but they don't expose themselves as liberators, and allow for governments and other institutions to exist leaving opprotunities for the same fight to be fought again and again. So a more radical pure anarchist faction could splinter from the assassins since the assassins don't take things far enough.



There are no "enslavers." TWBC's only enslaver is Juno.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:23 AM
I see it like this:

TWBC (order extremists)>Templars>Moderate<Assassin<Pirate(anarchy extremist)

Then the other factions are different catagories entirely.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 01:28 AM
There are no "enslavers." TWBC's only enslaver is Juno.

Wrong. We see Minerva using the Apple on human slaves in AC2's "the Truth".

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:36 AM
Wrong. We see Minerva using the Apple on human slaves in AC2's "the Truth".

The wikia said TWBC believes in Juno ruling. I never said humans couldn't be enslaved by anyone else.

Besides, that's still 1st civilization person. I was saying humans can't gather to be slavers like Bmark was suggesting

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 01:42 AM
I see it like this:

TWBC (order extremists)>Templars>Moderate<Assassin<Pirate(anarchy extremist)

Then the other factions are different catagories entirely.

How can you be a moderate? Believe in free will and freedom, while still advocating the use of force and coercion? those are two completely contradictory philosophies that cant cross without cancelling the other completely. Thus my point that the Assassins and Templars are the most moderate factions there are. You cant be moderate in this particular situation. The minute you use force youre not an assassin because you are removing free will, thus you are now a Templar, and vise verse for the Assassins. Because the goal is the same and the difference is defined by actions, the actions define which side meaning you cant be more moderate than the Templar or Assassin factions.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 01:43 AM
The wikia said TWBC believes in Juno ruling. I never said humans couldn't be enslaved by anyone else.

Besides, that's still 1st civilization person. I was saying humans can't gather to be slavers like Bmark was suggesting

And yes they can Al Mualim does it in AC1 and Abstergo tries to do this with the apples and the satellite project.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:47 AM
How can you be a moderate? Believe in free will and freedom, while still advocating the use of force and coercion? those are two completely contradictory philosophies that cant cross without cancelling the other completely. Thus my point that the Assassins and Templars are the most moderate factions there are. You cant be moderate in this particular situation. The minute you use force youre not an assassin because you are removing free will, thus you are now a Templar, and vise verse for the Assassins. Because the goal is the same and the difference is defined by actions, the actions define which side meaning you cant be more moderate than the Templar or Assassin factions.

That is not true at all.

For example America is all about freedom and it still advocates the use of force. There's different degrees of freedom and control y'know. It's not just freedom or no freedom. Depends what rights, the amount of rights, defining what is a right, then balancing all these factors out to your own definition of freedom. It's not black and white.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 01:50 AM
That is not true at all.

For example America is all about freedom and it still advocates the use of force. There's different degrees of freedom and control y'know. It's not just freedom or no freedom. Depends what rights, the amount of rights, defining what is a right, then balancing all these factors out to your own definition of freedom. It's not black and white.

America is hardly an example of a "moderate" country. Not trying to start a fight or anything, but preaching about freedom while using force to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries isn't moderation, it's hypocrisy.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:52 AM
America is hardly an example of a "moderate" country. Not trying to start a fight or anything, but preaching about freedom while using force to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries isn't moderation, it's hypocrisy.

I never said they were moderate. I'm saying an example of staying fairly far on one side while still having aspects of the other.

As for the hypocrisy comment, I disagree but I'm not into internet debates as they tend to go to dark places.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 01:56 AM
I should pick a better example.

For example, I am moderate.

When it comes to economic issues, I consider myself leaning on the right.

When it comes to social issues, I consider myself leaning on the left.

Of course, for some social issues I still lean on the right on.


Just mentally replace right and left with "strict" and "loose" i.e. order and freedom

Boom. Example of moderate in Templar/Assassins

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:06 AM
I never said they were moderate. I'm saying an example of staying fairly far on one side while still having aspects of the other.

As for the hypocrisy comment, I disagree but I'm not into internet debates as they tend to go to dark places.

I was not referring to outside things like Governments, Countries, or Politics, I was referring specifically to the Assassins-Templars spectrum. You cant adopt an aspect of the other without crossing over to that camp. For a Templar to adopt freedom( defined for our purposes not in a voting or rhetorical sense, but in a complete lack of rules or control sense(Nothing is True Everything is permitted) style philosophy) that Templar would have to abandon the notion of the use of force to accomplish this thus becoming an Assassin, and if an assassin abandon's this concept to allow the use of force the very use of force contradicts the very aspect of freedom, thus making them a Templar. To say they are still one or the other while doing the other would be definition make that person a hypocrite.

And as an American I will say that your analogy is very flawed "freedom" only applies to our own citizens, we have propped up dictators in the past in other countries. And even as a citizen of the US there is still many things that you cant just do and other things that the government forces you to do a lot of things through laws, taxes, regulations, etc. Take the new healthcare mandate for example the government forces you to buy healthcare or pay fines. So "freedom" is not in the pure sense in that analogy Thus why you need to look at Freedom from a Control perspective/definition, rather than the rhetorical definition of freedom for the purposes of Assassins and Templars, since Control is the factor that makes them different.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 02:09 AM
I never said they were moderate. I'm saying an example of staying fairly far on one side while still having aspects of the other.


Again, this just means one man's moderate is another's extremist. There can never be true moderation in that sense. You said earlier that you wanted to see factions that weren't obviously messed up in the head, but never specified what exactly this means in your eyes. It's quite likely someone else would think that whatever you considered moderate would still be too extreme for them.

As for your "it's not black and white" comment, that's exactly it. What is a true moderate? Take the topic of hijabs, for example. The extreme traditionalists are saying Muslim women should always wear a hijab in public, regardless of the woman's own opinions. Extreme liberals are saying Muslim women should not wear a hijab even if they chose to do it out of their own free will, because they see the veil as a tool of oppression regardless of the woman's choice. In France, hijabs are banned from certain public spaces because of this. Who is right in this case? Is anyone? Would you say there is a middle path, i.e. the woman's own choice is the only one that should matter? Some would say the choice is never truly her own because of things like internalized misogyny and cultural pressure. Basically the argument goes that even if a woman THINKS she is making a choice out of her own free will, she isn't really. So is there truly a moderate option here that is not infringing upon anyone's freedom?

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:11 AM
I should pick a better example.

For example, I am moderate.

When it comes to economic issues, I consider myself leaning on the right.

When it comes to social issues, I consider myself leaning on the left.

Of course, for some social issues I still lean on the right on.


Just mentally replace right and left with "strict" and "loose" i.e. order and freedom

Boom. Example of moderate in Templar/Assassins

Strict and loose is a very big oversimplification of politics it is often far more than that on many issues. For example the Right is very strong on personal liberties like gun rights, confiscation of property, loosening of red tape etc, but at the same time they oppose gay marriage or drug legalization. So it is not simply loose and strict. The political Left and Political right has completely different goals and ideas of how things should look and operate, Its not compatible with the Assassin/Templar issue because they have the same goals and object in mind, how they reach it is the difference so you cant grab out of both baskets like you can in politics, its a bit different and more literal and philosophical than politics.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:15 AM
I was not referring to outside things like Governments, Countries, or Politics, I was referring specifically to the Assassins-Templars spectrum. You cant adopt an aspect of the other without crossing over to that camp. For a Templar to adopt freedom( defined for our purposes not in a voting or rhetorical sense, but in a complete lack of rules or control sense(Nothing is True Everything is permitted) style philosophy) that Templar would have to abandon the notion of the use of force to accomplish this thus becoming an Assassin, and if an assassin abandon's this concept to allow the use of force the very use of force contradicts the very aspect of freedom, thus making them a Templar. To say they are still one or the other while doing the other would be definition make that person a hypocrite.

And as an American I will say that your analogy is very flawed "freedom" only applies to our own citizens, we have propped up dictators in the past in other countries. And even as a citizen of the US there is still many things that you cant just do and other things that the government forces you to do a lot of things through laws, taxes, regulations, etc. Take the new healthcare mandate for example the government forces you to buy healthcare or pay fines. So "freedom" is not in the pure sense in that analogy Thus why you need to look at Freedom from a Control perspective/definition, rather than the rhetorical definition of freedom for the purposes of Assassins and Templars, since Control is the factor that makes them different.

That's not what defines an assassin and templar. Darby said there can be pacifist templars. Ones who don't use force. They're still templars despite not falling into your qualifications.

Control is very generic though. Control can apply to law, taxes, regulations, anything. You can't just say control and dismiss things that control applies to.


Again, this just means one man's moderate is another's extremist. There can never be true moderation in that sense. You said earlier that you wanted to see factions that weren't obviously messed up in the head, but never specified what exactly this means in your eyes. It's quite likely someone else would think that whatever you considered moderate would still be too extreme for them.

As for your "it's not black and white" comment, that's exactly it. What is a true moderate? Take the topic of hijabs, for example. The extreme traditionalists are saying Muslim women should always wear a hijab in public, regardless of the woman's own opinions. Extreme liberals are saying Muslim women should not wear a hijab even if they chose to do it out of their own free will, because they see the veil as a tool of oppression regardless of the woman's choice. In France, hijabs are banned from certain public spaces because of this. Who is right in this case? Is anyone? Would you say there is a middle path, i.e. the woman's own choice is the only one that should matter? Some would say the choice is never truly her own because of things like internalized misogyny and cultural pressure. Basically the argument goes that even if a woman THINKS she is making a choice out of her own free will, she isn't really. So is there truly a moderate option here that is not infringing upon anyone's freedom?

Except there's already laid of definitions of moderates and extremists.

And there are different variations of moderates. depends on a variety of factors.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 02:15 AM
Strict and loose is a very big oversimplification of politics it is often far more than that on many issues. For example the Right is very strong on personal liberties like gun rights, confiscation of property, loosening of red tape etc, but at the same time they oppose gay marriage or drug legalization.

Agreed. American conservatives are on the one hand against big government when it comes to universal health care, but quick to defend small government when it comes to anti-abortion laws. So terms like "loose" and "strict" basically change and shift depending on the issue at hand.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:18 AM
Hold on, i think there's a miscommunication here.

When I say moderate, I don't mean in the middle of what is right and what is wrong. I'm talking about someone who shares some beliefs of two seperate factions.

There is no "who is right" or anything. Its a simple mix of two defined philosophies. What the philosophies believe in isn't what I'm emphazing.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 02:20 AM
Except there's already laid of definitions of moderates and extremists.

And there are different variations of moderates. depends on a variety of factors.

I don't understand the first sentence. Laid of?

The second sentence: exactly my point. IMO there are as many political and religious affiliations as there are people. You can't just plop another group in the middle of the assassins/Templars conflict and say "these are moderates". You have to show us WHY they are moderates. What characteristics make them moderate? And once you start doing that, someone will always point out the group doesn't always live up to its own ideals or that they are somehow just as bad as the extremist groups. This variety of factors you speak of is nothing more than each individual's personal point of view.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:21 AM
^Let me put it in simpler terms.

Faction A:
Specific defined philosophies that are different from B

Faction B:
Specific defined philosophies that are different from A

Faction C:
Philosophies that are drawn (by any varying degree) from both Faction A and B

I-Like-Pie45
04-07-2014, 02:21 AM
when did this thread become a philo-political debate

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:23 AM
when did this thread become a philo-political debate

These kind of debates are fun :rolleyes:

Though I have an assignment due midnight and I have to get to that soon :p

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:25 AM
That's not what defines an assassin and templar. Darby said there can be pacifist templars. Ones who don't use force. They're still templars despite not falling into your qualifications.

Control is very generic though. Control can apply to law, taxes, regulations, anything. You can't just say control and dismiss things that control applies to.



Except there's already laid of definitions of moderates and extremists.

And there are different variations of moderates. depends on a variety of factors.

Exactly but FORCE DOESNT MEAN VIOLENCE it can be taxes, laws, or bayonet point. But Templars of any type would still advocate this, because it is forcing people to do something, Assassins do not believe in any of this, they want free will. Thus anyone who advocates any of the above would still be a Templar. What I mean is that you cannot truly be a moderate you will still fall in to one or the other category because the you will inevitably fall in one category on more issues than the other. Just like you cant truly be an Independent moderate in politics in the US you are either a Moderate Republican or a Moderate Democrat. When it comes down to punching a name on a ballot you will fall in with one or the other either Republican or Democrat, you cant vote twice so you have to chose one side or the other. Same deal with Assassins or Templars.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:25 AM
I'm just saying if I was in the assassin's creed world, I'd consider myself moderate in the sense I think there needs to be control/order in some things but a varying degree of freedom in others. :p

Not gonna specify what because that could spark a debate on it's own. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:27 AM
Exactly but FORCE DOESNT MEAN VIOLENCE it can be taxes, laws, or bayonet point. But Templars of any type would still advocate this, because it is forcing people to do something, Assassins do not believe in any of this, they want free will. Thus anyone who advocates any of the above would still be a Templar. What I mean is that you cannot truly be a moderate you will still fall in to one or the other category because the you will inevitably fall in one category on more issues than the other. Just like you cant truly be an Independent moderate in politics in the US you are either a Moderate Republican or a Moderate Democrat. When it comes down to punching a name on a ballot you will fall in with one or the other either Republican or Democrat, you cant vote twice so you have to chose one side or the other. Same deal with Assassins or Templars.

taxes and laws is force?

I would say that depends on what kind of government makes those laws and creates those taxes. Dictatorship? Representative Democracy? Direct Democracy? Because depending on the case, it wouldn't be force.

edit: of course you can't be moderate if you're republican or democrat.

that's like saying you can't be female if you are male. there's set definitions. That's a registered thing.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:32 AM
^Let me put it in simpler terms.

Faction A:
Specific defined philosophies that are different from B

Faction B:
Specific defined philosophies that are different from A

Faction C:
Philosophies that are drawn (by any varying degree) from both Faction A and B

This is exactly my point this does not apply to Assassins and Templars because they share the same defined goal/philosophy. The difference is in how they achieve these things. This is different from politic where each specific issue has a different goal and end for each party thus in that situation you can take from different parties for different issues. But the Assassin/Templar issue is a one issue thing, its a generalized belief system, a CREED if you will. Completely different from an issue based thing. The difference is ONLY in the means of accomplishing the goal so if you adopt one of the methods of the other side(even if you don't apply it to other areas) you are still a Templar because the Assassins do no advocate any kinds of controls. Do you understand?

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:35 AM
This is exactly my point this does not apply to Assassins and Templars because they share the same defined goal/philosophy. The difference is in how they achieve these things. This is different from politic where each specific issue has a different goal and end for each party thus in that situation you can take from different parties for different issues. But the Assassin/Templar issue is a one issue thing, its a generalized belief system, a CREED if you will. Completely different from an issue based thing. The difference is ONLY in the means of accomplishing the goal so if you adopt one of the methods of the other side(even if you don't apply it to other areas) you are still a Templar because the Assassins do no advocate any kinds of controls. Do you understand?

Assassins and templars do not share the same philosophies.

And everyone's goals is the same. Everyone wants peace. That's hardly enough to call them similar. Republicans and Democrats want a stable economy and happy living, but it doesn't make them similar.

And false. If assassins did not advocate any control, they would not be assassins. They would be like pirates w/ total anarchy. Darby McDevitt said that himself.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:38 AM
taxes and laws is force?

I would say that depends on what kind of government makes those laws and creates those taxes. Dictatorship? Representative Democracy? Direct Democracy? Because depending on the case, it wouldn't be force.

edit: of course you can't be moderate if you're republican or democrat.

that's like saying you can't be female if you are male. there's set definitions. That's a registered thing.
Even in a Democracy you have the tyranny of the majority. For example laws were enacted to segregate African americans for years and force them to do certain things that kept them from voting by the force of taxes and laws, so yes laws and taxes are a form of force, and these were implemented by a democratically elected government, and still would have happened in direct democracy because blacks were a minority when these laws were passes so they would still suffer from the tyranny of the majority rule. If I say you have to eat dirt every day or pay a fine of $100000 you will probably eat dirt every day to avoid that fine even though it is against your will and you don't want to eat dirt. Do you get it yet? Control is still control weather its done in a "moderate" way or not thus if you advocate any type of force you are still a Templar because you advocate forcing people to do things.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 02:40 AM
taxes and laws is force?

I would say that depends on what kind of government makes those laws and creates those taxes. Dictatorship? Representative Democracy? Direct Democracy? Because depending on the case, it wouldn't be force.


Of course laws are force. Hell, the police is even called law enforcement. Taxes force people to pay for things they may not necessarily agree with (like universal health care or military upkeep). Does that mean laws and taxes are a bad thing? Of course not. But they're still a form of enforcing.

I disagree with Bmark94 that assassins would naturally be opposed to any form of force. They're not anarchists in the sense that everyone should be free to do whatever they please. "Our creed does not command us to be free, it commands us to be wise." They're not advocating freedom from law, government or consequences. The only thing they advocate is freedom of choice, even if that freedom means allowing people to make choices they personally disagree with.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:41 AM
Even in a Democracy you have the tyranny of the majority. For example laws were enacted to segregate African americans for years and force them to do certain things that kept them from voting by the force of taxes and laws, so yes laws and taxes are a form of force, and these were implemented by a democratically elected government, and still would have happened in direct democracy because blacks were a minority when these laws were passes so they would still suffer from the tyranny of the majority rule. If I say you have to eat dirt every day or pay a fine of $100000 you will probably eat dirt every day to avoid that fine even though it is against your will and you don't want to eat dirt. Do you get it yet? Control is still control weather its done in a "moderate" way or not thus if you advocate any type of force you are still a Templar because you advocate forcing people to do things.

You're referencing the Jim Crow laws, no?

If you're saying laws are a form of force, and that assassins do not use force, then that would make assassins full blown anarchists. And that would go against Darby's words himself.



I disagree with Bmark94 that assassins would naturally be opposed to any form of force. They're not anarchists in the sense that everyone should be free to do whatever they please. "Our creed does not command us to be free, it commands us to be wise." They're not advocating freedom from law, government or consequences. The only thing they advocate is freedom of choice, even if that freedom means allowing people to make choices they personally disagree with.

This I can agree with.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:43 AM
Assassins and templars do not share the same philosophies.

And everyone's goals is the same. Everyone wants peace. That's hardly enough to call them similar. Republicans and Democrats want a stable economy and happy living, but it doesn't make them similar.

And false. If assassins did not advocate any control, they would not be assassins. They would be like pirates w/ total anarchy. Darby McDevitt said that himself.

Assassins don't support control they just allow things like government to exist because they are created by peoples free will IE Connors support of the US Government even though he acknowledged their flaws. Pirates are not assassins they are farther to the extreme right because they eliminated the government of Nassau and created anarchy and their goal is not peace they are pirates they attack people thus they are a completely different faction not radical assassins. They oppose any government. Assassins don't always agree with government, but they tolerate it. They don't personally advocate or make any of the government controls happen, The Templars however do advocate increased controls actively, where the Assassins do not advocate more only tolerate it. Thus they are still assassins. You cant stand in the middle. Moderation only applies within a faction itself, but it is still part of a faction none the less.

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 02:44 AM
Exactly but FORCE DOESNT MEAN VIOLENCE it can be taxes, laws, or bayonet point. But Templars of any type would still advocate this, because it is forcing people to do something, Assassins do not believe in any of this, they want free will. Thus anyone who advocates any of the above would still be a Templar.

That's not really how the story was built. There isn't a libertarian, anti-tax, absolute freedom team in this story. ACB made it completely clear that the Templars are the right wing (everyone from free market conservatives to fascist dictators, bolstering the rights of corporations in exchange for help) while the Assassin side had been sponsoring the left (US Democrats, international socialists, and even communists in some cases, while falling behind in the technology race due to their lack of influence in the corporate world).

http://kotaku.com/5711464/the-machiavellian-plot-hidden-in-a-blockbuster-video-game/all
http://kotaku.com/5693596/is-this-the-years-most-liberal-video-game/all

It's not a story about "freedom" in the sense that many US citizens see it (freedom from "big government"), or at least it wasn't meant to be. Of course, since the marketing for ACIII utterly sold out this concept and Ubisoft sold the movie rights, we'll probably not see anything approaching this level of bravery again, and Ubisoft will get back to Jack Bauer fantasies in Splinter Cell and Watch Dogs and ensure it never says anything negative about unfettered capitalism and the right wing. But it was interesting for a minute.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 02:45 AM
Just a side note: just because Darby said something doesn't mean it's the ultimate truth. He's not the creator of the series, he simply took over Corey May's job as the head writer. Darby compared the assassins to compassionate anarchists and the Templars to benevolent dictators which I think is a gross oversimplification.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:47 AM
Assassins don't support control they just allow things like government to exist because they are created by peoples free will IE Connors support of the US Government even though he acknowledged their flaws. Pirates are not assassins they are farther to the extreme right because they eliminated the government of Nassau and created anarchy and their goal is not peace they are pirates they attack people thus they are a completely different faction not radical assassins. They oppose any government. Assassins don't always agree with government, but they tolerate it. They don't personally advocate or make any of the government controls happen, The Templars however do advocate increased controls actively, where the Assassins do not advocate more only tolerate it. Thus they are still assassins. You cant stand in the middle. Moderation only applies within a faction itself, but it is still part of a faction none the less.

Actually pirates are farther to extreme left because they believe in complete freedom.

Moderation does not only apply within a faction itself. I'm a moderate when it comes to republicans/democrats which are two seperate factions.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:51 AM
edit:
Oh shoot I thought double click was Bmark. Sorry XD


Just a side note: just because Darby said something doesn't mean it's the ultimate truth. He's not the creator of the series, he simply took over Corey May's job as the head writer. Darby compared the assassins to compassionate anarchists and the Templars to benevolent dictators which I think is a gross oversimplification.

I get what you're saying but I still think what the writers say is still the ultimate truth simply because they decide what is canon and what is not.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:54 AM
Oh shoot I thought double click was Bmark. Sorry XD

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 02:54 AM
Nobody really knows what the story was meant to be built except for the developers.

.

You've only played III and IV though. There are puzzles in ACII and ACB that unlock data. Wait until you see those before you comment.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 02:56 AM
You've only played III and IV though. There are puzzles in ACII and ACB that unlock data. Wait until you see those before you comment.

Yeah I thought you were BMark sorry.

But I did watch walkthroughs of AC2 and ACB just to put that out there (/o3o)/

(though I wasn't very invested so i may have missed some important facts)

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 02:57 AM
Actually pirates are farther to extreme left because they believe in complete freedom.

Moderation does not only apply within a faction itself. I'm a moderate when it comes to republicans/democrats which are two seperate factions.

No you apparently don't know how the political spectrum works lol I am a political science major by the way. When it comes to government control The Right supports small government and more personal liberties lower taxes, while the Left supports large government, vast controls and regulations, higher taxes, handouts, wealth dispersion, etc. While some exceptions are taken by each side in different contries the basics are the same Right=Small Gov. Left=Big Gov. so in all seriousness the Extreme Right is Anarchy, and the Extreme Left is Totalitarianism or Communism.(That's not an opinion thing its actually an existing scale and its fact).

And you may be a moderate between Repubs and Dems but you still have to choose one at the end of the day and I am sure you often find yourself agreeing with one side more often than the other meaning that in all reality you are a Moderate(Insert whichever you agee with most often here) You cant be both just occasionally see validity with the other side. Its actually very interesting the studies my professor has shown us about how people often claim they are objective but when asked to make decisions for different issues they almost always fall in line with a specific party weather they admit they are one or not. Basically in the field and study of political science Objectivity and truly "independent" moderates have been proven not to exist. They always agree with one side well over 50% of the time

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:00 AM
Actually pirates are farther to extreme left because they believe in complete freedom.

The left is not defined by freedom. The left believes state- and community-owned public services are essential, whereas the right wants to see them all in private hands and subject to competition. The left strongly advocates careful checks and curbs on the behaviour of large businesses, while the right thinks government should keep out of those things as much as possible. The left requires closer government involvement in markets, whereas the right believes in a natural economic order that will emerge and create a reliable pattern if it is allowed to do so.

There are lots of ways that right wing politics differ from the left, but freedom is too nebulous to be a part of that.

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:02 AM
Yeah I thought you were BMark sorry.

But I did watch walkthroughs of AC2 and ACB just to put that out there (/o3o)/

(though I wasn't very invested so i may have missed some important facts)

Aww no! You missed out on two really fun games. I doubt your walkthrough capper bothered with the glyphs and clusters either, except the essential ones.

SixKeys
04-07-2014, 03:05 AM
I get what you're saying but I still think what the writers say is still the ultimate truth simply because they decide what is canon and what is not.

Only when it comes to story-related aspects (and even then different writers sometimes forget things and make up something that conflicts with established canon facts). When it comes to the philosophies in the series, AC devs have always encouraged fans to discuss the ideas and perspectives offered in the games and come to their own conclusions.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 03:06 AM
No you apparently don't know how the political spectrum works lol I am a political science major by the way. When it comes to government control The Right supports small government and more personal liberties lower taxes, while the Left supports large government, vast controls and regulations, higher taxes, handouts, wealth dispersion, etc. While some exceptions are taken by each side in different contries the basics are the same Right=Small Gov. Left=Big Gov. so in all seriousness the Extreme Right is Anarchy, and the Extreme Left is Totalitarianism or Communism.(That's not an opinion thing its actually an existing scale and its fact).

And you may be a moderate between Repubs and Dems but you still have to choose one at the end of the day and I am sure you often find yourself agreeing with one side more often than the other meaning that in all reality you are a Moderate(Insert whichever you agee with most often here) You cant be both just occasionally see validity with the other side. Its actually very interesting the studies my professor has shown us about how people often claim they are objective but when asked to make decisions for different issues they almost always fall in line with a specific party weather they admit they are one or not. Basically in the field and study of political science Objectivity and truly "independent" moderates have been proven not to exist. They always agree with one side well over 50% of the time

I know that stuff. I learned that in government class. That really has to do with state vs. federal control and economy. When i speak of anarchy I speak of social policies and rights. The left is more prone to demand social rights. :nonchalance:

I only have to "choose" because law says I need to register for one party to vote for a candidate I like. I pick a candidate then temporarily register for that party to vote for him. I'm not influenced by the party itself.

I know others may be like what you described but I am not and as long as I exist that's proof a moderate can exist.


They always agree with one side well over 50% of the time

A moderate doesn't have to be 50/50 to be moderate. A moderate can share philosophies of one side at any degree as long as it's not 100%

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 03:08 AM
The left is not defined by freedom. The left believes state- and community-owned public services are essential, whereas the right wants to see them all in private hands and subject to competition. The left strongly advocates careful checks and curbs on the behaviour of large businesses, while the right thinks government should keep out of those things as much as possible. The left requires closer government involvement in markets, whereas the right believes in a natural economic order that will emerge and create a reliable pattern if it is allowed to do so.

There are lots of ways that right wing politics differ from the left, but freedom is too nebulous to be a part of that.

I never said they were defined by freedom. I said they were more prone to demand "rights." that's an actual statistic.


Aww no! You missed out on two really fun games. I doubt your walkthrough capper bothered with the glyphs and clusters either, except the essential ones.

I'll play the games eventually :rolleyes:


Only when it comes to story-related aspects (and even then different writers sometimes forget things and make up something that conflicts with established canon facts). When it comes to the philosophies in the series, AC devs have always encouraged fans to discuss the ideas and perspectives offered in the games and come to their own conclusions.

I would consider philosophies part of the story aspect, but that's just me.

And true I guess.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 03:08 AM
The left is not defined by freedom. The left believes state- and community-owned public services are essential, whereas the right wants to see them all in private hands and subject to competition. The left strongly advocates careful checks and curbs on the behaviour of large businesses, while the right thinks government should keep out of those things as much as possible. The left requires closer government involvement in markets, whereas the right believes in a natural order that will emerge and create order if it is allowed to do so.

There are lots of ways that right wing politics differ from the left, but freedom is too nebulous to be a part of that.

Exactly! So Templars being advocates of control can be very far of the Political Left when it comes to Government control, and physical force, while other Templars can seek control from the Political Right by accumulating wealth and controlling through the power of money and the Corruption it can breed. Politics are merely a tool by which a philosophy can be enacted. The philosophical goals and methods of Assassins and Templars exist on a different level from politics. Either side can accomplish their goals as a political Leftist or an ultra conservative. It is a completely different thing. Its better comparable to someone's religion rather than political view. A person can be devoutly religious and stand on either side politically. A CREED is different from a party or faction

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:12 AM
While some exceptions are taken by each side in different contries the basics are the same Right=Small Gov. Left=Big Gov. so in all seriousness the Extreme Right is Anarchy, and the Extreme Left is Totalitarianism or Communism.(That's not an opinion thing its actually an existing scale and its fact).

I'd disagree strongly with that. For one thing there are several forms of anarchy as a political philosophy, but what they all share is a theme of power only through community, which is not something I think you can claim for the right anymore than Mayrice can say the pirates were of the left simply because of "freedom". In almost all forms, an anarchist society would be a very politically complex one, with the community voting together over just about every issue you can imagine. Very few people on the right of today would be okay with that degree of micromanagement.

JustPlainQuirky
04-07-2014, 03:14 AM
I really want to continue this debate but I have a major assignment due in less than two hours. :(

Keep adding stuff if you want and maybe I'll respond later. But I've been distracted from my assignment long enough.

Man, if only the developers saw this debate. I wonder what they would say. :o

Anyway, time to work.

http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/files/2012/11/153679054-620x4131.jpg

Tata.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 03:15 AM
I know that stuff. I learned that in government class. That really has to do with state vs. federal control and economy. When i speak of anarchy I speak of social policies and rights. The left is more prone to demand social rights. :nonchalance:

I only have to "choose" because law says I need to register for one party to vote for a candidate I like. I pick a candidate then temporarily register for that party to vote for him. I'm not influenced by the party itself.

I know others may be like what you described but I am not and as long as I exist that's proof a moderate can exist.



A moderate doesn't have to be 50/50 to be moderate. A moderate can share philosophies of one side at any degree as long as it's not 100%

Politcs isn't limited specifically to Social issues only and the Right is often on the free side of these too for example right to gun ownership, removal of excessive documentation and regulation for people to run their businesses, free speech and practice of religion(where the left would force you not to comment or to remove religious reference from anything even private business practice). So you are fairly misinformed and oversimplifying.

You also only have to register to vote in a primary election. When it comes to a general election a Registered Republican can vote for a Democrat and visa versa its allowed. So I have no idea what you are talking about there.

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:16 AM
Exactly! So Templars being advocates of control can be very far of the Political Left when it comes to Government control, and physical force, while other Templars can seek control from the Political Right by accumulating wealth and controlling through the power of money and the Corruption it can breed. Politics are merely a tool by which a philosophy can be enacted. The philosophical goals and methods of Assassins and Templars exist on a different level from politics. Either side can accomplish their goals as a political Leftist or an ultra conservative. It is a completely different thing. Its better comparable to someone's religion rather than political view. A person can be devoutly religious and stand on either side politically. A CREED is different from a party or faction

Again, that's not the way the fiction is presented.

The assassins upheld prominent socialists such as Salvador Allende and Mohammad Mossadegh, against the templar's support of Thatcher, Nixon, Reagan. There's really no room for doubt in what the team wanted until it was told to cut it out.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 03:22 AM
I'd disagree strongly with that. For one thing there are several forms of anarchy as a political philosophy, but what they all share is a theme of power only through community, which is not something I think you can claim for the right anymore than Mayrice can say the pirates were of the left simply because of "freedom". In almost all forms, an anarchist society would be a very politically complex one, with the community voting together over just about every issue you can imagine. Very few people on the right of today would be okay with that degree of micromanagement.

Voting would not be necessary in Anarchy because voting would mean democracy which is not anarchy. Anarchy means each person does their own thing independently not regulated or controlled by anyone else, or any government or any vote. And I didn't invent the scale I'm just reporting it. Anarchists are considered a FAR RIGHT movement because the concept depends on the elimination of all government, this doesn't mean the society all has conservative values, in fact there would be an extremely diverse political spectrum in an anarchy, only that the movement that created the anarchic system is a Far Right movement by definition. The same way that Communist revolutions and Communists are refered to as Leftists, and Leftist movements.

I didn't create the scale im just saying that Anarchy falls Right by any definition.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 03:25 AM
Again, that's not the way the fiction is presented.

The assassins upheld prominent socialists such as Salvador Allende and Mohammad Mossadegh, against the templar's support of Thatcher, Nixon, Reagan. There's really no room for doubt in what the team wanted until it was told to cut it out.

Interesting I haven't heard this, Where do these stories come from I haven't heard these at all. But even if it is true as I explained before I don't see how an Assassin or Templar cant be on either side of the political spectrum either side can suit their mission depending on what method they use to seek freedom/contol

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:29 AM
Voting would not be necessary in Anarchy because voting would mean democracy which is not anarchy. Anarchy means each person does their own thing independently not regulated or controlled by anyone else, or any government or any vote. And I didn't invent the scale I'm just reporting it. Anarchists are considered a FAR RIGHT movement because the concept depends on the elimination of all government, this doesn't mean the society all has conservative values, in fact there would be an extremely diverse political spectrum in an anarchy, only that the movement that created the anarchic system is a Far Right movement by definition. The same way that Communist revolutions and Communists are refered to as Leftists, and Leftist movements.

I didn't create the scale im just saying that Anarchy falls Right by any definition.

It does not mean "people doing their own thing!" I don't know what they're teaching you if you've come away from your course thinking it's a left wing thing to deny religious expression and the right wing thing to support it, but they've misled you totally over anarchy. What about revolutionary syndicalism, the primary form of anarchist philosophy in the 20th century? These are collectivist philosophies, and voting is not alien to them; it's essential. I've never met an anarchist who'd be anything less than appalled to be described as right-wing, let alone extreme right-wing.

D.I.D.
04-07-2014, 03:41 AM
Interesting I haven't heard this, Where do these stories come from I haven't heard these at all. But even if it is true as I explained before I don't see how an Assassin or Templar cant be on either side of the political spectrum either side can suit their mission depending on what method they use to seek freedom/contol

Play Brotherhood, solve all of the clusters. Data files are unlocked in layers, and it rewards you with further info each time. I think ACII might have had some of this stuff behind its glyphs too, but the two things are so closely linked that I can't remember if this was a Brotherhood-only thing or not. Certainly it was at its strongest in ACB, either way.

I was amazed by it because, as you've probably guessed, I'm very left-leaning, and I hadn't seen any North American mainstream entertainment pushing something like this in a very long time. To see it in a game was almost incredible to me, and that it was presented in global rather than US-centric terms was the icing on the cake, hence my dismay at the quiet drowning of this whole theme. There was so much potential to make the modern day story reactive to real world events from current affairs, but they threw the baby out with the bath water. Now, it's like the games' own modern world barely exists, since we rarely hear anything about it and never see it.

How great would it have been to weave the global economic banking crisis into AC? Obviously it would be in terrible bad taste to incorporate the specifics of the Arab Spring or the Syrian civil war into AC, but I'm sure there could have been some abstract way to make a indirect nod to those struggles.

DumbGamerTag94
04-07-2014, 03:42 AM
It does not mean "people doing their own thing!" I don't know what they're teaching you if you've come away from your course thinking it's a left wing thing to deny religious expression and the right wing thing to support it, but they've misled you totally over anarchy. What about revolutionary syndicalism, the primary form of anarchist philosophy in the 20th century? These are collectivist philosophies, and voting is not alien to them; it's essential. I've never met an anarchist who'd be anything less than appalled to be described as right-wing, let alone extreme right-wing.

The scale has nothing to do with religion etc. It is based entirely on the level of government advocated. Left being very large governmet, Right being little to no government. The scale works that way. Its used by countless universities and news outlets so IDK what you mean.

And what you are describing is not TRUE anarchy. Its collectivism/ direct democracy. They may consider themselves to be "anarchist" but that is not entirely accurate Anarchy is defined as the absence of government. Anything else is not truly anarchy even if that is what they call themselves. For example The North Koreans (and Previously the Soviet Union) referred to themselves as Communists, when in fact they are and were Socialist Dictatorships. True communism is a classless system with no government where everyone has the same wealth and shared resources. They clearly are not and were not this yet that is what they call themselves.

You mustn't confuse the name a group gives themselves with what they actually are. If what you say is true then the "anarchists" you know are truthfully more of a devout Communist in which case they would in fact be Extreme Leftists, but the name they are using "anarchist" is still an Extreme Right movement rather that offends them or not. If they do not want that label or confusion they should call themselves what they are "Collectivists/Communists" Misnomers just overcomplicate an already complex system and spectrum

Wolfmeister1010
04-07-2014, 05:28 AM
Speaking of fanfictions, I just posted a thread about one I am making. Go check it out!

Farlander1991
04-07-2014, 12:18 PM
Anarchy nowadays has a lot of different branches, not to mention misinterpretations in society, however at its root (http://www.*****.org/texts/intro/sp001633.html)it's about willful cooperation. Ergo anarchists don't have a problem with government directly, but with the fact that it creates a hierarchy that puts select individuals in position of power OVER other people. There's still order to be found in anarchy, that comes from the desire to work together - therefore I think it's entirely fair to call Assassins 'compassionate anarchists', even if it's oversimplification - but when you have to explain a complex order in a few words oversimplification is kind of a given.

EDIT: Also, Anarchy IS collectivist, at least in some basic form. You have individual freedom, but if you get to the point where you invade somebody else's individual freedom you get into a non-equal dominating position. Therefore agreements and cooperation is required for an anarchist society to work. Individuals govern themselves but they're still interdependent.