PDA

View Full Version : The Assassins and their goal



Classified_.
04-24-2014, 08:11 PM
Hello everyone! This is my first thread EVURZ, and I thought I'd want to share an idea with you.

If you observe the Assassins' goals and ideals, you would (At least I did) notice how much they changed from AC 1&2 to AC 3&4.
In the first and second (Ezio's triology in general) AC, the assassins wanted to achieve peace through freewill and understanding. While the Templars sought peace as well, but through order.

Starting from AC III, the assassins were all about freedom more than anything in a very chaotic way. Now the Templars are just "evil dictators". It flattens the purpose of each order a bit, do you agree?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the AC franchise, but that made the story lose some of its depth.

I'd appreciate if you discuss the topic and share your opinions.

Thanks.

Jexx21
04-24-2014, 08:27 PM
The story has gained depth. In AC2 and ACB the templars are just evil dictators. In ACR, AC3, and AC4, the Templars are fighting for peace via order and control.

The Assassin cause has always been the preservation of freedom and peace through the elimination of those who would oppose it, and has stayed true in all of the games. In AC4 you play primarily as a pirate, and it isn't really until the end that you become an Assassin.

Shahkulu101
04-24-2014, 08:36 PM
If you think the Templars in AC3 are just 'evil dictators' and you think that AC2 and Brotherhood's Templar's fought for order then you're a bit of an idiot

Jexx21
04-24-2014, 08:43 PM
tbh I didn't think that the AC4 templars had much characterization. But they definitely weren't evil dictators.

But I mean, the Templars in AC4 were pretty much going the NSA/Prism route.

Shahkulu101
04-24-2014, 08:55 PM
I didn't mention AC4 because well, they weren't really anything particularly evil, but not intriguingly ambigious. Their motivations really aren't very clear - but to say AC3's Templars are evil dictators while claiming AC2 and Brotherhood's Templars were something more compelling from an ambigious point of view - utterly ridiculous.

Classified_.
04-24-2014, 09:04 PM
I think (am certain) I didn't clarify that part.

I was talking about how the Templars sound from an assassin point of view. I'm also incorrect about AC II and ACB, apparently I was thinking about ACR when I wrote that.

Fatal-Feit
04-25-2014, 11:08 AM
You have the Templars from the Kenway Saga and the Ezio Trilogy switched. Either you clearly haven't been focusing on the story, or you haven't played the Ezio Trilogy in a long while. Even the Templars in AC:R were very cliche and cartoony. <--And that was my favorite of the trilogy.

If you've played AC:3, you'd know that ''from the Assassins' PoV'', they never thought of the Templars as ''evil dictators''. And in AC:IV, Edward had no personal quarrel with them for most of the SP. If anything, Edward was the ''evil chaotic'' one in everyone's PoV.

If you're referring to AC:1 as the god of all Templars, then you should also be tugging on AC:3's leg.

Hans684
04-25-2014, 06:25 PM
Hello everyone! This is my first thread EVURZ, and I thought I'd want to share an idea with you.

Welcome!

The Assassins gather together to welcome Classified_.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/f0b7gp.jpg


If you observe the Assassins' goals and ideals, you would (At least I did) notice how much they changed from AC 1&2 to AC 3&4.

Changed for the better. I feel more depth with a gray story instead of Black and white.


In the first and second (Ezio's triology in general) AC, the assassins wanted to achieve peace through freewill and understanding. While the Templars sought peace as well, but through order.

Yes, AC2 and Brotherhood had the most amount of evil Templars, but they are labeled evil in RL too. So that part can't be entirely blamed on Ubisoft, but the fact that they made Ezio superior to Cesare(great military tactician) is their fult. Is there anyone here who consider Rodrigo/Cesare Borgia good guys?

Revelations is a mixed game, it does have evil Templars but still a nice Templar, Prinse Ahmed is simualar to Haytham/Haymitch. Tarik is innocent, he planned to strike the Byzantium Templars at theire weakest and it gott him killed.


Starting from AC III, the assassins were all about freedom more than anything in a very chaotic way. Now the Templars are just "evil dictators". It flattens the purpose of each order a bit, do you agree?

The Assassins has always been about freedom/free will/liberty, they mean it's a chaotic way worth taking to reach true peace.

Templars want control but not every Templars want to control our minds to control us. The best example is Grand Master Torres from Black Flag, he wanted to use the Observatory to control, it's harmless compared to the Apple Of Eden. Laureano de Torres y Ayala helped the economic development of Cuba. It was he who established the cultivation of tobacco on the island, and it's growing consumption in Europe ensured a substantial income for Cuba. The development of the new Templar Order in the West Indies aimed to make Cuba a world leader. The main objective of the Grand Master was to take control of the Observatory, a structure built be the First Civilisation that housed a device that could spy on anybody in the world.

Despite his Prodjects of dominating society's elite, one of the main driving forces of his actions was always the common good. Even trough he left his governmentship in 1716, Laureano de Torres continued to fully devote himself to the inhabitants of Cuba. He managed to finance a hospital for lepers in Havanna, as well as other charities. Furthermore he abandoned slavery and those who benefited from it. The Grand Master undoubtedly preferred to controlling the opinions of other people over enslaving the body. Laureano de Torres y Ayala was a true Templar who sincerely believed that his actions were for the good of humanity within his framework of control.(Source: Encyclopedia 3.0)


Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the AC franchise, but that made the story lose some of its depth.

Personally I know there is more depth then before.


I'd appreciate if you discuss the topic and share your opinions.

I always do.


Thanks.

No, thank you.

cawatrooper9
04-26-2014, 03:38 PM
I didn't mention AC4 because well, they weren't really anything particularly evil, but not intriguingly ambigious. T

I agree, the Templars in AC4 weren't particularly that interesting- actually, Torres was one of the blandest Big Bads that I can recall from an AC game. I really did like Roberts as a villain, though, and I wish he had been utilized more even though he wasn't a Templar. For me, he ranks right up there with Haytham and Cesare as one of the greatest AC villains so far.

Hans684
04-26-2014, 05:36 PM
I didn't mention AC4 because well, they weren't really anything particularly evil, but not intriguingly ambigious.

Disagree, the antagonists don't have to be evil.

cawatrooper9
04-26-2014, 06:00 PM
Disagree, the antagonists don't have to be evil.

I think that's what he means, though. Ambiguous villains are often very interesting- take Haytham, for instance. These villains lacked that ambiguity (or it wasn't at least played up very much). They wanted the Observatory, and while their intentions seemed pretty nefarious, they didn't really seem that catastrophic. It just felt like there was basically nothing at stake.

The writers could have done some really interesting things with ambiguity, too. After all, the Templars were fighting pirates- it's not inconceivable for the pirates to have been responsible for more collateral damage to citizens and the economy of the Caribbean than would justify their more noble efforts. There just wasn't anything like that, though, at least nothing that I saw or heard in the game.

Shahkulu101
04-26-2014, 06:28 PM
Disagree, the antagonists don't have to be evil.

Not what I was saying. I just mean they aren't very compelling. From an ambigious and villainous point of view - so they just come off bland.

Hans684
04-26-2014, 06:44 PM
I think that's what he means, though.

English is not my native language.


Ambiguous villains are often very interesting- take Haytham, for instance.

So working to make Cuba a world leader is not ambiguous? Control people without control their minds(Apple Of Eden) but instead the Observatory is not ambiguous?


These villains lacked that ambiguity (or it wasn't at least played up very much). They wanted the Observatory, and while their intentions seemed pretty nefarious, they didn't really seem that catastrophic. It just felt like there was basically nothing at stake.

Indeed, that -for me- makes them ambiguous. They are the least evil Templars so far, it's shows the good side of the Templars.


The writers could have done some really interesting things with ambiguity, too. After all, the Templars were fighting pirates- it's not inconceivable for the pirates to have been responsible for more collateral damage to citizens and the economy of the Caribbean than would justify their more noble efforts. There just wasn't anything like that, though, at least nothing that I saw or heard in the game.

Just like the way the Borgia family worked justified the actions of Ezio and the rest of the Assassin Order's noble efforts. The Assassins where fighting the Borgia familiy, their goal was just power, so that will damage citizens and economy during in Italy and again a chance for the Assassins to show of their noble efforts.


Not what I was saying. I just mean they aren't very compelling. From an ambigious and villainous point of view - so they just come off bland.

Sorry, English is not my native language. Becouse an ambitious and villainous POV is always evil, I don't buy that.

AssassinKen2011
04-26-2014, 10:40 PM
The reason I see them as bland is more because they had zero personality and depth. It's like they saw how people complained that they spent too much time on the villains in ac3, in that very long prologue. And decided to spend zero time showing the villains in ac4, besides showing their goal: to get the observatory.

Assassin_M
04-26-2014, 11:30 PM
Hello everyone! This is my first thread EVURZ, and I thought I'd want to share an idea with you.

If you observe the Assassins' goals and ideals, you would (At least I did) notice how much they changed from AC 1&2 to AC 3&4.
In the first and second (Ezio's triology in general) AC, the assassins wanted to achieve peace through freewill and understanding. While the Templars sought peace as well, but through order.

Starting from AC III, the assassins were all about freedom more than anything in a very chaotic way. Now the Templars are just "evil dictators". It flattens the purpose of each order a bit, do you agree?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the AC franchise, but that made the story lose some of its depth.

I'd appreciate if you discuss the topic and share your opinions.

Thanks.
you've got it wrong, mate..

AC I:
Assassins: Peace through free will
Templars: Peace through control

AC II:
Assassins: Peace through keeping Templars out of power.
Templars: Power

ACB:
Assassins: Peace through taking power from Templars
Templars: Power

ACR:
Assassins: Peace through keeping Templars out of power
Templars: Peace through control

AC III:
Assassins: Peace through freedom and free will
Templars: Peace through guidance and influence

AC IV:
Assassins: Peace through defying authority
Templars: Peace through influence

It's the Templars in AC II and ACB that were just "evil dictators" not AC III onward.
The colonial Assassins are not really anarchists either. They're not the ones who sparked the Revolution, as a matter of fact, they tried to prevent war at first (the tea party) but the Templars kick started it. Connor and Achilles supported a model for order and authority just as much as Ezio and the Renaissance assassins did, except the colonial order wanted the freedom for people to choose the leader and type of authority.

RinoTheBouncer
04-27-2014, 09:31 PM
I think AC1 and AC2 Templars had some convincing ideas, such as Al-Mualim for example from AC1 but with AC:B, Cesare felt more like a pure bad person without any noble objectives but the good of himself and only himself. AC:R along with ACIII created a gray area between Assassins and Templars. It started with AC:R and it got more convincing with ACIII where you hear the Templars’ theories and find some logic in them and also find flaws in the Assassins’.

However, ACIV had no soul when it comes to Assassins and Templars. It felt more like a Pirate game showing people looking for a treasure that has special powers. There wasn’t much to argue about or discuss. It was the story of a person who only cared about making a fortune for himself by any means necessary until he found something in the Assassin’s Creed, in the end. There wasn’t much to discuss or analyze. I’m well aware that AC1,2....etc. all had Templars chasing a “treasure” which is the Apple but I felt like there was more depth to the reasons behind finding the Apple and more to the characters than what was shown in ACIV.