PDA

View Full Version : Assassins or Templars?



EmbodyingSeven5
09-02-2014, 12:06 AM
Choose your side

RinoTheBouncer
09-02-2014, 11:00 AM
Assassins.

CoachAssassin
09-02-2014, 11:21 AM
Edwardians. Edward. EDWAAAARD.

SlyTrooper
09-02-2014, 08:52 PM
Templars all the way. Do me proud, Elise... Wait... that sounds wrong.

Mike111690
09-02-2014, 09:01 PM
Well seeing as my favorite character in the AC franchise is Haytham (though Ezio is a close second), it's gotta be Templars for me.

Hans684
09-02-2014, 09:05 PM
Depends on era, time, situation, goals, actions etc.., You get the point, other than that both are bad. So I'm not gonna vote, it's far to much history on either side to say what's better. Not gonna judge either order on all their history because each have their own differences in curtain eras, it wouldn't be a good conclusion. Sue me.

jeordievera
09-02-2014, 09:08 PM
They are both crazy and none of their ideas would really work in todays world.

Fatal-Feit
09-02-2014, 09:21 PM
You forgot to add playboy to the list.

Layytez
09-02-2014, 10:09 PM
Assassins. I'm not big on injecting people with trackers.

JustPlainQuirky
09-02-2014, 10:17 PM
MURICA!

Both are extremists.

But if I had to pick one, then templars.

SlyTrooper
09-02-2014, 10:39 PM
MURICA!

Both are extremists.

But if I had to pick one, then templars.

I don't judge each group based on who's in it, but more upon the ideology behind the Orders. Therefore, it doesn't matter if they are extremists. Here's an example: I support the Templars & yet I hate the modern day Templars. They are supposed to guide through control & influence, not mind control.

JustPlainQuirky
09-02-2014, 10:40 PM
The whole concept of assassinating someone sounds extreme to me.

Edit: Though Darbs did say there are pacifist assassins so.... I guess....

Will_Lucky
09-02-2014, 10:49 PM
Edit: Though Darbs did say there are pacifist assassins so.... I guess....

In a sense Leonardo came the closet to such a thing, but of course he turned down membership in the Assassins Order as a result of wishing to follow a solitary path.

SlyTrooper
09-02-2014, 10:54 PM
The whole concept of assassinating someone sounds extreme to me.

Edit: Though Darbs did say there are pacifist assassins so.... I guess....

There's no such thing as a passive assassin... a passive Assassin on the other hand...

JustPlainQuirky
09-02-2014, 10:56 PM
you know what I meant

#grammarnazisindahouse

SlyTrooper
09-02-2014, 11:10 PM
you know what I meant

#grammarnazisindahouse

Nope, I completely misunderstood you. :p

Must I use the GIF again? Here goes...

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120101004807/halofanon/images/e/e5/Sarcasm.gif

joelsantos24
09-02-2014, 11:45 PM
Assassins, obviously. Is that even open for discussion?

I wouldn't say both orders are extremist, though, that's not accurate. The Assassins might be strict and disciplined, but that's not a synonym for extremism. The Templars, however, they're extremist, absolutist, totalitarian, fanatical, bloodthirsty, power-hungry psychopaths. After reading some of the opinions here, I finally understand the genesis of some people's interest in the upcoming Rogue. :cool:

I, on the other hand, am not eager to subjugate and drive the common people's lives towards utter misery and decay. The Assassins might have their issues, everyone has, but they're the right side here, no question about it.

Namikaze_17
09-02-2014, 11:53 PM
Templars...

They understand the wants and needs of Humanity...unlike the Assassins who are strictly just to killing Templars. I mean, what else is there for the Assassins? What are their goals? Ambitions? The future? All they have is this "hope" that Humanity can get better...( Although Noble) just isn't enough. Cruel creatures humans are..we spent centuries fighting and yelling and killing...but where does it stop?

Can you let your child live in a world of: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted"? Meaning to have ultimate free will although nice and dandy at first, only leads to utter chaos and corruption among us...such as Humanity throughout the world and ages.

But the Templars are the Answer..we seek Truth to find what keeps Men divided and create a society where there's no such as thing as War, Sickness, Poverty, and most of all ignorance.

As Noble as these Assassins may be, they're too blind and ignorant to see their folly of believing this "Creed" of theirs...
( So much they would kill each other for it.) And only the pits of Damnation wait for them.

But Us? We require no Creed, no indoctrination by DESPERATE old men, ALL WE NEED is for the world to be as it is for us to show Humanity....The Truth.


"May the Father of Understanding Guide you"

SlyTrooper
09-02-2014, 11:58 PM
Assassins, obviously. Is that even open for discussion?

I wouldn't say both orders are extremist, though, that's not accurate. The Assassins might be strict and disciplined, but that's not a synonym for extremism. The Templars, however, they're extremist, absolutist, totalitarian, fanatical, bloodthirsty, power-hungry psychopaths. After reading some of the opinions here, I finally understand the genesis of some people's interest in the upcoming Rogue. :cool:

I, on the other hand, am not eager to subjugate and drive the common people's lives towards utter misery and decay. The Assassins might have their issues, everyone has, but they're the right side here, no question about it.

You don't understand the Templar philosophy if that's what you think they're trying to do.

Locopells
09-03-2014, 12:32 AM
The whole concept of assassinating someone sounds extreme to me.

Edit: Though Darbs did say there are pacifist assassins so.... I guess....

Shaun, as ever, has it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm793wxCxzg&list=UUyxeJPMVA4ReKETt05TC44A

Hans684
09-03-2014, 04:53 AM
Shaun, as ever, has it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm793wxCxzg&list=UUyxeJPMVA4ReKETt05TC44A

There is an pacifist Assassin in AC.

JustPlainQuirky
09-03-2014, 04:57 AM
I wonder who Shaun killed.

#ShaunDLCincoming

OpticSpecs
09-03-2014, 08:00 AM
Templars

joelsantos24
09-03-2014, 08:22 PM
Templars...

They understand the wants and needs of Humanity...unlike the Assassins who are strictly just to killing Templars. I mean, what else is there for the Assassins? What are their goals? Ambitions? The future? All they have is this "hope" that Humanity can get better...( Although Noble) just isn't enough. Cruel creatures humans are..we spent centuries fighting and yelling and killing...but where does it stop?

Can you let your child live in a world of: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted"? Meaning to have ultimate free will although nice and dandy at first, only leads to utter chaos and corruption among us...such as Humanity throughout the world and ages.

But the Templars are the Answer..we seek Truth to find what keeps Men divided and create a society where there's no such as thing as War, Sickness, Poverty, and most of all ignorance.

As Noble as these Assassins may be, they're too blind and ignorant to see their folly of believing this "Creed" of theirs...
( So much they would kill each other for it.) And only the pits of Damnation wait for them.

But Us? We require no Creed, no indoctrination by DESPERATE old men, ALL WE NEED is for the world to be as it is for us to show Humanity....The Truth.


"May the Father of Understanding Guide you"
Oh, Jesus... *Rolleyes*


You don't understand the Templar philosophy if that's what you think they're trying to do.
Sure.

Hans684
09-03-2014, 08:24 PM
I actually prefer the First Civ. the most.

SlyTrooper
09-03-2014, 08:37 PM
Oh, Jesus... *Rolleyes*


Sure.

You say it as if you know you are right. There is such thing as an opinion.

steveeire
09-03-2014, 09:28 PM
Assassins, Templers suck.

poptartz20
09-03-2014, 09:29 PM
well.. true freedom is CHAOS. We as people need order.


both sides are extremist views, but I understand where both are coming from and both are just in their means from time to time, usually I would be on the fence with these types of things but Honestly I agree more with the templars. I'm surprised there actually aren't more supporters of templars. haha!

joelsantos24
09-06-2014, 10:31 AM
You say it as if you know you are right. There is such thing as an opinion.
No, not really. I just meant it to emphasize that I do know what the Templars are all about. Ubisoft had to distort the Assassins, in order to make Rogue plausible, by definition. I mean, does anyone see the Assassins as something else rather than the heroes or liberators, in their timeless war against the Templars? Truthfully? No. That's why Ubisoft invented a corrupt Assassin order, especially for Rogue. Haven't you people learned anything, ever since AC1? In every single game, we've always been liberating cities and making people's lives much better, as opposed to what they were like under Templar rule.

Hans684
09-06-2014, 12:45 PM
^ No such thing as a hero in AC other than Desmond who saved the word. Others are just people arguing with blades against each other's.

naumaan
09-06-2014, 12:59 PM
they both are fighting with each other and letting chaos win .. which is not acceptable ...

HoIcon
09-06-2014, 07:27 PM
Assassin, i believe in safeguarding free will, but i have seen flaws with that and have agreed with some things Templars have said


just incase any of you would like to show your allegiances, check these out

Assassins
http://store.ubiworkshop.com/assassins-creed/accessories/jewelry/master-assassin-ring/

Templars
http://store.ubiworkshop.com/assassins-creed/accessories/jewelry/templar-ring

lothario-da-be
09-06-2014, 08:37 PM
Templars for me. At least they strive for something concrete, they have actual goals. While the Assassins just fight for freedom, wich in the end will always lead to problems. I expected more people to vote on the Templars though. I always had the impression that tons of people on here are on the Templar side.

Namikaze_17
09-06-2014, 10:17 PM
*Looks at Loth's Sig*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAxO-za3KU&feature=youtube_gdata_player









And, I agree...Templars all the way. We have our Sexy redhead Elise. ;)

LieutenantJojo
09-06-2014, 10:55 PM
Templars for me. At least they strive for something concrete, they have actual goals. While the Assassins just fight for freedom, wich in the end will always lead to problems. I expected more people to vote on the Templars though. I always had the impression that tons of people on here are on the Templar side.

This. Haytham put it very well in AC3 actually: If the Assassins got their way, it would lead to chaos. I do have sympathy for the idea the Assassins have though. Freedom. But eventually it would lead to nothing else but anarchy. "The sheep need a shepherd".

If I had to choose, I'd have to go with the Templars. They may be a little extreme in their ways, but they still want what's best for humanity. If they had their way, it would lead to peace. The world would be "dull and sapped of all spirit", but there would be peace nonetheless.

So in the end it comes down to a "free" world full of anarchy and bloodshed versus a dull but peaceful world. Can't say the decision is very hard...

SlyTrooper
09-06-2014, 11:52 PM
This. Haytham put it very well in AC3 actually: If the Assassins got their way, it would lead to chaos. I do have sympathy for the idea the Assassins have though. Freedom. But eventually it would lead to nothing else but anarchy. "The sheep need a shepherd".

If I had to choose, I'd have to go with the Templars. They may be a little extreme in their ways, but they still want what's best for humanity. If they had their way, it would lead to peace. The world would be "dull and sapped of all spirit", but there would be peace nonetheless.

So in the end it comes down to a "free" world full of anarchy and bloodshed versus a dull but peaceful world. Can't say the decision is very hard...

The world would not be "dull & sapped of all spirit". Not including the modern brain-washing Templars, the other Templars would use extreme measures to obtain peace, but after they would just let them resume their lives. The only extreme measures they would use would be against criminals. The Templars just want to condition people into being peaceful & respectful of one another.

Hans684
09-07-2014, 09:04 AM
The world would not be "dull & sapped of all spirit". Not including the modern brain-washing Templars, the other Templars would use extreme measures to obtain peace, but after they would just let them resume their lives. The only extreme measures they would use would be against criminals. The Templars just want to condition people into being peaceful & respectful of one another.

People like Al Mualim, Borgia's and the MD Templars would make the word dull & sapped of all spirit. They use the Templar Order for their own ambition, that's not what it's about. Like the Assassins it's about the people, they want the same but done less chaotic.

joelsantos24
09-07-2014, 09:05 AM
^ No such thing as a hero in AC other than Desmond who saved the word. Others are just people arguing with blades against each other's.
Irrelevant. If you have such an issue with the word hero, then consider liberator. I did use it also, remember? One side are the liberators (Assassins), while the other subjugates (Templars), period. You can call it whatever you like, in the way that you prefer, this is an unescapable fact.


Templars for me. At least they strive for something concrete, they have actual goals. While the Assassins just fight for freedom, wich in the end will always lead to problems. I expected more people to vote on the Templars though. I always had the impression that tons of people on here are on the Templar side.
Freedom is a concrete goal, maybe not the one you prefer, but it is. You do realize that, what the Templars strive for has already been accomplished in real life (but temporarily, thank God), by people like Caesar, Hitler, Staline, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, etc? Remember the consequences? The enlightenment that the Templars refer to, is nothing but an empty lie, something forced by puppet masters unto apathetic puppets. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of action, etc, are priceless. This reminds me the discussion between AltaÔr and Jubair: you can't simply force people into believing whatever you want them to believe, the secret to a more balanced and just society lies in education, not subjugation or brainwashing.

This all seems pathetic, how hypocritical of some people, that would never abdicate of the freedoms they enjoy today, to blindly argue in favor of nothing but bloodthirsty, power-hungry, totalitarian psychopaths. If you all prefer the Templars and their truth, that's all fine, since we live in a free society and people are allowed to have their own opinions and choices, but don't try to argue in favor of what cannot even be up for discussion. One side, despite their flaws, inherent to any human being, is trying to liberate people's lives indiscriminately, without forcing them into slavery, of either the mind or the body; the other, is trying to accomplish just that.

The end.


NOTE: Well, apparently, there aren't more fans on the Templar side, you're all just louder.

Hans684
09-07-2014, 09:18 AM
Irrelevant. If you have such an issue with the word hero, then consider liberator. I did use it also, remember? One side are the liberators (Assassins), while the other subjugates (Templars), period. You can call it whatever you like, in the way that you prefer, this is an unescapable fact.

You do know that Rogue is going to show the side of our liberating that we hasn't seen when playing an Assassin?

joelsantos24
09-07-2014, 10:23 AM
You do know that Rogue is going to show the side of our liberating that we hasn't seen when playing an Assassin?
Our? We hasn't? o.O

This goes full circle towards what I said in the beginning: Ubisoft had to invent a corrupt Assassin order, especially for Rogue. And you're not gonna liberate anything, instead of liberating cities and improving people's lives, you're gonna do the opposite, prevent the Assassins from doing so. The Templars want to control everything and everyone, they want to make them believe what they want them to believe, and do what they want them to do. And after seizing absolute control, they'd degrade the people's lifestyles and conditions, in order to impair any and every possibility of uprising. Their goal, is nothing but a global totalitarian regime, with nothing but misery, starvation, destruction and death.

Do you realize you're actually arguing in favor of dictators, absolutists and totalitarians? What is wrong with you people?

Hans684
09-07-2014, 11:30 AM
Our? We hasn't? o.O

There is always two sides that's my point, when liberating we aren't always liberating. We will destroy some people lives wether as an Assassin or Templar.


This goes full circle towards what I said in the beginning: Ubisoft had to invent a corrupt Assassin order, especially for Rogue. And you're not gonna liberate anything, instead of liberating cities and improving people's lives, you're gonna do the opposite, prevent the Assassins from doing so.

There has always been corrupt Assassins. Truth be told this isn't even getting anywhere, you think all Templars are some kind of Hitlers and North Korea ******s. If you want to generalize then the Assassins are anarchist. Of course you'd ditch that and say only you know what's right.


The Templars want to control everything and everyone, they want to make them believe what they want them to believe, and do what they want them to do. And after seizing absolute control, they'd degrade the people's lifestyles and conditions, in order to impair any and every possibility of uprising. Their goal, is nothing but a global totalitarian regime, with nothing but misery, starvation, destruction and death.

We are past AC2 and Brotherhood, this ain't 2009/10.


Do you realize you're actually arguing in favor of dictators, absolutists and totalitarians? What is wrong with you people?

Do you realize you're argueing in favor of anarchyst, chaos, murder, mayhem and criminals? What's wrong with you people?

-------------------

In case you don't know I'm actually natural regarding the orders(havn't voted either(see no point)), but your judging all the Templars on the mistakes of few. Your not judging faily and blindly accept the Assassins, I've done the same mistake lad. I'm not blindly following either order anymore, I used to blindly follow the Assassins, now I question both sides. Different times different views on the goals and way of work of either order. I'm not even gonna discuss this any further, it won't gett anywhere and you properly view me as a power hungly(that's actually only Al Mualim, Borgia's and MD Templars) pig of some sort. Yeah it's getting beyond one sided.

Layytez
09-07-2014, 02:28 PM
I guess those who picked Templars enjoyed being monitored and tracked every day of their lives. Order and control can be good things but only if the methods benefit everyone and not just those imposing them.

Hans684
09-07-2014, 03:42 PM
I guess those who picked Templars enjoyed being monitored and tracked every day of their lives. Order and control can be good things but only if the methods benefit everyone and not just those imposing them.

And everyone thinks it`s the last one, as for your first point. Technology has made that possible.

I have not voted becouse the awnser isn't one side, i don`t support everything both orders do, they`re just as bad but in some situations one is a lesser evil.

GoldenBoy9999
09-07-2014, 06:22 PM
I think the point of the games is that neither are right for mankind. The devs were asked before if the last game in the franchise would have one side win and they said it would probably be a continuous fight.I feel like the devs are trying to say that as long as the Templars and Assassins are fighting we are in a good balance like we are IRL. If one side was to win it would not be good.

SlyTrooper
09-07-2014, 06:41 PM
Well, the Templars have pretty much won in modern day. The Assassins still exist, but they aren't posing a large threat at the moment.

HoIcon
09-07-2014, 06:46 PM
I think the point of the games is that neither are right for mankind. The devs were asked before if the last game in the franchise would have one side win and they said it would probably be a continuous fight.I feel like the devs are trying to say that as long as the Templars and Assassins are fighting we are in a good balance like we are IRL. If one side was to win it would not be good.

Aye, the Templars are born from the realization that humanity needs to be controlled to stop the chaos while the Assassin's are born from a reaction to that control when it gets out of hand, even if wiped out, each side will eventually reappear and continue to fight until the extinction of humanity

Fatal-Feit
09-07-2014, 11:34 PM
Technology have really turned against the Assassins after the Renaissance. =P

MasterAssasin84
09-08-2014, 12:01 AM
There is always two sides to every story !

I must admit the Templar philosophy is far more justifiable than the Assassins Creed ! and I often wonder have the Assassins opened a can of worms by releasing Juno from the grand temple ? has this ultimately made things worse ?

IMO Abstergo seem to be keeping society together and preventing its foundations from crumbling ?

The Assassins are morally in the right but self righteous morals does not excuse the will to act as we please regardless of the consequences . Black Flag really put the whole Assassin ideology under the spotlight . Robert's quote " all men want to live by a code or creed but when pushed they defer to their instincts rather than the laws that bind them". and of course how many Assassins have we seen break the three tenants of the creed .

Haytham Kenway - Freedom is an invitation to chaos ? we are seeming this in society right now .

IMO we need power structures to maintain order and further stimulate the developed world so I am more inclined to say that the Templar philosophy is more meaningful .but the difference between the Assassins and the Templars is the way the templars are promoting their ideology is diabolical, but the bigger picture the Templars for me .

cawatrooper
09-08-2014, 01:49 AM
Templars. The Assassins are decent protagonists, but the Templars (Rennaissance era excluded) make incredibly compelling "villains"- if you can even call them that.

TallOne123
09-08-2014, 04:09 AM
Assassins are the good guys, and Templars are the bad guys right????

Good guys always win so I wanna be Assassin!!!!

joelsantos24
09-13-2014, 07:31 AM
There is always two sides that's my point, when liberating we aren't always liberating. We will destroy some people lives wether as an Assassin or Templar.



There has always been corrupt Assassins. Truth be told this isn't even getting anywhere, you think all Templars are some kind of Hitlers and North Korea ******s. If you want to generalize then the Assassins are anarchist. Of course you'd ditch that and say only you know what's right.



We are past AC2 and Brotherhood, this ain't 2009/10.



Do you realize you're argueing in favor of anarchyst, chaos, murder, mayhem and criminals? What's wrong with you people?

-------------------

In case you don't know I'm actually natural regarding the orders(havn't voted either(see no point)), but your judging all the Templars on the mistakes of few. Your not judging faily and blindly accept the Assassins, I've done the same mistake lad. I'm not blindly following either order anymore, I used to blindly follow the Assassins, now I question both sides. Different times different views on the goals and way of work of either order. I'm not even gonna discuss this any further, it won't gett anywhere and you properly view me as a power hungly(that's actually only Al Mualim, Borgia's and MD Templars) pig of some sort. Yeah it's getting beyond one sided.
With all due respect: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, to your entire post. That's all I have to say.


NOTE: One final thing, I rather be an activist and fight totalitarianism and absolutism, than the other way around. Freedom, is the only absolute thing.

RinoTheBouncer
09-13-2014, 02:23 PM
I think the whole concept of freedom vs. control is very complicated. It’s like a chain of connected events, conditions, actions, goals and outcomes. Freedom means every person chooses to do whatever they desire and Control means someone who thinks they know what’s best for everyone (or themselves) imposes a set of laws on people to follow. The question is: do we deserve freedom? is freedom a human right or it’s all an illusion? is there such thing as right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral? are there consequences? are some laws necessary? says who?

If you believe in God, then you believe that God made religions to make rules for the people and that since God is all-knowing, he knows what’s better for us, so following his rules will eventually have a certain benefit that we can’t yet see and comprehend and not following the rules will result in us being punished by him, one way or another. In that case, right and wrong exist and morals are real. We have freedom but we must not use our freedom to hurt someone else, for example and in that case, when God made laws for mankind that prohibit killing and stealing are an example of how control is necessary since there will always be someone who uses their freedom to limit someone else’s freedom.

If you don’t believe in God, then there are no laws, no right and wrong. We’re just living beings on this planet. There are no consequences. It doesn’t matter whether you stole to be rich or worked hard to be rich. It only depends on how you feel about it. You might be good person and feel that hurting someone else is wrong, but someone else might not care or may be in a very painful situation that they justify their own crimes. So in that case, we have total freedom. We can do anything simply because we will die eventually and become nothing. There won’t be punishment or reward and just like how animals kill each other for food or territory, without the need for morals, we can live just the same. There are no rights. It’s just the survival of the fittest.

So in that case, it all relies on how you feel about your actions, because there’s no source that decides whether it’s ok or not ok to do such an action. I’m not saying that non-religious people are bad or criminals or whatever. But I’m just saying that if we all knew for a fact that there are no consequences for our actions, it’s highly likely that our perception of things will change greatly. I won’t kill somebody had I not been religious or knew that there’s no God, because I’d still feel bad about hurting another human being. But I know for a fact that a lot of people couldn’t care less how someone else feels.

Now we go back to the concept of Freedom and Control. If there were no rules, no right and wrong and we were just alone here, like animals, free of any judgement and government, what gives the right to a bunch of us to set rules? why should that president be telling me what I should or shouldn’t do? ok, let’s say 90% voted yes, for him, what about the other 10%? should the just leave and find another country? but why? this is their land too. What gives the right to one person to put others in jail? who created these morals?

Freedom means you do whatever you desire, but won’t that one day conflict with someone else’s freedom? control means you make sure that everything goes according to a plan that ensures the betterment of all mankind, but who says that the person who made that plan is so perfect that they won’t be biased towards a certain group or perhaps their own family members who break the rules? power abuse has existed since the dawn of time, it’s like when somebody kills you, you call the cops, but when the cops kills someone unjustly, whom will you call? that’s why we have many dictators around the world.

Will humanity ever attain such purity that they will practice their freedom without abusing someone else’s freedom and rights? will we be able to be our own leaders? are we all born equal in our ways of thinking that we will all perceive the world the same way and the betterment of other people will concern each person as much as others?

The Assassins fight for freedom yet they’re bound by certain rules and the disobedience of these rules will lead to their punishment, most likely death. But why? isn’t each person supposed to be free? and again we return to the point of “what is freedom?” and “when does your freedom stop?” and “who gets to decide that?”.

So I think as long as these questions keep circling without one definitive answer, nobody will be able to determine which side is right or wrong except our individual feelings about each side.

Hans684
09-14-2014, 09:10 AM
Both orders kill innocents, it's as low they can get. Their equals but different. I wouldn't say either side is "right" judging by the history of both orders but there is situations where one is a lesser evil that the other. Then again both orders shows flaws in humanity helping us evolve trough their endless battle, they do in a way bring balance but with chaos as a price consider all the mess they've made.

Having one side "win"(something that can't happen since you can't kill philosophy) is not gonna end well either, Assassins "winning" would just let the world be as it is but without a proper way of general control. As in "You should not play with fire but do as you wish.", "So you burned yourself, let's hope you learn from that experience and will not try again." Think about someone playing with fire over and over again...chaotic. It's bound to repeat itself, how many wounds would the Assassins let us give ourself for "a better future"?

The Templars "winning" is a bit different. "Don't play with fire you will burn yourself.", "I will not let you play with fire, it's for your own good and I don't care if you disagree." Now it's not bad stoping people from doing mistakes or something stupid like pointing a gun at your own face but how far would the Templars go to stop it? At this point it can go anywhere, different Templars have different views on how to control like the Borgia's(corrupt power hungry bad guys) or Torres(basically today's NSA(The Crystal Skulls and The Observatory)).

While both sing songs of "a better future", their fighting to end the fighting goes against their utopian visions of a better future. They do what they want to stop, they want to end all conflicts and have a peaceful world were people can live equal and good but their war only creates chaos. If they aren't able to solve things peacefully, how is they helping humanity evolve? How is having an never ending war helping humanity evolve? Their war is like the French Revolution, they both agree thing need to change for a better future but they disagree on what kind of future. I honestly don't see how either side can be "good guys" in this war, only lesser evils depending on the situations.

One funny thing is when people talk about freedom fighting they make it seem like anarchy, everything has a kind of control. Like these forums, there is curtain roles to keep it from getting out of control like talking politics. A government controls the country, a farmer controls his/her farm, a general controls his/her soldiers, a admin control a site, there is always control. I'm not talking about dictatorship when talking about the Templars(fun fact: I don't support it either), just like I don't talk anarchy when talking about the Assassins.


With all due respect: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, to your entire post. That's all I have to say.

Really? That's your response. It's like dealing with a six year old. What is wrong with you, Joel?


NOTE: One final thing, I rather be an activist and fight totalitarianism and absolutism, than the other way around. Freedom, is the only absolute thing.

NOTE: And this is why discussing this won't get anywhere, you think I support that. You don't think I support freedom, do you? Com on, I'm using my freedom now.

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 09:52 AM
"It's all a matter of perspective. There is no true path that's right, fair, and does no harm."

Everyone sees the world differently...and with it, that's what makes our world and society go round. If one individual such as what the Templars represent gains power, you're bound to get Defiance with a Freedom fighter like Connor for Example. On the Contary, without rules and regulations, people are bound to lose control and cause chaos such as here in the forums sometimes as Hans mentioned.

The Assassins and Templars are no different than Night & Day or Red and Blue...but does that one is better? No. They're just two pieces of a whole to make the world better. Nothing Else.

"A difference in philosophy can separate the most similar minds."

SixKeys
09-14-2014, 09:53 AM
If you don’t believe in God, then there are no laws, no right and wrong. We’re just living beings on this planet. There are no consequences. It doesn’t matter whether you stole to be rich or worked hard to be rich. It only depends on how you feel about it. You might be good person and feel that hurting someone else is wrong, but someone else might not care or may be in a very painful situation that they justify their own crimes. So in that case, we have total freedom. We can do anything simply because we will die eventually and become nothing. There won’t be punishment or reward and just like how animals kill each other for food or territory, without the need for morals, we can live just the same. There are no rights. It’s just the survival of the fittest.

Yes and no.

The Creed explains its philosophy in just one sentence. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. This means exactly what it says. There are no absolute moral truths, the universe has no concept of right and wrong. In nature, in the animal kingdom and in outer space, things just happen. Strong animals kill weaker ones and there is no karma that dictates they will somehow get their comeuppance for bullying weaker beings. **** happens. Human beings are basically animals too, so the universe doesn't treat us any differently.

Where the difference lies is in our own minds. Humans create laws. We believe there should be ultimate morality, right and wrong. We've survived this long as a species due to our ability to adapt, and part of that ability is being able to coexist. How do you create peaceful coexistence? By establishing rules and boundaries. The universe doesn't give a crap if John Doe from Dorset, England gets murdered tomorrow. There is no law of nature that dictates a murderer shouldn't get away with killing other people. But we humans know that if everyone went around killing each other with no consequences, the survival of the species would come under threat. So we establish and impose self-invented rules on each other in order to ensure co-operation and coexistence. Rules like "killing is wrong except in self defense". Such a rule exists nowhere outside of our own minds. Morality is man-made.

This is why it's inaccurate to say "if you don't believe in God, then there are no laws, no right or wrong". We have laws, we have concepts of right and wrong. They are man-made and fairly universal. Every society, regardless of religious beliefs, has laws like "don't kill" or "don't steal". Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world, and also one of the least criminal. How do you explain that if belief in God is required to believe in concepts like right and wrong? Morality doesn't arise from divinity but reason. It's logic and reason that tells us that if everyone went around killing each other, there would soon be no-one left. It's logic and reason that gave birth to court systems where we attempt to give everyone a fair trial, even when the public opinion is clearly against them. Laws are man-made, but that doesn't mean they are paper-thin constructs that would somehow immediately crumble if everyone stopped believing in divine retribution. I don't believe in God, but I would also never kill anybody, because I know there are consequences. Consequences like me being thrown in jail or excommunicated from society. Man-made consequences. I don't go around killing people because I have empathy for them in this life, not merely because I fear what might happen to me after I'm dead.

So in a way, you are right and you are also wrong. It's true that there are no universal, cosmic laws of morality that ensure murderers will never, ever get away with murder or that good people will always, without fail, be rewarded. However, there ARE man-made laws and consequences, because our concepts of right and wrong are also man-made. We invented the system by which we measure "good" and "bad" deeds, and we invented the system by which people who commit such deeds should be fairly judged.

RinoTheBouncer
09-14-2014, 11:18 AM
Yes and no.

The Creed explains its philosophy in just one sentence. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. This means exactly what it says. There are no absolute moral truths, the universe has no concept of right and wrong. In nature, in the animal kingdom and in outer space, things just happen. Strong animals kill weaker ones and there is no karma that dictates they will somehow get their comeuppance for bullying weaker beings. **** happens. Human beings are basically animals too, so the universe doesn't treat us any differently.

Where the difference lies is in our own minds. Humans create laws. We believe there should be ultimate morality, right and wrong. We've survived this long as a species due to our ability to adapt, and part of that ability is being able to coexist. How do you create peaceful coexistence? By establishing rules and boundaries. The universe doesn't give a crap if John Doe from Dorset, England gets murdered tomorrow. There is no law of nature that dictates a murderer shouldn't get away with killing other people. But we humans know that if everyone went around killing each other with no consequences, the survival of the species would come under threat. So we establish and impose self-invented rules on each other in order to ensure co-operation and coexistence. Rules like "killing is wrong except in self defense". Such a rule exists nowhere outside of our own minds. Morality is man-made.

This is why it's inaccurate to say "if you don't believe in God, then there are no laws, no right or wrong". We have laws, we have concepts of right and wrong. They are man-made and fairly universal. Every society, regardless of religious beliefs, has laws like "don't kill" or "don't steal". Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world, and also one of the least criminal. How do you explain that if belief in God is required to believe in concepts like right and wrong? Morality doesn't arise from divinity but reason. It's logic and reason that tells us that if everyone went around killing each other, there would soon be no-one left. It's logic and reason that gave birth to court systems where we attempt to give everyone a fair trial, even when the public opinion is clearly against them. Laws are man-made, but that doesn't mean they are paper-thin constructs that would somehow immediately crumble if everyone stopped believing in divine retribution. I don't believe in God, but I would also never kill anybody, because I know there are consequences. Consequences like me being thrown in jail or excommunicated from society. Man-made consequences. I don't go around killing people because I have empathy for them in this life, not merely because I fear what might happen to me after I'm dead.

So in a way, you are right and you are also wrong. It's true that there are no universal, cosmic laws of morality that ensure murderers will never, ever get away with murder or that good people will always, without fail, be rewarded. However, there ARE man-made laws and consequences, because our concepts of right and wrong are also man-made. We invented the system by which we measure "good" and "bad" deeds, and we invented the system by which people who commit such deeds should be fairly judged.

That’s exactly the misunderstanding that I feared. I didn’t mean that there should be a God for us to be moral people nor that if you’re not a religious person, then you’re a serial killer and a rapist. I wouldn’t for example rape any woman whether there was a God or not and I wouldn’t marry my mom if there was not God, either. What I’m saying is that these morals are all about how we perceive things and the rules were created out of our own perception. But why do we not live alone? why do we live in societies? why do we give the right to someone to put rules for us? will we ever be perfect enough to be our own rulers? what makes the police and the president or king so perfect that they decide who should be executed and who should go to jail?

You said there are consequences even if there’s no God, like going to jail but what if I could guarantee that I can get away with it? how many people killed other people and got away with it because they were so smart to cover their tracks or had friends in high places? how many people were unjustly persecuted for their sexuality, for their race, religion or nationality? there’s just so much pain even with our man made laws and sometimes, because of our man made laws. It’s all about perception. For example, Saddam Hussein or Hitler or George Bush or any other terrorist did not look at killing the same way you and I do, so what gives the right to those people to rule? why do they make laws? and why are we obliged to follow?

I know that most people can agree that killing, stealing, raping, bullying is wrong, but others don’t. So why was the law created based on the desires of a certain type of people not others? there are so many laws that are decided upon based on the voting of the majority, but what about the minority? I’m not defending criminals here, just discussing the concept of total freedom. Since we’re assuming that we’re alone in the universe and that there’s no God or a karma to set things right, then why did we make universal laws? why don’t we for example live like animals who kill each other to feed or for territory or mating or whatever reason and they don’t feel so guilty about it?

I completely agree with what you said about laws and how we as a society managed to grow throughout the ages, but is there such thing as freedom? if we’re alone in the universe and there’s no such thing as pure right or pure wrong, and if I have the right to be free, to practice my religion, my sexuality, and life the way I see fit, maybe I’m affecting someone else’s freedom. Maybe someone else also feels free to kill me, for example because my existence annoys them, like any animal who might feel that this other animal shouldn’t be in their territory.

Why do we humans, of all other species, have to pay to live on this planet? why must the government pretend to own the land that the universe has given us and even tell some people that they shouldn’t be camping in this era or need a permission to build in that area?

I feel like the whole concept of freedom is just too complicated. We made laws and those laws are not weak, but did everyone agree on these laws? why does America for example gives itself the right to decide who gets to own weapons of mass destruction while they themselves have these weapons? is it because they’re the strongest nation? then it’s basically survival of the fittest, in that case, isn’t it hypocritical for them to be setting the man-made laws that insure rights of each individual rather than the survival of the fittest lifestyle?

Acrimonious_Nin
09-14-2014, 01:36 PM
Juno...>_>

SixKeys
09-14-2014, 07:14 PM
That’s exactly the misunderstanding that I feared. I didn’t mean that there should be a God for us to be moral people nor that if you’re not a religious person, then you’re a serial killer and a rapist. I wouldn’t for example rape any woman whether there was a God or not and I wouldn’t marry my mom if there was not God, either. What I’m saying is that these morals are all about how we perceive things and the rules were created out of our own perception. But why do we not live alone? why do we live in societies? why do we give the right to someone to put rules for us? will we ever be perfect enough to be our own rulers? what makes the police and the president or king so perfect that they decide who should be executed and who should go to jail?

You said there are consequences even if there’s no God, like going to jail but what if I could guarantee that I can get away with it? how many people killed other people and got away with it because they were so smart to cover their tracks or had friends in high places? how many people were unjustly persecuted for their sexuality, for their race, religion or nationality? there’s just so much pain even with our man made laws and sometimes, because of our man made laws. It’s all about perception. For example, Saddam Hussein or Hitler or George Bush or any other terrorist did not look at killing the same way you and I do, so what gives the right to those people to rule? why do they make laws? and why are we obliged to follow?

We live in societies because humans are social animals, simple as that. Might as well ask why wolves travel in packs. It's just hardwired into us, and is an entirely separate issue from morality. Because we are social animals, we recognize the need for co-operation and hierarchy, just like wolves and some other animals. Nobody claims that the person or persons who are elected as leaders are perfect, just like wolves can have an aggressive a-hole as their leader simply because no-one dares to challenge him. Co-operation is key here again, and as we have seen from the events currently happening in Ferguson, the police and government are not co-operating with the common people which is exactly why the situation has escalated.

We give our leaders the right to rule us because we expect them to want co-operation just like the rest of us. Sometimes we turn out to be wrong and dictators are born. Dictators will always discourage co-operation which is one of the basic pillars of humanity. They see one of our most basic definining traits as a threat, which is why they will never truly belong and need to be excommunicated for the good of society. The existence of people who are incapable of co-operation doesn't mean the entire concept of leadership is bad, it just means we need to be more careful who we elect as our leaders and how we keep them in check.


I know that most people can agree that killing, stealing, raping, bullying is wrong, but others don’t. So why was the law created based on the desires of a certain type of people not others? there are so many laws that are decided upon based on the voting of the majority, but what about the minority? I’m not defending criminals here, just discussing the concept of total freedom. Since we’re assuming that we’re alone in the universe and that there’s no God or a karma to set things right, then why did we make universal laws? why don’t we for example live like animals who kill each other to feed or for territory or mating or whatever reason and they don’t feel so guilty about it?

Laws should always be designed not with the majority's wishes in mind but by what's most likely to make humanity succeed as a species. We don't make laws about killing and stealing simply because a majority decided it. Even two people can come to an agreement that killing the other person will likely be bad for the other. If you two were the only people on earth and you killed your only companion, you would have to do everything by yourself from that moment on. Guarding your back, cooking your food, finding shelter, etc. If instead of killing the other person you would have solved your differences and helped each other, you could achieve twice as much in half the time. You don't need a majority vote to come to that conclusion.


I completely agree with what you said about laws and how we as a society managed to grow throughout the ages, but is there such thing as freedom? if we’re alone in the universe and there’s no such thing as pure right or pure wrong, and if I have the right to be free, to practice my religion, my sexuality, and life the way I see fit, maybe I’m affecting someone else’s freedom. Maybe someone else also feels free to kill me, for example because my existence annoys them, like any animal who might feel that this other animal shouldn’t be in their territory.

Your freedoms alone do not impose on another person's freedom, no matter what. It's your actions that define whether you're limiting someone else's freedom. You are free to be in someone else's territory as long as you are not posing any kind of threat to them. As soon as you do anything to pose yourself as a potential threat, they have the freedom to tell you to back off. Your actions define how you will be perceived. If you've never done anything to impose upon their freedoms, you have the right to yours. This is why the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spew their hatred at soldiers' funerals in America: they have the right to preach their religion as long as they are not harming anybody. (In this case, "harm" is obviously defined as physical damage; in other countries it may be defined differently which is why they wouldn't be allowed to do this in every country.) And it's also why gay couples have the right to kiss and rub all over each other right in front of the WBC while they're screaming anti-gay slurs. Both sides have the right to be there and express their views as long as neither side is expressly infringing upon the other's freedom.


Why do we humans, of all other species, have to pay to live on this planet? why must the government pretend to own the land that the universe has given us and even tell some people that they shouldn’t be camping in this era or need a permission to build in that area?

That is an entirely justified question, and I'm not gonna pretend that the current system we have is the best one. It is entirely possible that hundreds of years in the future there will be entirely new laws and systems and arbitrary lines will no longer be drawn in the sand to separate countries. There is no good reason that I can think of for the current distribution and ownership of land. It's based on thousands of years of history, old laws that are no longer applicable or sensible and outdated notions of tribes and nationalism. It goes back to the feeling of infringing upon other people's freedoms because you feel like yours are under threat, but in this modern age I think it's sometimes worth investigating which of your neighbors truly do pose a threat to your well-being and which don't. Would the US come under attack if the borders to Canada were erased? Probably not, so from their perspective the borders could possible be erased. Would Canada feel equally safe in that scenario, though? Who has more potential to threaten the other and considering historical relations, is the other potentially justified in their fear? There's your answer.


I feel like the whole concept of freedom is just too complicated. We made laws and those laws are not weak, but did everyone agree on these laws? why does America for example gives itself the right to decide who gets to own weapons of mass destruction while they themselves have these weapons? is it because they’re the strongest nation? then it’s basically survival of the fittest, in that case, isn’t it hypocritical for them to be setting the man-made laws that insure rights of each individual rather than the survival of the fittest lifestyle?

It absolutely is hypocritical, and the reason why we see so much anti-Americanism in the world today. I don't want to get too deep into politics since I don't want this thread shut down, but you are right to question the current system and whether it is the best possible one. It's not the concept of freedom that's complicated, it's that so many people already erroneously believe they are free and that their current system of government is perfect. The assassins defend a concept of freedom that no country on earth currently has. That concept is as perfect as Plato's ideals or Communism on paper: it only works if you can remove basic human flaws like greed and corruption out of the equation.

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 07:21 PM
Funny how talking about organizations long gone can turn into a philosophical discussion. ;)

SixKeys
09-14-2014, 07:23 PM
Funny how talking about organizations long gone can turn into a philosophical discussion. ;)

Well, the historical Hashashin and Templars were never the kind of organizations Ubisoft portrays them as, obviously. They weren't obsessed with perfect order or total freedom, Ubisoft is the one that made them represent those ideas in their franchise.

Namikaze_17
09-14-2014, 07:31 PM
Well, the historical Hashashin and Templars were never the kind of organizations Ubisoft portrays them as, obviously. They weren't obsessed with perfect order or total freedom, Ubisoft is the one that made them represent those ideas in their franchise.

I know...I really just meant their Legacy and Ideals combined with their portrayal in the games.

RinoTheBouncer
09-14-2014, 11:01 PM
We live in societies because humans are social animals, simple as that. Might as well ask why wolves travel in packs. It's just hardwired into us, and is an entirely separate issue from morality. Because we are social animals, we recognize the need for co-operation and hierarchy, just like wolves and some other animals. Nobody claims that the person or persons who are elected as leaders are perfect, just like wolves can have an aggressive a-hole as their leader simply because no-one dares to challenge him. Co-operation is key here again, and as we have seen from the events currently happening in Ferguson, the police and government are not co-operating with the common people which is exactly why the situation has escalated.

We give our leaders the right to rule us because we expect them to want co-operation just like the rest of us. Sometimes we turn out to be wrong and dictators are born. Dictators will always discourage co-operation which is one of the basic pillars of humanity. They see one of our most basic definining traits as a threat, which is why they will never truly belong and need to be excommunicated for the good of society. The existence of people who are incapable of co-operation doesn't mean the entire concept of leadership is bad, it just means we need to be more careful who we elect as our leaders and how we keep them in check.



Laws should always be designed not with the majority's wishes in mind but by what's most likely to make humanity succeed as a species. We don't make laws about killing and stealing simply because a majority decided it. Even two people can come to an agreement that killing the other person will likely be bad for the other. If you two were the only people on earth and you killed your only companion, you would have to do everything by yourself from that moment on. Guarding your back, cooking your food, finding shelter, etc. If instead of killing the other person you would have solved your differences and helped each other, you could achieve twice as much in half the time. You don't need a majority vote to come to that conclusion.



Your freedoms alone do not impose on another person's freedom, no matter what. It's your actions that define whether you're limiting someone else's freedom. You are free to be in someone else's territory as long as you are not posing any kind of threat to them. As soon as you do anything to pose yourself as a potential threat, they have the freedom to tell you to back off. Your actions define how you will be perceived. If you've never done anything to impose upon their freedoms, you have the right to yours. This is why the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spew their hatred at soldiers' funerals in America: they have the right to preach their religion as long as they are not harming anybody. (In this case, "harm" is obviously defined as physical damage; in other countries it may be defined differently which is why they wouldn't be allowed to do this in every country.) And it's also why gay couples have the right to kiss and rub all over each other right in front of the WBC while they're screaming anti-gay slurs. Both sides have the right to be there and express their views as long as neither side is expressly infringing upon the other's freedom.



That is an entirely justified question, and I'm not gonna pretend that the current system we have is the best one. It is entirely possible that hundreds of years in the future there will be entirely new laws and systems and arbitrary lines will no longer be drawn in the sand to separate countries. There is no good reason that I can think of for the current distribution and ownership of land. It's based on thousands of years of history, old laws that are no longer applicable or sensible and outdated notions of tribes and nationalism. It goes back to the feeling of infringing upon other people's freedoms because you feel like yours are under threat, but in this modern age I think it's sometimes worth investigating which of your neighbors truly do pose a threat to your well-being and which don't. Would the US come under attack if the borders to Canada were erased? Probably not, so from their perspective the borders could possible be erased. Would Canada feel equally safe in that scenario, though? Who has more potential to threaten the other and considering historical relations, is the other potentially justified in their fear? There's your answer.



It absolutely is hypocritical, and the reason why we see so much anti-Americanism in the world today. I don't want to get too deep into politics since I don't want this thread shut down, but you are right to question the current system and whether it is the best possible one. It's not the concept of freedom that's complicated, it's that so many people already erroneously believe they are free and that their current system of government is perfect. The assassins defend a concept of freedom that no country on earth currently has. That concept is as perfect as Plato's ideals or Communism on paper: it only works if you can remove basic human flaws like greed and corruption out of the equation.

Thank you for the detailed response. I appreciate sharing ideas with you.

I understand that most of our laws and the terms of ownership of lands and countries, voting, deciding whatís moral and immoral, whatís acceptable and whatís not have been agreed upon for ages and some have changed throughout the years and some have not. Many were affected by religions and belief systems and many were inspired by a certain culture that happened to spread worldwide by imitation and inspiration like the trends we have today that start for example by a fashion designer in Paris and spread all over the world or like the Harlem Shake and other viral stuff that everybody obsesses over for a certain period of time. But sometimes I wonder why such stuff were created in the first place.

For example, letís presume religion is entirely man-made and that thereís no such thing as a divine source for it, why would someone make up a book that preaches against sex without marriage? why would that book preach against homosexuality? I mean those stuff have nothing to do with the well being of people or preserving their rights of ownership and territorial boundaries, theyíre just personal freedoms. Why would religion preach against masturbation for example or require you to do certain moves to pray instead of just saying the words out loud?

I know itís probably impossible to answer these question, just like how itís almost impossible to decide why an Apple is called an Apple instead of an Ice Cube and why itís called Pomme in French. Such stuff have existed long ago that we just canít seem to trace their origins and society kinda grew up blindly following these rules and laws whether they were religious in nature or cultural practices and folklore, but I just keep wondering how freedom can work for us given that we canít take out greed and corruption from the equation which brings us back to the question of whether we deserve freedom or weíre made to be controlled.

I know weíre social beings that travel like wolves but is it impossible that we live in groups without a leader of the pack? isnít it possible that we live together but each one of us knows their boundaries without having to require some strong a-hole to impose right and wrong on us while heís free to do whatever he wants? doesnít the desire of being led by someone sort of contradict with us being intelligent and independent beings? I mean if one person is intelligent, then they donít need somebody to make sure they do the right thing. Itís sort of like saying ďIím smart, I know what I want and what to do and I donít need someone to tell me what to do, but I still need a shepherd to lead meĒ itís self-contradicting because you canít for example present and absent at the same time in the same place.

I understand everything you said, but all Iím saying is that our lives for one reason or another have grown too complex to be lead by one principle. Some of us can live on their own, others need society, some of us feel empathy towards others that they just canít bring themselves to kill them, bully them, rob them or hurt them in any way, while others only focus on the outcome and not the method by which they reach that outcome so when you give freedom, then those people who lack empathy will be free to practice whatever they desire even if it means hurting someone else, and if you put people under control, then those who want to be free and wonít hurt anybody will eventually feel oppressed when because the law will eventually take something away from you, given that corruption occurs at a certain point.

Freedom is not flawed or complex, as you said but we are. Our lives are. Do you think we can have true democracy where everybody decides everything? with societies having millions of people now, itís almost impossible to gather them all together, so we choose representatives, but then what guarantees that those representatives are not influenced by a higher power or simply donít care much after they get elected? so that makes democracy a big coated lie. How many countries boast about being democratic? so many, and how many of the people in those countries are not happy with their governments? SO DAMN MANY. But still change cannot happen because you canít make a law to suit each person and countries donít seem to like dividing themselves to cities, and each of those has a whole different law than the others. So in that case, there will always be people whom are outcasts, unhappy with whatís going on and their votes will never be heard because they just happened to be a minority.

Then you look at it from a different angle and you see how so many people really do need guidance which supports the idea of control being necessary.

The reason why I compared the existence of a divine power and the lack of it and whether weíre meant to be lead or be free is because thatís what the Assassins and Templars are all about. One wants freedom and the other wants control and each of those is linked to so many aspects and elements of our lives. Weíve grown so complicated that we simple cannot be lead by one law. Thereís just too many bad people to be given freedom and there are so many good people that deserve to live free of boundaries. So whom can you please?

I voted for the Assassins because I desire freedom but I donít know whether Iíll regret it or not, if it really happens.

SolidSage
09-14-2014, 11:10 PM
True freedom is an illusion and unobtainable. Assassin's fight against total control but they don't fight for true freedom...no one willing to take the freedom of another, through any means, is truly a proponent for true freedom.

I see the Assassin order as liberators from total oppression. Templar pursue order. Individuals in both camps can be 'good' guys. For the purpose of good story, villains are focused on. Al Mualim was the first villain. The franchise offered fair and honest perspective from the start.

I like to play empty handed a lot.

POP1Fan
09-14-2014, 11:18 PM
The primal humans were totally free. They could kill eachother, go anywhere and do what they wanted. As humans evolved, we have come to create such things as countries, kingdoms, empires, goverments... all measures for a few to control the many. Historicaly speaking, total freedom, anarchy if you will, always will lead back to some form of control, so in a way, the Assassins are fighting for something that can never be achieved and, ultimateley, the Tempar ideology of control and order has been thought by our minds, as they evolved from their more... simian nature.

RinoTheBouncer
09-14-2014, 11:35 PM
The primal humans were totally free. They could kill eachother, go anywhere and do what they wanted. As humans evolved, we have come to create such things as countries, kingdoms, empires, goverments... all measures for a few to control the many. Historicaly speaking, total freedom, anarchy if you will, always will lead back to some form of control, so in a way, the Assassins are fighting for something that can never be achieved and, ultimateley, the Tempar ideology of control and order has been thought by our minds, as they evolved from their more... simian nature.

I agree to some extent. It reminds me of how I always thought about why there’s money. Why do we give something in exchange for the other? why don’t we all just work and because we work we get everything for free. I work as a pharmacist, I give you medicine for free, as long as I’m working and giving you medicine for free, I can go to your clinic and have a surgery for free or go to Mr.X or Mrs. Y’s library and get books for free. So it’s like you don’t need to save, you just need to give services and get other services in return instead of papers that can be accumulated and make people better or worse than other people or more capable than others.

I mean the carpenter is as important as a doctor because without a carpenter, where would all the rich people display their luxurious stuff on if it wasn’t for the carpenter making shelves and tables? yet the carpenter is paid a lot less than Louis Vuitton for example gets for a single bag that not everybody may like or even need. So it feels unfair. Same goes for those workers who work many hours to create computer chips, wires and sockets which are paid so little while Apple who does the design of the iPhone and plans the functionality gets all the money?

So this is one idea I’ve always had about economy and how unfair and flawed it is. Same goes for control. We’ve always thought that we need someone to lead us, to protect us, to make sure they set things right so we can sleep in our beds without being afraid, but there’s a price to that which is suffering the power abuse and corruption of those people whom are supposed to protect us. For example, there are so many secrets that are kept from us, the people. Why? why does the government feel that it should keep that right to know for themselves? let’s say it’s aliens contacting Earth, manufacturing of a certain weapon or treatment, or any of those conspiracy theories that could be true or false or other normal secrets. Why are they kept from the people? we’re part of this land, we have the right to know what people who lead us are doing. They don’t get to decide what we should and shouldn’t know.

So I tend to fight for freedom and yet still, freedom has an expensive price as well.

POP1Fan
09-15-2014, 12:15 AM
I agree to some extent. It reminds me of how I always thought about why there’s money. Why do we give something in exchange for the other? why don’t we all just work and because we work we get everything for free. I work as a pharmacist, I give you medicine for free, as long as I’m working and giving you medicine for free, I can go to your clinic and have a surgery for free or go to Mr.X or Mrs. Y’s library and get books for free. So it’s like you don’t need to save, you just need to give services and get other services in return instead of papers that can be accumulated and make people better or worse than other people or more capable than others.

I mean the carpenter is as important as a doctor because without a carpenter, where would all the rich people display their luxurious stuff on if it wasn’t for the carpenter making shelves and tables? yet the carpenter is paid a lot less than Louis Vuitton for example gets for a single bag that not everybody may like or even need. So it feels unfair. Same goes for those workers who work many hours to create computer chips, wires and sockets which are paid so little while Apple who does the design of the iPhone and plans the functionality gets all the money?

So this is one idea I’ve always had about economy and how unfair and flawed it is. Same goes for control. We’ve always thought that we need someone to lead us, to protect us, to make sure they set things right so we can sleep in our beds without being afraid, but there’s a price to that which is suffering the power abuse and corruption of those people whom are supposed to protect us. For example, there are so many secrets that are kept from us, the people. Why? why does the government feel that it should keep that right to know for themselves? let’s say it’s aliens contacting Earth, manufacturing of a certain weapon or treatment, or any of those conspiracy theories that could be true or false or other normal secrets. Why are they kept from the people? we’re part of this land, we have the right to know what people who lead us are doing. They don’t get to decide what we should and shouldn’t know.

So I tend to fight for freedom and yet still, freedom has an expensive price as well.
The thing with freedom is that we look at it in a personal manner. We are used to this sense that we are free, when, actually, we are not. We are still restricted by laws, by politicians taking decisions for us, not by our own common sense of... not hurting people, not taking what isn't ours. It pretty much goes this way: we should treat eachother as if we would like to be treated by others, but how many of us, if there were no constraints, would actually not profit to make it better for themselves? And even that is not TRUE freedom, as there is the natural rule of "survival of the fittest" and while that is no written law (and sometimes is proven wrong), in the end, the stronger, smarter or simply more resourceful will make life better for themselves? Does that seem like a world where you would like to live? Where one mistake might cost you your whole life?
In my opinion the Templar ideology is the right one... control, order and truth. But where it fails is that the control and order and the truth has to be spoken by a human, or a group of humans. And who is to say that they are the ones who should? And how can you know that they will take decisions not directly supporting their goals? Humans are subjective beings, no matter the circumstances, and they will do what they think is right, but for total order also advantaging the common man I find that the responsible with it has to look at everything objectiveley, while at the same time asking the opinion of the people... but what if the people don't know what is better for themselves? Do you tell them and do as they say and risk a catastrophe? Do you not and take matters into your own hands without anyone else knowing it? Do you tell them and do it your way and upset them, possibly starting an uprising?
It is a dillemma, a paradox. Freedom leads to wanting control and control leads to wanting freedom. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but we haven't found it yet, or else we would not be having this disscusion at all.

As a side note, I think the Romans came to a pretty good system that balanced control and freedom. In times of war, they would ammend democracy and let one dictator take full power of the Republic... but the problem there was... human error (to put it this way). Ceasar never let go of that power and therefore upset many people. As long as a "gene" of humans who can look at things in perspective and set aside their personal opinions to make the best choice for humanity as a whole is breed, it's going to be hard to find the middle ground.

To give an example: we are in the year 2103 (random year, far enough in the future to distance ourselves from it, but close enough to keep things close to how we know them). The Earth's population has reached over 15 billion. Resources to sustain it are going to be depleted in about... let's say 2 years. But, out of 15 billion people, 7 billion are over 60. Young enough to still carry a good life, but also old enough to set for retirement and be sustained by the rest of the 8 billion. Would anyone ever even suggest the ideea of wiping those 7 billion off? Would it be moral? Probably not? Would it cause a huge stir? Yes. But is it also a simple solution to resolving, or at least postponing the inevitable conflict that would arise as our food has been extinguished? The answer, for me, is yes. It might be different for you, and you wouldn't be wrong, as it is your opinion. But that's the whole point, everybody thinks in different ways and how can everyone's freedom and opinion be held as equal? Eventualy the responsabilty of some harsh, but true things, must fall in the hands of ones who can take these harsh choices. That's why the Templars are right in their ideas, but, ultimateley, even if all the power fell to them, would they be the right people that their ideas promote?

SixKeys
09-15-2014, 12:33 AM
For example, letís presume religion is entirely man-made and that thereís no such thing as a divine source for it, why would someone make up a book that preaches against sex without marriage? why would that book preach against homosexuality? I mean those stuff have nothing to do with the well being of people or preserving their rights of ownership and territorial boundaries, theyíre just personal freedoms. Why would religion preach against masturbation for example or require you to do certain moves to pray instead of just saying the words out loud?

There's a lot of stuff about ancient religions that were tied to the culture of the time and may never make sense to us. For example it used to be common to swear an oath by placing your hand against another person's testicles. It sounds ridiculous nowadays, but somehow made perfect sense to people at the time. Holy books (not just the Bible) may have had rules against homosexuality because it wasn't widely understood at the time and was seen as demonic possession and made it seem like a threat. No sex before marriage makes sense because STDs weren't very well understood back then, so people may have thought marriage would somehow protect people from spreading sexual diseases. Masturbation was considered a mental illness at one point, maybe people thought it would deter people from seeking out a "proper" sexual partner and therefore lead to less children being born. This is just speculation on my part, but sex has always been kind of taboo because we are at our most vulnerable during it. No society wants to be seen as vulnerable, so maybe that's why sex became such a taboo. People want to be seen as powerful and strong, and if they believe they are being guided by a divine source that gives them strength, anything that makes them seem weak must go against that divine being's plan. People trust in gods because they think God will give them strength, not weakness. Sex makes you vulnerable, therefore it must not be from God. Hence sex = sin, according to many religions.


I know itís probably impossible to answer these question, just like how itís almost impossible to decide why an Apple is called an Apple instead of an Ice Cube and why itís called Pomme in French. Such stuff have existed long ago that we just canít seem to trace their origins and society kinda grew up blindly following these rules and laws whether they were religious in nature or cultural practices and folklore, but I just keep wondering how freedom can work for us given that we canít take out greed and corruption from the equation which brings us back to the question of whether we deserve freedom or weíre made to be controlled.

Why do you bring concepts like "deserve" and "made to be" into the equation? Who decides such things if we assume the concepts we're talking about are entirely man-made? Who decides what humanity as a whole "deserves"? Who says we were "made to be" anything? The whole idea behind the Creed is that we are the shepherds of our own fate. We - humanity as a whole - make up the rules by which we judge ourselves, as well as others. There is no-one to decide whether we "deserve" freedom except us.


I know weíre social beings that travel like wolves but is it impossible that we live in groups without a leader of the pack? isnít it possible that we live together but each one of us knows their boundaries without having to require some strong a-hole to impose right and wrong on us while heís free to do whatever he wants? doesnít the desire of being led by someone sort of contradict with us being intelligent and independent beings? I mean if one person is intelligent, then they donít need somebody to make sure they do the right thing. Itís sort of like saying ďIím smart, I know what I want and what to do and I donít need someone to tell me what to do, but I still need a shepherd to lead meĒ itís self-contradicting because you canít for example present and absent at the same time in the same place.

Humans are not a hivemind like ants. In every group, stronger personalities will always emerge and take on a natural leadership role, while others naturally fall into follower roles. I don't know why that is, maybe instinct or genes. But no, I don't think it's possible for humans to live in groups without some kind of hierarchy eventually emerging. There are steps we can take as a community to prevent the higher-ups from imposing their will on everyone else, but I don't think it's hypocritical to want both guidance and independence. That's how we learn things as children. Our parents guide us and keep us safe from harm by imposing rules. The rules may not make sense to us at the time ("what do you mean I'm not allowed near the stove?") but as we grow older, we learn to distinguish the rules that make sense to us and the rules that don't. As grown-ups, we may still think avoiding hot stoves is a sensible rule because we can see the clear danger they pose, but we may think our parents were being a bit silly when they told us listening to rap music was equally dangerous. Humans long for guidance because a certain amount of guidance protects us when we're young and we instinctively make the connection that the protection will last as long as we're being guided. But as we grow older, we also start thinking some rules maybe don't make much sense anymore. We begin testing our limits and realizing some rules can be stretched, they're not as rigid and unforgiving as we thought they were as children. There's some cognitive dissonance there, because we grew up thinking rules would protect us and we want to hold on to that certainty, but as we grow older, we realize rules aren't, in fact, foolproof nor do they always make sense in all situations. We want to believe in the power of protective guidance, but also realize it's a big, bad world out there and not everyone who would impose rules on us has the best intentions at heart like our parents did.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical to want guidance and independence at the same time.


I understand everything you said, but all Iím saying is that our lives for one reason or another have grown too complex to be lead by one principle. Some of us can live on their own, others need society, some of us feel empathy towards others that they just canít bring themselves to kill them, bully them, rob them or hurt them in any way, while others only focus on the outcome and not the method by which they reach that outcome so when you give freedom, then those people who lack empathy will be free to practice whatever they desire even if it means hurting someone else, and if you put people under control, then those who want to be free and wonít hurt anybody will eventually feel oppressed when because the law will eventually take something away from you, given that corruption occurs at a certain point.

Freedom is not flawed or complex, as you said but we are. Our lives are. Do you think we can have true democracy where everybody decides everything? with societies having millions of people now, itís almost impossible to gather them all together, so we choose representatives, but then what guarantees that those representatives are not influenced by a higher power or simply donít care much after they get elected? so that makes democracy a big coated lie. How many countries boast about being democratic? so many, and how many of the people in those countries are not happy with their governments? SO DAMN MANY. But still change cannot happen because you canít make a law to suit each person and countries donít seem to like dividing themselves to cities, and each of those has a whole different law than the others. So in that case, there will always be people whom are outcasts, unhappy with whatís going on and their votes will never be heard because they just happened to be a minority.

Then you look at it from a different angle and you see how so many people really do need guidance which supports the idea of control being necessary.

The reason why I compared the existence of a divine power and the lack of it and whether weíre meant to be lead or be free is because thatís what the Assassins and Templars are all about. One wants freedom and the other wants control and each of those is linked to so many aspects and elements of our lives. Weíve grown so complicated that we simple cannot be lead by one law. Thereís just too many bad people to be given freedom and there are so many good people that deserve to live free of boundaries. So whom can you please?

I voted for the Assassins because I desire freedom but I donít know whether Iíll regret it or not, if it really happens.

I pretty much agree with all this. Obviously AC is a power fantasy, hence some of the subtleties get lost (instead of going for a diplomatic solution, the games encourage you to just kill everyone in your way), but I do think the assassins' philosophy is, at heart, better than the Templars'. In my opinion the devs and sometimes fans have unfairly dubbed the two factions as extremist groups, simplifying the Templars as benevolent dictators and the assassins as radical anarchists. The assassins don't want anarchy. This is clear in every aspect of their portrayal in the games. They have a leader/mentor, a hierarchy, they support certain politicians behind the scenes, they're champions of the democratic system of government. If they were anarchists, they would be trying to disintegrate the political system from the inside out. They're not advocating total freedom from all forms of control, as that would be impossible. Their goal is to get people to take personal responsibility for their own actions and trust their own conscience instead of blindly following others. The Creed is not a single principle to inform all of your actions in this life, it's a general guideline to remind you where your focus should be. It boils down to "you're free to make your own choices, just remember to take responsibility for all of them".

RinoTheBouncer
09-15-2014, 05:58 PM
The thing with freedom is that we look at it in a personal manner. We are used to this sense that we are free, when, actually, we are not. We are still restricted by laws, by politicians taking decisions for us, not by our own common sense of... not hurting people, not taking what isn't ours. It pretty much goes this way: we should treat eachother as if we would like to be treated by others, but how many of us, if there were no constraints, would actually not profit to make it better for themselves? And even that is not TRUE freedom, as there is the natural rule of "survival of the fittest" and while that is no written law (and sometimes is proven wrong), in the end, the stronger, smarter or simply more resourceful will make life better for themselves? Does that seem like a world where you would like to live? Where one mistake might cost you your whole life?
In my opinion the Templar ideology is the right one... control, order and truth. But where it fails is that the control and order and the truth has to be spoken by a human, or a group of humans. And who is to say that they are the ones who should? And how can you know that they will take decisions not directly supporting their goals? Humans are subjective beings, no matter the circumstances, and they will do what they think is right, but for total order also advantaging the common man I find that the responsible with it has to look at everything objectiveley, while at the same time asking the opinion of the people... but what if the people don't know what is better for themselves? Do you tell them and do as they say and risk a catastrophe? Do you not and take matters into your own hands without anyone else knowing it? Do you tell them and do it your way and upset them, possibly starting an uprising?
It is a dillemma, a paradox. Freedom leads to wanting control and control leads to wanting freedom. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but we haven't found it yet, or else we would not be having this disscusion at all.

As a side note, I think the Romans came to a pretty good system that balanced control and freedom. In times of war, they would ammend democracy and let one dictator take full power of the Republic... but the problem there was... human error (to put it this way). Ceasar never let go of that power and therefore upset many people. As long as a "gene" of humans who can look at things in perspective and set aside their personal opinions to make the best choice for humanity as a whole is breed, it's going to be hard to find the middle ground.

To give an example: we are in the year 2103 (random year, far enough in the future to distance ourselves from it, but close enough to keep things close to how we know them). The Earth's population has reached over 15 billion. Resources to sustain it are going to be depleted in about... let's say 2 years. But, out of 15 billion people, 7 billion are over 60. Young enough to still carry a good life, but also old enough to set for retirement and be sustained by the rest of the 8 billion. Would anyone ever even suggest the ideea of wiping those 7 billion off? Would it be moral? Probably not? Would it cause a huge stir? Yes. But is it also a simple solution to resolving, or at least postponing the inevitable conflict that would arise as our food has been extinguished? The answer, for me, is yes. It might be different for you, and you wouldn't be wrong, as it is your opinion. But that's the whole point, everybody thinks in different ways and how can everyone's freedom and opinion be held as equal? Eventualy the responsabilty of some harsh, but true things, must fall in the hands of ones who can take these harsh choices. That's why the Templars are right in their ideas, but, ultimateley, even if all the power fell to them, would they be the right people that their ideas promote?

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU.

My main point of my first post here was how complex the whole concept of freedom and control is when you apply it to a society like ours. You mentioned the idea of sacrificing the elderly in favor of keeping the youth from whom the society can benefit and solve a major problem that could lead to the extinction of mankind, I’ve always thought about that, just like some of those movies that discuss the idea of leaving people behind to die so that others get on an ark for example to survive, or allow everyone on board of the ark and it could sink and everybody dies or when someone is immune to a certain disease and the only way to get the cure is by killing them but you might not be able to bring yourself to do it without their consent or even with it.

If you look at it from one side, you’d think that you’re saving a lot of people but on the other hand, the other people in the example of the elderly people are also dying. Will our conscious bare the guilt of sacrificing 1 or 7 billion people for the sake of others? and if we don’t, will dying together after 2 years make us feel any better about ourselves? It’s a very complicated matter cause those old people are still people and being a human being is not all about being beneficial to society and who are we to determine who lives and who dies? same goes for freedom and control. We need a law that controls the “bad” people from harming the good people, to live a civilized life rather than a life in the style of the jungle and the wild, but then this law itself eventually oppresses some people and it will be against the reason that it was made in the first place. Who is Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush or Hitler to decide the fate and lives of millions? whom are they to tell me what religion or relationship or belief system should I practice? Why do those people think they’re above their society that made them who they are in the first place?

The law is necessary but I hate it when the law starts limiting my life, limiting my freedom, deciding how I should live, where I should park, what I should eat, whom should I worship, what type of partner should I fall in love with or what kind of outfit should I wear and why would that law starts taking money from me or prohibit me from building a tent or a cottage in the wild that supposedly belongs to no one? so in that case we made a law that protected us but at the same time, we paid a high price in return.

It’s like they don’t even allow you to live a simple secluded life now. They force you to be part of the society, force you to pay taxes, force you to be part of the system. And then totally obliterate the concept of freedom. I feel like we’re kind of brainwashed to follow one certain pattern. Go to school > follow the education system that THEY decide for you > Go to work > follow orders and pay taxes > Die. That’s not a life. I mean I know I sound like a rebel but this isn’t a life. They brainwash you into thinking that this is the right way or the traditional way but in reality it’s just a form of enslavement. Same goes for patriotism. I was born in this land but why am I forced to fight for the government? patriotism is just an illusion that they teach us since childhood to make sure we’re the first line of defense when they call for us.

So this is one of the consequences of control. Yes, we do sleep in our beds without being afraid, yes we have food and games and clothes delivered right to our doorsteps but in exchange, there are other things that we’re losing. I know might regret supporting the Assassins, but I know that they’re not anarchists. I believe we should have a law that merely guarantees the rights of citizens without having to require the citizens to do anything. However, I don’t know how that can happen. It’s a complex system.


There's a lot of stuff about ancient religions that were tied to the culture of the time and may never make sense to us. For example it used to be common to swear an oath by placing your hand against another person's testicles. It sounds ridiculous nowadays, but somehow made perfect sense to people at the time. Holy books (not just the Bible) may have had rules against homosexuality because it wasn't widely understood at the time and was seen as demonic possession and made it seem like a threat. No sex before marriage makes sense because STDs weren't very well understood back then, so people may have thought marriage would somehow protect people from spreading sexual diseases. Masturbation was considered a mental illness at one point, maybe people thought it would deter people from seeking out a "proper" sexual partner and therefore lead to less children being born. This is just speculation on my part, but sex has always been kind of taboo because we are at our most vulnerable during it. No society wants to be seen as vulnerable, so maybe that's why sex became such a taboo. People want to be seen as powerful and strong, and if they believe they are being guided by a divine source that gives them strength, anything that makes them seem weak must go against that divine being's plan. People trust in gods because they think God will give them strength, not weakness. Sex makes you vulnerable, therefore it must not be from God. Hence sex = sin, according to many religions.



Why do you bring concepts like "deserve" and "made to be" into the equation? Who decides such things if we assume the concepts we're talking about are entirely man-made? Who decides what humanity as a whole "deserves"? Who says we were "made to be" anything? The whole idea behind the Creed is that we are the shepherds of our own fate. We - humanity as a whole - make up the rules by which we judge ourselves, as well as others. There is no-one to decide whether we "deserve" freedom except us.



Humans are not a hivemind like ants. In every group, stronger personalities will always emerge and take on a natural leadership role, while others naturally fall into follower roles. I don't know why that is, maybe instinct or genes. But no, I don't think it's possible for humans to live in groups without some kind of hierarchy eventually emerging. There are steps we can take as a community to prevent the higher-ups from imposing their will on everyone else, but I don't think it's hypocritical to want both guidance and independence. That's how we learn things as children. Our parents guide us and keep us safe from harm by imposing rules. The rules may not make sense to us at the time ("what do you mean I'm not allowed near the stove?") but as we grow older, we learn to distinguish the rules that make sense to us and the rules that don't. As grown-ups, we may still think avoiding hot stoves is a sensible rule because we can see the clear danger they pose, but we may think our parents were being a bit silly when they told us listening to rap music was equally dangerous. Humans long for guidance because a certain amount of guidance protects us when we're young and we instinctively make the connection that the protection will last as long as we're being guided. But as we grow older, we also start thinking some rules maybe don't make much sense anymore. We begin testing our limits and realizing some rules can be stretched, they're not as rigid and unforgiving as we thought they were as children. There's some cognitive dissonance there, because we grew up thinking rules would protect us and we want to hold on to that certainty, but as we grow older, we realize rules aren't, in fact, foolproof nor do they always make sense in all situations. We want to believe in the power of protective guidance, but also realize it's a big, bad world out there and not everyone who would impose rules on us has the best intentions at heart like our parents did.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical to want guidance and independence at the same time.



I pretty much agree with all this. Obviously AC is a power fantasy, hence some of the subtleties get lost (instead of going for a diplomatic solution, the games encourage you to just kill everyone in your way), but I do think the assassins' philosophy is, at heart, better than the Templars'. In my opinion the devs and sometimes fans have unfairly dubbed the two factions as extremist groups, simplifying the Templars as benevolent dictators and the assassins as radical anarchists. The assassins don't want anarchy. This is clear in every aspect of their portrayal in the games. They have a leader/mentor, a hierarchy, they support certain politicians behind the scenes, they're champions of the democratic system of government. If they were anarchists, they would be trying to disintegrate the political system from the inside out. They're not advocating total freedom from all forms of control, as that would be impossible. Their goal is to get people to take personal responsibility for their own actions and trust their own conscience instead of blindly following others. The Creed is not a single principle to inform all of your actions in this life, it's a general guideline to remind you where your focus should be. It boils down to "you're free to make your own choices, just remember to take responsibility for all of them".

I totally agree with the last paragraph. The Assassins are not anarchists, they have some sort of law, but I love how this law does not decide the personal stuff. It does not limit your freedom and it doesn’t require you to do anything. It just maintains the safety of the people and make sure that the personal freedom does not take away someone else’s freedom.

Regarding the concepts of “deserve” and “made to be”, I merely mean that in a metaphorical way, like are we going to take responsibility enough when we’re given absolutely freedom? and that’s exactly my point, it’s all man made so why do many of us consider these laws to be divine? why should I give a standing ovation to the flag or a politician? why should they earn so much respect? he/she is just a person like any other person, we chose them, we made them who they are to do a job, if anything, they should be the ones standing and bowing for us, not the other way. But a lot of countries miss that point and make the leader and his words feel sacred and divine and that anyone who opposes that faces various consequences, even in democratic countries.

Regarding the rules our parents make for us, you’re absolutely right. Most of the time we don’t understand their significance, but when we become parents ourselves, we understand that they were right and that the rules that we thought were made to oppress us are there to protect us. However, I don’t think that every rule and law the government makes is like parental rules at home.

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I prefer to call them “Creative Thinkers”, but I believe there are so many rules, trends and cultures that were invented to limit our freedom. It’s like we’re brainwashed into believing that the ideal life should go a certain way and sine we’re young, we’re taught that this is the right path, even though there can be many more paths that are also right. It’s like we’re confined to one certain track like a train that we can’t levitate above or deviate from. That’s what hurts me about the law, because I made the law, I voted for the law, it shouldn’t be limiting my freedom.

By the way, I like your theory about sex and sexuality. It’s true that it makes us vulnerable but sometimes I just don’t see why sex is ok for a man for example while it’s not for a woman. Why is the woman automatically named sl*t if she’s involved with more than one partner but among men, it’s like a pride to be dating many girls? and then again, now the media is trying to integrate the idea that if you’re a woman then you’re always right. If you cheat on her, it’s your fault cause you’re a pig and you never get enough from one woman and you’re not loyal, but if she cheats on you, it’s like “oh no, she cheated because you’re not giving her enough attention and love” so it’s like always your fault. Same thing goes for violence, women call for equality yet at the same time, it’s ok to show a woman shooting a man or attacking her man for cheating and they call it “empowerment” or “strong women” or whatever, but if a man beats his wife for cheating, they call it “violence”. Then what happened to equality? sounds more like superiority to me.

So I feel like culture and laws have always been an obstacle to our society... I may be over-thinking but all I said is part of our reality that many of us choose not to think about.

Acrimonious_Nin
09-15-2014, 06:56 PM
"Go to school > follow the education system that THEY decide for you > Go to work > follow orders and pay taxes > Die. That’s not a life."

You are correct, it is not a "life", its actually "The Human Assembly Line" the end result...Alchemically/Neurologically transforming humans into a "product" or "object of use by others". The whole argument for the past few pages are quite top notch the read is the best I have had in several months ;)


"So I feel like culture and laws have always been an obstacle to our society... I may be over-thinking but all I said is part of our reality that many of us choose not to think about."

I think you are on to something about culture and laws which are purely a 2 dimensional problem in "human society"...which you guys are arguing on behalf of a 3 or 4 dimensional perspective...Which could be likened to, looking at the "world" from the "outsiders" awareness of how things have shaped themselves out to be...hope that makes sense...But I do not think you are "overthinking" if anything...Please think more >: ) it makes for better reading muahahah. Seriously...I think I agree with mostly everything here about what has been stated....

Albert Einstein once said, "A problem can not be solved in the same level of mind that created it." What he was stating is that in a world where you create a situation where you create a problem that pertains to "moral/ethical actuality" the situation can only be understood by seeing it from a "higher level of mind" or a more "enlightened perspective" by fully understanding the situation at hand. Think about 2 people arguing. They almost will never find a solution to there problem, but if you add a 3rd person into the equation that has a calmer mind set, they tend to have the "mind" to "see" what is going on and how to solve it...

The issue being that it comes from societal norms and cultural differences would have to be approached with an understanding of how those things came about via a "3rd persons POV" kind of mind set which,I believe, it seems you people are doing already >_>...Just thought I'd share my thoughts on a small point of the matter being discussed it is getting quite interesting ^__^

RinoTheBouncer
09-15-2014, 07:04 PM
You are correct, it is not a "life", its actually "The Human Assembly Line" the end result...Alchemically/Neurologically transforming humans into a "product" or "object of use by others". The whole argument for the past few pages are quite top notch the read is the best I have had in several months ;)



I think you are on to something about culture and laws which are purely a 2 dimensional problem in our society...which you guys are arguing on behalf of a 3 or 4 dimensional perspective...Which would be looking at the "world" from the "outsiders" awareness of how things have shaped themselves out to be...hope that makes sense...But I do not think you are "overthinking" if anything...Please think more >: ) it makes for better reading muahahah. Seriously...I think I agree with mostly everything here about what has been stated....

Thank you my friend. Most people want to you to just follow a certain line, walk on tracks like a train and never ask questions. I love to ask questions even if they’re offensive or prohibited. I believe I own this world, we all own this world and we all have the right to questions everything. We have so much power that we cannot realize. We submit our will to people who supposed to be serving us, we fear those whom are supposed to be our employees. We vow to ever ask questions and give sanctity to dictatorial laws that we never voted for. It’s absolutely wrong. We should always ask questions and find out the truth because it’s our right.

Thank you. I’m glad you liked what I wrote :)

plava-senka
11-08-2015, 01:40 PM
None.
Both factions claim they want peace, one through absolute freedom, other through absolute order.
Freedom without order is anarchy. Order without freedom is dictatorship.
Anarchy will eventually lead to conflict, because my absolute freedom could endanger yours, and yours could distupt mine. Peace cannot be achieved like that
Dictatorship will eventually lead to conflict, because without our freedom, we are simply slaves. Men and women fought and will fight against that kind of rule, and again, peace won't be achieved.
Assassins and Templars should work together. Simple as that. They should stop seeing one another as a bad guy, stop being that narrow minded and stubborn.