PDA

View Full Version : Why I dont side with the templars ( Official Debate thread)



EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 02:23 AM
1.Templars way too often become corrupt. the scales for the Templars seem to tip very easily. at one point they are decent people who do bad things for a cause they believe is just the next they are corrupt and evil ( often having alterior motives. even when Templars are in their "good streak mode" they often have that one guy who is corrupt EX Thomas Hickey, the Templar at the public hanging) and that may be the one who ends up with the apple. Granted the assassins have these periods as well but they are much shorter than the Templars and result in far fewer deaths

2. Templars claim to make their sacrifices to support a good cause. and after all these years and all of these sacrifices what good have they really done for the human race?

3.Templars are merciless when it is not needed. when leading or compromising they rushed into things with force instead of being wise and thinking things through ending in the direct and indirect death of innocents

4. Templars aren't shown to value humans or their rights

5. Also people who believe Templars will let you hold onto you freewill are wrong. freewill leads to creativity, which leads to questions of change and rebellion.

6.modern day Templars seem to be the final stage of the Templars and they are the upmost worst of any Templars displayed. they are cruel, betray one another, kill without question and sometimes find amusement in it.

Sorry but Templars are simply too risky to place a bet on.

if you reply to this thread to defend the Templars read all my points and react to each one. don't instantly start talking about how assassins are just as bad. please admit to or react to each of my points and after that you many draw points from assassins to Templars.

Eduard413
12-17-2014, 02:37 AM
well don't know what to say, I think both - Assassins and Templars are great ;)
but the fact is, about 80% of templars were bad guys, and in Assassin's Order there were few bad assassins like only about 10% - Abbas and his new brotherhood in AC Revelations, even Altair at the beginning of AC1, Chevalier / Captain JOseph la Vendreye or how did he called, William Miles (well I liked him but he was kinda stupid too)
I'm not gonna write how many templars were bad because that would be a long list :p but still there were good templars like William Johnson, John Pitcairn, SHAY PATRICK CORMAC! the best Templar ;) Elise and her Father de la Serre, Laureano Torres (he wasn't so evil) and the templars of AC1 I don't remember their names but in AC1 a lot of them were not so bad
these actually cared about the humanity, well they maybe had bad ways of maintaining the order in the world but still, not all of them are bad
but yeah the Modern Day templars along with the Borgia Family are the worst

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 02:40 AM
1) Only corrupted Templars in our history were the Borgias. ( A dark time for us) How was Hickey corrupt? He was just instructed to take out Connor & Washington to further their plans. ( Besides, he wasn't even a Templar) The Assassins don't ever have the Apple longer than the Templars? *Looks at Altaļr*

2) I could say the same for the Assassins. They do it more actually. :rolleyes:

At least our actions progress humanity, what have you Assassins done for Humanity other than killing us?

3) *Looks at Achilles*

4) Oh, really? Isn't that why Haytham freed the natives? Torres was against slavery? Or what about Monroe/Shay trying to help the citizens of New york?

5) The people are free to do as they please, we're just here to better them for the new world.

6) Like the Borgia, they are too another dark era for us. We Templars aren't perfect, but who is? Sure as hell aren't those Assassins. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 02:47 AM
Hickey is hardly a Templar. As he said he did it for the money. There's tons of people like that in general, not only found in templars.

They made sacrifices and eventually ended up with abstergo entertainment, a company that essentially brainwashes the public. To the templars, this is positive because the community can be regulated without direct force.

Templars kill for efficiency.

False. For example, Templars in ACIV oppose slavery.

Templars never claimed to allow people free will. They know theyre essentially manipulating you.

Melanie would disagree with you.

Not saying all templars are justifiable. Pretty much all of them are terrible people IMO aside from some Modern Day ones and Colonial/Caribbean ones. Just know that there's all kinds of templars and what is morally wrong really depends on your PoV.


4) Oh, really? Isn't that why Haytham freed the natives?

To be fair, Haytham only freed the natives for his own interest. At least initially.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 02:55 AM
To be fair, Haytham only freed the natives for his own interest. At least initially.

And Connor originally only helped the colonists to further his own interest. :rolleyes:

It goes hand and hand really.

Doesn't change what they did.

But I see what you're saying though.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 03:00 AM
1) Only corrupted Templars in our history were the Borgias. ( A dark time for us) How was Hickey corrupt? He was just instructed to take out Connor & Washington to further their plans. The Assassins don't have the Apple longer than the Templars? *Looks at Altaļr*

2) I could say the same for the Assassins. They do it more actually. :rolleyes:

3) *Looks at Achilles*

4) Oh, really? Isn't that why Haytham freed the natives? Torres was against slavery? Or what about Monroe/Shay trying to help the citizens of New york?

5) The people are free to do as they please, we're just here to better them for the new world.

6) Like the Borgia, they are too another dark era for us. We Templars aren't perfect, but who is? Sure as hell aren't those Assassins. :rolleyes:

did you read the point when I said

("if you reply to this thread to defend the Templars read all my points and react to each one. don't instantly start talking about how assassins are just as bad. please admit to or react to each of my points and after that you many draw points from assassins to Templars") because I don't think you did.

hickey was a monster who would do anything for anyone who offered him pay better than what he was receiving. could you imagine what would happen if he got a hold of a POE? kind of funny you didn't see that as corrupt.

Haytham freed a small group of natives simply to gain there trust for his own benefit. this also isn't a accomplishment for the human race because the Templars in total killed far more than that small amount of natives he saved. Torres trying to convince someone that slaves are wrong doesn't benefit the human race. sorry. Shay was one of the decent Templars who did a good thing. also I didn't say the Templars never did good or decent things, I said the bad things they did do never paid off for the human race.

You don't find MD Templars corrupted?

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:03 AM
What I'm trying to say is Haytham is only interested in his own cause, yes.

But he believes his cause with further help humanity.

He kills for efficiency. And all of his kills are arguably justified.

The only real questionable one is in Forsaken where he threatens to kill a boy and then later says he would have killed him (after much hesitation) had he not gotten his information.

Though whether he actually would have killed the boy is technically unknown.

Not to mention, he was going to kill the kid to find his father's killer. So it wasn't even for the templar cause, it was because of his emotional weakness.

Had he not succumbed to his emotional weakness (like a templar should since they kill for efficiency only), he would have literally no kills that aren't arguably justifiable to the majority.



hickey was a monster who would do anything for anyone who offered him pay better than what he was receiving. could you imagine what would happen if he got a hold of a POE? kind of funny you didn't see that as corrupt.


As I stated before, Hickey wasnt actually interested in the templar cause. Just money. There are people like that in every high paying faction.


Haytham freed a small group of natives simply to gain there trust for his own benefit. this also isn't a accomplishment for the human race because the Templars in total killed far more than that small amount of natives he saved.

Saving lives isn't the goal of the templars. To them, it's about changing the structure of society.

So being unable to save lives is not making any templar goals null and void

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 03:06 AM
So it wasn't even for the templar cause, it was because of his emotional weakness.

Had he not succumbed to his emotional weakness (like a templar should since they kill for efficiency only), he would have literally no kills that aren't arguably justifiable to the majority.

that's the thing. everyone ( even Templars) have emotional weaknesses which means they aren't fit to rule the entire world. NO ONE IS

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:08 AM
that's the thing. everyone ( even Templars) have emotional weaknesses which means they aren't fit to rule the entire world. NO ONE IS

False.

If everyone had emotional weaknesses, we wouldn't have sociopaths.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 03:11 AM
As I stated before, Hickey wasnt actually interested in the templar cause. Just money. There are people like that in every high paying faction.



Saving lives isn't the goal of the templars. To them, it's about changing the structure of society.

So being unable to save lives is not making any templar goals null and void

then sorry....... I just don't agree with the Templar philosophy in the if that is the case

what is the point of changing a society and force people to be under your will if it is no to save or aid others? its straight up wrong.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 03:13 AM
False.

If everyone had emotional weaknesses, we wouldn't have sociopaths.

:nonchalance:

fine.......... lets have a sociopath Templar then............

Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:16 AM
:nonchalance:

fine.......... lets have a sociopath Templar then............

so·ci·o·path
ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/Submit
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

A sociopath has these conditions.

lack of conscience alone does not mark a sociopath.

and arguably, a lack of conscience is not necessarily always a bad thing.

this fits qualifications for someone who does not succumb to emotional weakness

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 03:16 AM
The Templars backed Hitler.

/thread

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:18 AM
The Templars backed Hitler.

/thread

Not all templars, obviously.

And besides, (I dont know the lore because this might have to do with initiates) a dictatorship is what the templars are after. Not necessarily Hitler's actions.

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 03:25 AM
Not all templars, obviously.

And besides, (I dont know the lore because this might have to do with initiates) a dictatorship is what the templars are after. Not necessarily Hitler's actions.

It's not about Initiates, it's been part of the lore since AC2.

From the wiki:

"By the 1930s, Hitler was under the influence of the Templar Order (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Templars), obtaining an Apple of Eden (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Apple_of_Eden_4) from Templar industrialist Henry Ford (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Henry_Ford), intending for him to use it to start World War II (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/World_War_II).[1] (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-AC2_Glyph_12-0) Alongside fellow Templar puppet Joseph Stalin (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Joseph_Stalin), Hitler brought on the turmoil and fear necessary for Abstergo Industries (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Abstergo_Industries) to take control of the working population (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Capitalism).[2] (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-ACBH_Rift_3-1)"

"I had to let PE4 go. As per instructions, I've shipped it to Europe. H. has it, so I assume the war will begin as soon as he can take over. We'll let him have his fun... and then end it with a bang, as planned."
―Henry Ford, in a letter to Thomas Edison (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Edison).[src] (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_II)"

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 03:27 AM
I hate how entitled and self righteous the Templars are. They believe they have the right to gain ultimate world power because they are the only part of humanity capable of leading the world.

What gives them the divine right to assume world power? The same people who say they'd support the Templars wouldn't like a select group of elites controlling every facet of our lives wouldn't stand for it. You can't subjugate and oppress if you want to establish trust, and therefore, order. That's why I find it rich when they claim the people are stupid and ignorant. Why because they don't bend to your every whim?

To me they're a bunch of condescending rich toffs whose values I detest. I share the Assassin's values, but not their actions.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:30 AM
@sixkeys

Henry Ford was a templar? Hell yeah.

And yeah like I said before. The Templars don't value human lives. Their deaths are but a number. What matters is the structure of the world.

So the templars are not straying from their cause.

And that cause will essentially bring the world order. And order is the way the templars plan to achieve their perspective of peace. Whether or not you value peace through order over peace through saving as many lives as possible depends on the person.

@shahk

What gives presidents the incentive to rule over their people? What gives dictators the incentive to be in control? Often enough, it's because they believe they are what society needs to improve itself.

Templars carry the same mentality.

Do these people necessarily have the RIGHT to rule? Dictators aren't voted. And the methods of voting for presidents (including US ones) are often debated as to whether they're fair. Everyone who has ever been in charge of something can be questioned if they have 'the right'. But the truth is there is no such thing as 'the right'. It's only PoV.

And templars don't care about your trust. They just want you in line, oppressed or not.

Whether that is wrong depends on the person.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 03:31 AM
did you read the point when I said

("if you reply to this thread to defend the Templars read all my points and react to each one. don't instantly start talking about how assassins are just as bad. please admit to or react to each of my points and after that you many draw points from assassins to Templars") because I don't think you did.

I read all your points, and I reacted. There. :p

Nah, but I read your points, and I simply countered them. I was just doing as you said in showing how both sides are at fault.

- I think the Borgias/MD Templars are a terrible representation of what the order is truly about.
- I said the Templars aren't perfect. But that doesn't mean the Assassins are any better.
- The Templars have done bad/questionable acts. ( But so have the Assassins ;) )

And what you're saying is for everyone to basically bash the Templars without question, doesn't that sound like a contradiction...Assassin? :rolleyes:


hickey was a monster who would do anything for anyone who offered him pay better than what he was receiving. could you imagine what would happen if he got a hold of a POE? kind of funny you didn't see that as corrupt.

Hickey wasn't a Templar.

He even said to Connor about how he didn't give a damn about the AVT War.

If he could less about that, what interest would a POE give him?


Haytham freed a small group of natives simply to gain there trust for his own benefit. this also isn't a accomplishment for the human race because the Templars in total killed far more than that small amount of natives he saved.

The only time Natives were killed was that moment with Johnson...

Then again, why they made that complete 360° against the natives is beyond me. :rolleyes:


Torres trying to convince someone that slaves are wrong doesn't benefit the human race. sorry.

What did you expect him to do? Shout to the world on how slavery was wrong? :rolleyes:

You natively forget the position and era he was in.



Shay was one of the decent Templars who did a good thing. also I didn't say the Templars never did good or decent things, I said the bad things they did do never paid off for the human race.

Fair enough. A lot of what the Assassins do don't pay off in the end either.

So yeah. ^^


You don't find MD Templars corrupted?

No, they're the bee's knees. :rolleyes:


What I'm trying to say is Haytham is only interested in his own cause, yes.

But he believes his cause with further help humanity.

He kills for efficiency. And all of his kills are arguably justified.

The only real questionable one is in Forsaken where he threatens to kill a boy and then later says he would have killed him (after much hesitation) had he not gotten his information.

Though whether he actually would have killed the boy is technically unknown.

Not to mention, he was going to kill the kid to find his father's killer. So it wasn't even for the templar cause, it was because of his emotional weakness.

Had he not succumbed to his emotional weakness (like a templar should since they kill for efficiency only), he would have literally no kills that aren't arguably justifiable to the majority.

Fair enough. ;-)

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:39 AM
What I'm saying is places that embrace freedom like America will of course generally oppose templar cause.

That's why they can't get away with direct control. Abstergo relies on brainwashing/manipulation.

But other countries with established dictatorships may easily support their cause.

And saying "templars kill people for their cause" isn't necessarily bad if the cause is viewed as the only way to bring their perspective of peace (order) to humanity.

And templars feel inclined to bring their perspective of peace to humanity because they feel it is their duty just like people who run for president.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 03:43 AM
I hate how naive and narrow-minded the Assassins are.

They have all this faith and hope in Humanity, yet it continues to **** up no matter what they do.

The definition of insanity if you'd ask me. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:47 AM
I hate how naive and narrow-minded the Assassins are.

They have all this faith and hope in Humanity, yet it continues to **** up no matter what they do.

The definition of insanity if you'd ask me. :rolleyes:

Nice burn.

But yes, Templars do generally believe freedom is a cause for chaos and that man can not be sure to behave without it's leash.

And while this is true, it is still an extreme.

Just like the Assassin concept of full freedom generally is extreme.

Two extremist factions. Forever and always.


its straight up wrong.

what is wrong can be many things to many different people

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 03:48 AM
There is no country on Earth with a peaceful dictatorship.

And you brush over brainwashing/manipulation as if it's nothing. You actually agree with that? They'd rob all but themselves of basic human liberties because they decided they were more important than everybody else. They claim purpose is one of their goals but what purpose is the world given when humanity is sapped of free thinking and creativity? Nobody here wants to live in a world so sterile.

EDIT: @Nami Problems amongst humanity will always exist, even among dictatorships where elites control everything. In fact, rebellion is a direct response to the oppression the Templar's practice. It could be argued they are responsible. Complete and total control of society would require mind control, and if you agree with that I don't know what to say.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 03:54 AM
There is no country on Earth with a peaceful dictatorship.


That depends on how you define good.

Fidel Castro to his credit has brought universal health care and education to Cuba. Cuba is far ahead of Latin America in these areas. However many political prisoners were executed.

When the Nationalist Party was in strong control of Taiwan and the military all but ran South Korea, both nations enjoyed substantial economic growth and advancement. But opposition and freedom as we know it was non existent for too long in these nations.

Singapore is often called a Guided Democracy. In other words, it is a benevolent dictatorship.

Would you sacrifice free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and perhaps other freedoms in exchange for a secure standard of living that provided well? Would you trade economic standing for more freedom? Only we as individuals can answer such questions for ourselves.

And templars as individiuals deem such sacrifices as necessary.


And you brush over brainwashing/manipulation as if it's nothing. You actually agree with that? They'd rob all but themselves of basic human liberties because they decided they were more important than everybody else.

The concept of brainwashing is practiced in many countries.

Whether or not you agree with it depends on what country you live in and what you believe will bring the best to society.

And for templars the best for society is order not free thinking.



They claim purpose is one of their goals but what purpose is the world given when humanity is sapped of free thinking and creativity? Nobody here wants to live in a world so sterile.

That's how you value life.

Templars value order over free thinking.

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 03:59 AM
Fine, but you can only agree with that world view if you're a Templar. If you want your mind enslaved, fair play to you I suppose...

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 04:00 AM
I hate how naive and narrow-minded the Assassins are.

They have all this faith and hope in Humanity, yet it continues to **** up no matter what they do.

The definition of insanity if you'd ask me. :rolleyes:

Lol. I give up for today templar. I will be back!!! (Tommorow)

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:01 AM
@Nami

We did it

http://media3.giphy.com/media/WKdPOVCG5LPaM/giphy.gif

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 04:03 AM
Templars value order over free thinking.

We value the peace that comes from order.

Besides, how is the other any better?

A world with ultimate freedom, yet there's nothing but constant chaos and death.

The French Revolution, American Revolution, and Golden Age support this.


@Nami

We did it

http://media3.giphy.com/media/WKdPOVCG5LPaM/giphy.gif

Ye. :cool:

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:05 AM
We value the peace that comes from order.

Besides, how is the other any better?

A world with ultimate freedom, yet there's nothing but constant chaos and death.

The French Revolution, American Revolution, and Golden Age support this.

Damn it, Nami we won already don't give them the opportunity to fight back.

Both factions can be argued as justified depending on your world views.

End of story.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 04:09 AM
Damn it, Nami we won already don't give them the opportunity to fight back.

Both factions can be argued as justified depending on your world views.

End of story.

Sorry, I typed that before seeing what happened.

Sorry. XD

Surely, we have won this battle, but the war will continue...forever.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:10 AM
"I can't wait for the cops to defeat drug dealers"

-Darbs Senpai in regards to Assassin/Templar conflict :rolleyes:

You said it Nami

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 04:12 AM
I'm still here... :rolleyes:

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing in support of the Assassin's. I'm talking strictly about the Templars and what they stand for without any comparisons. I think when it comes down to it, nobody would want to live in a Templar world. We all want lives of our own. Or do some of you want to be controlled and have no personal liberty whatsoever? I'm curious.

It's fine to say they are perhaps more reasonable the Assassin's, but people talk about Templar values as if they would support them in real life and argue against their morals being bat**** insane. That's pretty bonkers to me.

Personally, although they are both extremists that I wouldn't support, I do prefer they Assassin's because they have noble goals at heart that appeal to me as a human. I despise everything the Templar's stand for, because they would steal my humanity.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 04:18 AM
Or do some of you want to be controlled and have no personal liberty whatsoever? I'm curious.

To be fair, that determines who's in charge.

It probably wouldn't be as bad if someone like Haytham or Shay were in charge rather than the Borgias or Vidic.

Same with the Assassins as someone like Altaļr would be more fit to be in charge rather than someone like Pierre.

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 04:29 AM
To be fair, that determines who's in charge.

It probably wouldn't be as bad if someone like Haytham or Shay were in charge rather than the Borgias or Vidic.

Same with the Assassins as they would have someone like Altaļr in charge who sees both sides of the coin rather than someone like Pierre.

I don't think you value freedom enough. Undoubtedly, there would be certain things you'd disagree with - and you wouldn't be able to express them, and even if you could, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't be valued in that society. You'd just be a worthless puppet.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:31 AM
nobody would want to live in a Templar world.

You cannot speak for everyone.

Because different countries have completely different mindsets and all of them change throughout the ages.

Besides, templars don't care if you want to live in the world or not.


We all want lives of our own. Or do some of you want to be controlled and have no personal liberty whatsoever? I'm curious.

Some people are willing to give up rights in exchange for stability,

Templars fight for lack of chaos. This comes in cost of free will

Assassins fight for lack of control. This comes in cost of chaos.


It's fine to say they are perhaps more reasonable the Assassin's

not my claim. Im simply claiming their views are just as justifiable as assassins if not more depending on your worldviews.


people talk about Templar values as if they would support them in real life and argue against their morals being bat**** insane. That's pretty bonkers to me.

I know people from other countries (for example socialist nations) who agree with the templar mindset.

And im not saying they are right in thinking so. I'm saying nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It's just different mindsets.


Personally, although they are both extremists that I wouldn't support, I do prefer they Assassin's because they have noble goals at heart that appeal to me as a human. I despise everything the Templar's stand for, because they would steal my humanity.

Appeal to you. Not as a human. Because not all humans share your views.

It all boils down to what appeals to who.

The templars, in your view, would steal what you deem defines humanity.

That doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

And regardless, Templars do not value humanity. They value purpose, direction (ex: progression, industrialization, order)


I don't think you value freedom enough. Undoubtedly, there would be certain things you'd disagree with - and you wouldn't be able to express them, and even if you could, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't be valued in that society. You'd just be a worthless puppet.

You say 'enough'

but what is enough is your own form of measurement based on your own world views.

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 04:35 AM
To be fair, that determines who's in charge.

It probably wouldn't be as bad if someone like Haytham or Shay were in charge rather than the Borgias or Vidic.

Same with the Assassins as someone like Altaļr would be more fit to be in charge rather than someone like Pierre.

The problem is there's no way to determine what the ruler will be like until they take over. The Templar ideology fails for the same reason Communism does: it relies solely on the good faith of the people in their leaders. You won't know if you have a Haytham or a Rodrigo in charge until they've already been running the office for a few years and enacted all kinds of policies. And even those that started with good intentions may be corrupted along the way, as we saw with Haytham. He started out as something of an idealist and as he got older, he became colder and more ruthless.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:40 AM
The problem is there's no way to determine what the ruler will be like until they take over. The Templar ideology fails for the same reason Communism does: it relies solely on the good faith of the people in their leaders. You won't know if you have a Haytham or a Rodrigo in charge until they've already been running the office for a few years and enacted all kinds of policies. And even those that started with good intentions may be corrupted along the way, as we saw with Haytham. He started out as something of an idealist and as he got older, he became colder and more ruthless.

The same applies to the United States government.

Senators, Representatives, and Presidents all run risks of ending up being ineffective or even harmful for their country.

It has happened before in many countries. Both dictatorships and democracies have their histories of failure.

And your statement concedes that given what you would deem as the 'right' ruler comes into power, a nation could very well sustain itself.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 04:43 AM
I don't think you value freedom enough. Undoubtedly, there would be certain things you'd disagree with - and you wouldn't be able to express them, and even if you could, it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't be valued in that society. You'd just be a worthless puppet.

I value my freedom. I live in America actually...doesn't mean I agree with the concept entirely.

And how would you know? The Templars don't want to block free will entirely, just the chaos and conflicts that come with it.

Sure it's extreme, but they're noble. Even if it does get misguided sometimes.

Same for the Assassins who will spent countless bloodshed to get peace that doesn't exist.


He started out as something of an idealist and as he got older, he became colder and more ruthless.

That was only due to a personal conflict that had nothing to do with his leadership as Grandmaster.

Journey93
12-17-2014, 04:44 AM
I'm with you OP never got the templar hype on this forum
they are the enemy sure not all are like the Borgias but they are still pretty bad people
There's a reason why we play as Assassins because they are the good guys (most of them at least) I didn't like how in Rogue they displayed
Achiless to be such a moron just so there is more of a gray area there..

pro templar people probably only exist because of haytham and I admit he is an awesome character but I doubt that there would be much love for the Templars without him
if Ubisoft really wanted to show that they are both equally good or bad then they should have done so with guys like Cesare and Rodrigo Borgia and Vidic in the MD storyline

also wasn't Hitler a templar too? all the bad guys in history were I think and the Assassins were always portrayed as the good guys
I really hope we don't play as a templar again

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:46 AM
The Templars don't want to block free will entirely

Templars dont WANT to block anything

They just do what they must to achieve order

efficiency

And that may mean blocking free will, even if sometimes all of it.


they just want to stop the things that make society the way it is.

I think you might want to rephrase that because that isn't very clear what you're saying

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 04:51 AM
@May

You're failing to address how extreme the Templar's are. Their aim is literal mind control through pieces of Eden - at least in their current form. Also throughout history, we've seen instances of the actions. Not all are like that, but their extreme goal of humanity kneeling before them without question leads them to methods such as this. There are plenty of other examples too, such as the Boston massacre.

I'm not saying they are any worse than the Assassin's, and of course it all comes down to personal opinion. Everything does, at the end of the day. It's some people's personal opinion that Hitler was correct in everything he did. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with them. And I'm speaking euphemistically when I say 'nobody' or 'everybody' - but the vast majority value personal freedom. I asked if you would submit to Templar rule. If not, then how can you argue in support of them?

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:55 AM
You're failing to address how extreme the Templar's are

I addressed both factions as extremist.


but the vast majority value personal freedom.

Templars don't care about the opinions of majority.


I asked if you would submit to Templar rule. If not, then how can you argue in support of them?

Called being a devil's advocate.

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 04:56 AM
The same applies to the United States government.

Senators, Representatives, and Presidents all run risks of ending up being ineffective or even harmful for their country.

It has happened before in many countries. Both dictatorships and democracies have their histories of failure.

And your statement concedes that given what you would deem as the 'right' ruler comes into power, a nation could very well sustain itself.

The USA is less democratic than its citizens tend to think. So yeah, the US is a pretty bad example of a functioning democracy.

I didn't concede anything. I find it far more likely that even someone who seemingly starts out with good intentions WILL become corrupt eventually if given full control.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:59 AM
I didn't concede anything. I find it far more likely that even someone who seemingly starts out with good intentions WILL become corrupt eventually if given full control.

That's a theory that can never be proven.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 05:00 AM
Templars dont WANT to block anything

They just do what they must to achieve order

efficiency

And that may mean blocking free will, even if sometimes all of it.

And if it meant destroying the world to obtain their perception of freedom, the Assassins will do that too. :rolleyes:

But like the Templars, they must do what they must.

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 05:09 AM
That's a theory that can never be proven.

Maybe not conclusively, but the amount of evidence currently at hand points to a very high probability. The number of non-corrupt politicians in the world's history is extremely small compared to policitians that have demonstrably been corrupted in some way.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 05:12 AM
Maybe not conclusively, but the amount of evidence currently at hand points to a very high probability. The number of non-corrupt politicians in the world's history is extremely small compared to policitians that have demonstrably been corrupted in some way.

Now you're referencing politicians in general.

Including those found in democracies.

The lack of presence of politicians would likely be found in places that promote anarchy which templars believe is an invitation to chaos

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 05:32 AM
One thing I'd like to address is that while I disagree with the Order's principles, I don't dislike all the individuals. Same with the Assassin's, I don't find them justifiable in their actions but I still like the characters. And I do like there to be a greyness surrounding the two factions and for them both to be justifiable in a way. I don't want to be seen as a Templar hater or anything, but I can't agree that what they do is right. Nor can I agree with the Assassin's

I can't support either IRL, and in this thread I've explained why I can't side with the Templar's. That doesn't mean I don't think there's interesting discussion to be had over which faction is more reasonable. That's just a separate discussion that I wasn't trying to have. If I wanted to, I could describe my gripes with the Assassins too.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 05:46 AM
One thing I'd like to address is that while I disagree with the Order's principles, I don't dislike all the individuals. Same with the Assassin's, I don't find them justifiable in their actions but I still like the characters. And I do like there to be a greyness surrounding the two factions and for them both to be justifiable in a way. I don't want to be seen as a Templar hater or anything, but I can't agree that what they do is right. Nor can I agree with the Assassin's

Same here, mate.

We're all friends here. ;)

I don't wanna come off as an Assassin hater either. ^^


http://i.imgur.com/oyXH2.gif

GoldenBoy9999
12-17-2014, 06:16 AM
Sorry Nami and Mayrice, I was watching a movie so I didn't even know this was happening. I would've helped, but it does seem you two handled yourselves well.

I don't have much to add right now as you brought up many of the points I would have.

One thing I could argue over though is the Assassin's motives. I'm not entirely sure what the Assassins want. Is it complete anarchy? Do they want a world without no rulers and for everyone to make decisions for themselves? Because I surely don't agree with that.

If I knew the Assassin's motives I could maybe bring some stuff up.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 06:33 AM
Sorry Nami and Mayrice, I was watching a movie so I didn't even know this was happening. I would've helped, but it does seem you two handled yourselves well.

I don't have much to add right now as you brought up many of the points I would have.

One thing I could argue over though is the Assassin's motives. I'm not entirely sure what the Assassins want. Is it complete anarchy? Do they want a world without no rulers and for everyone to make decisions for themselves? Because I surely don't agree with that.

If I knew the Assassin's motives I could maybe bring some stuff up.

You are forgiven, Golden.

And thanks. ;)

pirate1802
12-17-2014, 07:47 AM
My minimalist and rather pessimistic point of view is that: Be it a theocracy, democracy, aristocracy or whatevercracy, there will always be people who game the system, and outright twist it to reach the pinnacle of power, whether 'people' want that or not. Ofcourse the means by which they acquire power depends on the particular -cracy- but it does happen, even in the world's largest democracy infact. :rolleyes: Better that person to be a Templar, being guided by their principles, however warped and mangled their notions of Greater Good might be, than someone inspired purely by money and personal power, as often is the case.

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 09:13 AM
The templar belief is bad and what they are trying to achieve overall is evil however there are some members of the templars who are good. The assassins creed is a good belief when you understand it however there are sometimes members who don't understand it and are bad.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 09:23 AM
The templar belief is bad and what they are trying to achieve overall is evil however there are some members of the templars who are good. The assassins creed is a good belief when you understand it however there are sometimes members who don't understand it and are bad.

What's good, bad, right or wrong is all subjective...

Everyone sees things differently.

Fatal-Feit
12-17-2014, 09:41 AM
lel

The words bad, good, and evil should never be used as an argument in a philosophical discussion. The franchise isn't black and white. We're waaaaaaaaay past the Ezio Trilogy days, guys.

Hrafnagud72
12-17-2014, 10:30 AM
Both sides think they are doing the right thing and both sides think the other side is horrible and needs to be stamped out. Realistically, both sides are pretty similar. They both want to achieve the same things, they are both arrogant, and they both have done some justifiable deeds and some downright atrocious things. They are basically like gangs, they hate each other because they are the other side, not much more reason than that.

pirate1802
12-17-2014, 12:23 PM
What I think is, if it was done properly (and it wasn't), the games could have been extremely gray and polarizing. I'm talking about the whole franchise and not individual games. It would have been fantastic because both of these groups appeal to different people carrying different kind of historical baggage, they resonate with them. But the fact that you have people describing the groups as good and bad, means that the devs/writers failed in their purpose, somewhere.

It was handled perfectly for large parts in AC1, that's exactly the kind of ambiguity I'd have wanted in the franchise. But in AC2, they sought to turn this ambiguity aside and make it a good/bad, black/white affair. So the Templars were portrayed with an extra crust of evilness, the lore was expanded to show them behind the second world war (which makes sense for a totalitarian society but makes identifying with them that much difficult.) Things were complicated further to show the modern-day Templars aiming literal mind-control instead of political totalitarianism (which I'd have liked more and would have made for more ambiguous antagonists than mindcontroling jerks.) All this white the Assassins were shown as shining white good guys.In short; the greyness of AC1 was completely shorn aside to make way for populist concepts of good and bad.

Now, perhaps aware of its past legacy and of the sillyness of AC2/ACB style villains, the franchise is pushing Templars into the limelight again, but it all feels very artificial to me. You feel like okay, this is the "praise Templars" phase we are living through, the protagonists, catchlines all indicate this. It doesn't feel nearly as organic or evolving naturally out of the founding premises of the series. It feels very artificial. If it was upto me I'd have show the Templars as groups limiting themselves to political control and Assassins as anti-establishment anarchists with quite a lot of 'em using this cover to achieve their personal goals (like it happens in real life.), each faction having its own extreme and moderate subfaction, (say the extremist templars aiming literal mindcontrol as a way to global peace (like actual templars of the games) and extremist Assassins aiming to take down every government establishment in existence.)
And change their names for god's sake, (yes I know.. iconic and all, the kids would protest but I'll digress.) the names Assassins and Templars fit the game very well when it took place during the Crusades, Afterwards? Not so much. Now it sounds like a joke.
"Your father was an Assassin, Arno!"
"What? Whom did he kill? Why?"
"No not that, I mean Historical Assassin.."
"Wait what? Dafuq is that? Next you'll tell me your son is a Historical Blacksmith."

SixKeys
12-17-2014, 04:14 PM
One thing I could argue over though is the Assassin's motives. I'm not entirely sure what the Assassins want. Is it complete anarchy? Do they want a world without no rulers and for everyone to make decisions for themselves? Because I surely don't agree with that.

If I knew the Assassin's motives I could maybe bring some stuff up.

No, the assassins don't advocate for anarchy. That's the whole point of the philosophy: basically with great freedom comes great responsibility. Edward in AC4 starts as an anarchist. The pirate republic is the perfect definition of an anarchic form of government. They had a code of honor of sorts, but it was very much anti-establishment and taking whatever you please. The assassins taught Edward that freeing your mind doesn't mean freeing yourself from consequences. The assassins believe there is no higher power (like God) ruling what should and shouldn't be allowed, but that humans are all individuals with the potential to do anything we want. Now, just because the potential is there doesn't mean you should necessarily do it. You have the potential, the ability to punch someone in the face for looking at you the wrong way, but if you do that, you are not free from consequences (like getting your *** thrown in jail). This is what a lot of people get wrong about the concept of freedom of speech, especially on the internet. On the internet you are technically free to say whatever you like, but it's not censorship for other people to call you out when you're wrong or for the site owner to block you from posting (who is paying for the servers and therefore has the right to lay down the rules for users residing on his server). Anarchy is freedom without consequences. The assassins advocate for freedom with responsibility.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 04:22 PM
Actually many pirates were surprisingly democratic.

Black beard for example.

Yeah Darby defines them more as Anarchists but...

Historically, a good chunk of them had their own versions of voting/electing.


Anarchy is freedom without consequences. The assassins advocate for freedom with responsibility.

Problem is what deserves to be censored and what deserves to be punished depends on the eye of the beholder.

Just like how the creed says do not harm the innocent.

Those are definitions that can be interpreted loosely, and thus valueless.

All you can do is rely on the morality thinking of the majority. And there has been many times where the majority had a mentality that this current majority deems morally unjust.

Not saying templars are free from this problem, however.

Like I said, both factions share their arguably fundamental flaws.

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 04:24 PM
What's good, bad, right or wrong is all subjective...

Everyone sees things differently.

So in that case they are both evil both wrong but also both of them as good. They are exactly the same....

The world is full of people who are all so different and with so many different views which is the only reason I am closer to the assassins who will say that they are all they're own people. The world is fulled with all these people who CANNOT be controlled by the templars... A world run by everyone is better than a world ruled by one with only the amount of views one person can see.

However this can also show the problems with the assassins... I wouldn't really join any of them... but I would favour the assassins slightly...

However the good thing about the templars over the assassins is that they stick to their 'order'... The assassins have so many contradictions that make them like the templars... The assassins creed as we know now it is an order made by one man. It is the point of view of one person. So anything the assassins do they don't do of the current situation. They have kind of because templars themselves... The assassins having a creed and a brotherhood itself takes away from the entirety of goal... However you could say that they do it for the others. Which still doesn't really make sense... philosophy is to wide and long for one person! We need the help of 8 billion people...

Which is why the only way they can resolve the war is if they evenly split the world to places where the assassins 'rule' and the other half for the templars... It still won't work because one of them will get greedy... so to be honest the only way it will stop is if they destroy themselves.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 05:39 PM
So in that case they are both evil both wrong but also both of them as good. They are exactly the same....

The world is full of people who are all so different and with so many different views which is the only reason I am closer to the assassins who will say that they are all they're own people.

"The Right? We have the Responsibility!" - Achilles

This quote in itself shows that the Assassins aren't entirely different from the Templars as you said, they just go about it differently.

The Assassins vision themselves as "protectors" of Humanity as if they're entitled to do so. What gives them the right to do that? Don't they believe Humanity can fight for itself?

( Thus another Contradiction as you mentioned)

This in itself shows that the Assassins ( like the Templars) see some form of weakness in Humanity and somehow entrust themselves to protect them as much as the Templars seek to guide them.

Both sides are in a way right but also at fault.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 05:41 PM
The Assassins vision themselves as "protectors" of Humanity as if they're entitled to do so. What gives them the right to do that? Don't they believe Humanity can fight for itself?


I noticed this today when watching Rogue actually.

There is a sense of entitlement.

Though it could be an intentional contradiction like the creed

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 05:47 PM
I noticed this today when watching Rogue actually.

There is a sense of entitlement.

Though it could be an intentional contradiction like the creed

There's always a contradiction.

Altaļr said it best... :rolleyes:

GunnerGalactico
12-17-2014, 05:48 PM
No, the assassins don't advocate for anarchy. That's the whole point of the philosophy: basically with great freedom comes great responsibility. Edward in AC4 starts as an anarchist. The pirate republic is the perfect definition of an anarchic form of government. They had a code of honor of sorts, but it was very much anti-establishment and taking whatever you please. The assassins taught Edward that freeing your mind doesn't mean freeing yourself from consequences. The assassins believe there is no higher power (like God) ruling what should and shouldn't be allowed, but that humans are all individuals with the potential to do anything we want. Now, just because the potential is there doesn't mean you should necessarily do it. You have the potential, the ability to punch someone in the face for looking at you the wrong way, but if you do that, you are not free from consequences (like getting your *** thrown in jail). This is what a lot of people get wrong about the concept of freedom of speech, especially on the internet. On the internet you are technically free to say whatever you like, but it's not censorship for other people to call you out when you're wrong or for the site owner to block you from posting (who is paying for the servers and therefore has the right to lay down the rules for users residing on his server). Anarchy is freedom without consequences. The assassins advocate for freedom with responsibility.

^ This.

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 06:03 PM
There's always a contradiction.

Altaļr said it best... :rolleyes:

The existence of the assassins in itself is a contradiction... I remember hearing that the assassins came out of the templars... so the reason for this may be that the person who created didn't know anything better...

However when I play the games I support the assassins... but I understand the templars struggle which makes it such a great game for me... I like to disagree with the character I am playing as such as ezio when he smokes out cappadocia and maybe kills all those civilians. Or when Connor fights the natives and kills kanentokon, it makes the character more realistic and makes the story better for me.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 06:29 PM
The existence of the assassins in itself is a contradiction... I remember hearing that the assassins came out of the templars... so the reason for this may be that the person who created didn't know anything better...

However when I play the games I support the assassins... but I understand the templars struggle which makes it such a great game for me... I like to disagree with the character I am playing as such as ezio when he smokes out cappadocia and maybe kills all those civilians. Or when Connor fights the natives and kills kanentokon, it makes the character more realistic and makes the story better for me.

It's rumored that the Assassins & Templars are said to come from the ideologies of Cain & Abel.

The sons of Adam & Eve.

Abel = Assassins
Cain = Templars

Yes! I love those things too. When the actions of individuals on both sides actually make you question and think.

And to Connor's defense, he didn't technically fight them but knocked them out as the 100% objective is considered canon to what they actually did.

And Connor had no choice in his fight with Kani.

It was basically a kill or be killed situation.

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 06:35 PM
It's rumored that the Assassins & Templars are said to come from the ideologies of Cain & Abel.

The sons of Adam & Eve.

Abel = Assassins
Cain = Templars

Yes! I love those things too. When the actions of individuals on both sides actually make you question and think.

And to Connor's defense, he didn't technically fight them but knocked them out as the 100% objective is considered canon to what they actually did.

And Connor had no choice in his fight with Kani.

It was basically a kill or be killed situation.

Yes but I would have killed the revolutionaries and and helped the natives because what he initially wanted was for his people to be safe... However his personal problems with Charles Lee stopped him... I can understand what he did bit I still disagrees with it.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 06:41 PM
Yes but I would have killed the revolutionaries and and helped the natives because what he initially wanted was for his people to be safe... However his personal problems with Charles Lee stopped him... I can understand what he did bit I still disagrees with it.

If killed the colonists, his would've been safe...temporarily.

Eventually the British would come and take it all the same.

That's fair, but you gotta consider that with all those issues on your plate plus a personal vendetta
( well it wasn't one anymore because he realized it was Washington) the outcome was bound to be unfortunate. For anyone really.

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 06:47 PM
If killed the colonists, his would've been safe...temporarily.

Eventually the British would come and take it all the same.

That's fair, but you gotta consider that with all those issues on your plate plus a personal vendetta
( well it wasn't one anymore because he realized it was Washington) the outcome was bound to be unfortunate. For anyone really.

Well that's true... He could have done them both which is kinda why I thought they showed us that massive group of patriots before we go to the village... but personally I would have done the other but I still understand why he did what he did and that's fine. Actually better for me.

Hans684
12-17-2014, 07:12 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4mQwCQ2eTk8


1.Templars way too often become corrupt. the scales for the Templars seem to tip very easily.

That is true, power can easily get in your head. But the thing is, judge individually. Blaming an entire group for the mistakes of a few doesn't give a fair awnser, and live isn't black an white either. So take everything to consideration, not just the things that hate/like the most. 4 categories, Extremist Templars, Corrupt Templar, Templars and True Templars, after given that one of these you can add evil or good. You can also use someone like Shay or Torres for scale.


At one point they are decent people who do bad things for a cause they believe is just the next they are corrupt and evil ( often having alterior motives. even when Templars are in their "good streak mode" they often have that one guy who is corrupt EX Thomas Hickey, the Templar at the public hanging) and that may be the one who ends up with the apple. Granted the assassins have these periods as well but they are much shorter than the Templars and result in far fewer deaths.

Example like someone that is a corrupt Templar and is evil like the Borgia. The Borgia was power hungry and don't care for the Templar cause. Or someone who is a corrupt Templar and good like Hickey, he was pretty much an easy guy to please, a beer in one hand and tits in the other. He didn't care fir the cause, he wanted an easy life instead go having empty hands trying to catch butterflies. The Borgia is a treat, Hickey isn't. One is power hungry, the other wants to enjoy life but neither care for the cause.


2. Templars claim to make their sacrifices to support a good cause. and after all these years and all of these sacrifices what good have they really done for the human race?

Not let things collapse, some form of control is needed regardless. Even the Assassins have an order with specific rules and one Mentor with more power than the rest, the most diplomatic Assassin Order is the council in Unity where power us shared.


3.Templars are merciless when it is not needed. when leading or compromising they rushed into things with force instead of being wise and thinking things through ending in the direct and indirect death of innocents

I see no difference between the orders here.


4. Templars aren't shown to value humans or their rights

If they didn't they wouldn't be fighting for peace.


5. Also people who believe Templars will let you hold onto you freewill are wrong. freewill leads to creativity, which leads to questions of change and rebellion.

Tyranny leads to rebellion, restrictions leads to rebellion, force leads to rebellion. And no it highly depends on the time, MD day Templars want to enclave us with Apples Of Eden's in the sky but the First Civ. tried it and failed so no need to worry. Let them be shocked when they find out. And after the Age of Reason(after the Borgia) the Templars rethought their ways, their goal(until MD) was from then influence, not control at all cost.


6. Modern day Templars seem to be the final stage of the Templars and they are the upmost worst of any Templars displayed. they are cruel, betray one another, kill without question and sometimes find amusement in it.

They are corrupt Templars, their back to the old ways before the Age of Reason. It's not the final stage, it's their first stage. History repeats itself.


Sorry but Templars are simply too risky to place a bet on.


If you reply to this thread to defend the Templars read all my points and react to each one. don't instantly start talking about how assassins are just as bad. please admit to or react to each of my points and after that you many draw points from assassins to Templars.

Imma break it down.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 07:12 PM
Well that's true... He could have done them both which is kinda why I thought they showed us that massive group of patriots before we go to the village... but personally I would have done the other but I still understand why he did what he did and that's fine. Actually better for me.

Those massive group of patriots were planning to attack the village.

Connor pretty much saved his people from killing themselves...even with his friend's sacrifice.

Yeah, I can understand that...others would do the same.

Though the ending wouldn't be much better.

Hans684
12-17-2014, 07:15 PM
Those massive group of patriots were planning to attack the village.

Connor pretty much saved his people from killing themselves...even with his friend's sacrifice.

Yeah, I can understand that...others would do the same.

Though the ending wouldn't be much better.

All this could have been avoided if only they let William Johnson buy their land.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 07:17 PM
All this could have been avoided if only they let William Johnson buy their land.

Yep... :cool:

I'm betting Connor regretted that BIG TIME when the Indian Wars started coming up.

Hans684
12-17-2014, 07:22 PM
Yep... :cool:

I'm betting Connor regretted that BIG TIME when the Indian Wars started coming up.

Achilles didn't help much either, sure he gave him everything but by doing that he lost everything.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 07:30 PM
Achilles didn't help much either, sure he gave him everything but by doing that he lost everything.

True indeed.

Though he was still guilty/bitter about everything.

SenseHomunculus
12-17-2014, 07:31 PM
if you reply to this thread to defend the Templars read all my points and react to each one. don't instantly start talking about how assassins are just as bad. please admit to or react to each of my points and after that you many draw points from assassins to Templars.

I believe we have a closet Templar posing this question, folks. After all, only a true Templar would strive to pre-determine HOW their question is answered: order, above all things (even, if the situation dictates, at the expense of personal freedom). And an Assassin would not put such restrictions to us: everything is permitted.

I decline to answer your questions, Templar snake! :mad:

Hans684
12-17-2014, 07:39 PM
I decline to answer your questions, Templar snake! :mad:

Assassins are the snakes, they have poison blades ;)


True indeed.

Though he was still guilty/bitter about everything.

It's his responsibility.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 07:45 PM
Assassins are the snakes, they have poison blades ;)

Haha. XD

Well played.



It's his responsibility.

That he suddenly had the right to. :rolleyes:

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 07:53 PM
Those massive group of patriots were planning to attack the village.

Connor pretty much saved his people from killing themselves...even with his friend's sacrifice.

Yeah, I can understand that...others would do the same.

Though the ending wouldn't be much better.

The ending wouldn't be much better you're right... and I like that. you can justify everything and unjustify it...

Altair1789
12-17-2014, 11:03 PM
I don't know, I agree with a lot that the templars want. I feel like their instability in cause (at times) is because the nature of their wants just leave them open to corrupt and greedy people joining them. While I feel some people make really stupid decisions, and not just ones that affect only them, decisions that affect us all, I think free will is a better option.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 11:23 PM
I believe we have a closet Templar posing this question, folks. After all, only a true Templar would strive to pre-determine HOW their question is answered: order, above all things (even, if the situation dictates, at the expense of personal freedom). And an Assassin would not put such restrictions to us: everything is permitted.

I decline to answer your questions, Templar snake! :mad:

.............................

I just knew people would change the subject to assassins right away........ which gets on my nerves. if you are talking about why vanilla tastes funny you don't instantly change the subject to the aftertaste of a sandwich (not very good with examples.....)

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 11:30 PM
why do people say the assassins freedom will lead to chaos......... they are not idiots people. this is a cult that has lasted for hundreds of years!!! we have never been given a shred of evidence that assassins want to eradicate the government. in fact we have more proof that they respect rules and government rather than the other way around. why would they have a creed that dictates the responsibilities and actions of the brotherhood. the Templars often create more chaos than that of the assassins with their actions. they undermine civilians and create wars on grand scales. why would assassins bring other politicians / people into power when they could create total anarchy. according to you guys that what they want. do any of you really think any assassin character we have played as would agree to this?

EmbodyingSeven5
12-17-2014, 11:40 PM
Imma break it down.
Thank you!!! you are one of the only people who made good points without having to draw out an assassins card

Mr.Black24
12-18-2014, 02:53 AM
I'll never understand how Darby said that Assassins are anarchists. I feel like no one has ever played the original Assassin's Creed. It has been explained a thousand times that the Assassins never seeked a government less nation. Simply one that is logical, understanding, open minded, and peaceful. Once again I shall bring up the dialogue between Altair and Rashid ad-Din Sinan after the assassination of Jubair, and see how many people will ignore this and repeat the same idiocy again:

Altaļr: He dreamed of power then?
Al Mualim: Yes and no. He dreamed and still dreams, like us, of peace.
Altaļr: But this is a man who sought to see the Holy Land consumed by war!
Al Mualim: No, Altaļr. How can you not see, when you're the one that opened my eyes to this?
Altaļr: What do you mean?
Altaļr speaking with Al Mualim
Al Mualim: What do he and his followers want? A world in which all men are united. I do not despise his goal, I share it. But I take issue with the means. Peace is something to be learned, to be understood, to be embraced.
Altaļr: He would force it.
Al Mualim: And rob us of our free will in the process.

************************************************** *******

Bam!!! The Assassins and the Templars in a nutshell. Both want world peace, however, each one has their own means. The Assassins believe that giving people a chance and educating them is the way to peace while the Templars believe that a steel cold hammer of instant order is better.

To put it better: The goal of the Assassins was to ensure peace in all things. The Assassins believed that political assassinations and the death of the corrupt would bring peace and a true sense of security to the common people. Slaying innocents and civilian bystanders who did not need to die could spread strife and discord, in addition to ruining the name of the Assassin Order itself.

The Templars, as Mayrice puts it, don't care of innocents, as long as order is maintained. But funny how Shay puts it:
"What kind of world are we making if we cannot show mercy!"

Hence why I side with the Assassins, dispute some grave mistakes, they are usually in the lighter shade of grey. They don't carelessly or needlessly kill people, except for freakin Ezio, I still can't believe he did that ? I mean for being a Mentor, he isn't a wise one. And I wouldn't bring Achilles into this, as when Shay reported of what happened in Lisbon, Achilles was surprised of the incident too, saying "The operation was delicate, perhaps you..." as Shay cuts him off. He was headstrong about perusing the artifacts sure, but at least he recognize the mistake afterwards. I mean, Shay joined the Templars in belief that the Assassins wanted to destroy the world while the Assassins went after the artifacts to learn more about them. Hence proven when Achilles seen the artifact, he now knows that Shay is right, although he is still at fault for taking too long to realize this.

And on the personal side, its really hard for me to side with the Templars as freaking Hitler was one of them, who of course executed he Holocaust. I've never seen the Assassins commit genocide before. And don't bring Ezio, as I already scorned him big time for that "grand plan" of his....seriously Ezio....seriously???

Namikaze_17
12-18-2014, 03:01 AM
Thank you!!! you are one of the only people who made good points without having to draw out an assassins card

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2i86ri7C11qkns7co1_500.gif

Mr.Black24
12-18-2014, 03:37 AM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2i86ri7C11qkns7co1_500.gif
Pfft....What about you?:rolleyes:

But as I said in my previous post, Assassins want peace through freedom by education of the people, free will of choosing peace. A kind nudge in the right direction. Not that anarchy crap that people tossed about.

Namikaze_17
12-18-2014, 03:47 AM
Pfft....What about you?:rolleyes:

But as I said in my previous post, Assassins want peace through freedom by education of the people, free will of choosing peace. A kind nudge in the right direction. Not that anarchy crap that people tossed about.

That's good short term...

But it long-term(which the Assassins never think about) it will end in a disaster.

Hans684
12-18-2014, 05:56 AM
Hitler is a Templar puppet, his actions are his own. Like Benjamin Franklin with was a puppet for both orders, they were simply used. Their actions don't represent either order and sinse he was a puppet it's highly likely he don't know of the Assassins and Templars like Benjamin.

pirate1802
12-18-2014, 07:37 AM
But as I said in my previous post, Assassins want peace through freedom by education of the people, free will of choosing peace. A kind nudge in the right direction. Not that anarchy crap that people tossed about.

What if people choose anarchy? What if people choose tyranny? Don't say people would never choose so because god knows plenty of tyrants have ascended the throne via the 'people's' choice. (whatever the hell that is) Would the Assassins be like... oh well, they chose. We have nothing to do here. Let's pack up our bags and move peeps!

It looks all so well and good on paper, freedom to choose... nudge in the right direction bla bla bla, but choose the option the Assassins don't approve of, and a hidden blade will come find you in the crowd. :rolleyes:

Like Dean said about the Angels, Assassins are just Templars with good PR.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-18-2014, 10:53 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2i86ri7c11qkns7co1_500.gif

erm.......

the assassins don't ever have the apple longer than the templars? *looks at altaļr*

2) i could say the same for the assassins. They do it more actually.

At least our actions progress humanity, what have you assassins done for humanity other than killing us?

3) *looks at achilles*

sure as hell aren't those assassins

but that doesn't mean the assassins are any better.

( but so have the assassins )

Namikaze_17
12-18-2014, 11:07 PM
erm.......

Hans brought the Assassin card a couple times. :rolleyes:

What you basically want is for people to praise the Assassins without any criticism.

Isn't that basically a Templar trait? :rolleyes:

Hans684
12-18-2014, 11:20 PM
Thank you!!! you are one of the only people who made good points without having to draw out an assassins card

Not that I need those cards but with so much info regarding what they are and what the order stand for, but neither of the orders is perfect either. I categories both Assassins and Templars. Separating good from bad, true from corrupt and extreme based on actions and goals. I break it down, I don't label all Templar bad because of a puppet(Hitler(his actions are his alone)) and the Assassins good, I prefer a gray view from both perspectives.

And I forgot one category in the OP, extreme Templars. So 4 categories.


Hans brought the Assassin card a couple times. :rolleyes:

Because I'm evil, all Templars are :rolleyes:

I'll admit I mentioned them but it was to further a point, not to make one order more superior.

Fatal-Feit
12-18-2014, 11:31 PM
This is how I see the conflict:

Templars - Atheist. People who believe in reason.

Assassins - Religion. People who believe in faith.

Don't h8 me, just saiyan.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-18-2014, 11:52 PM
Hans brought the Assassin card a couple times. :rolleyes:

What you basically want is for people to praise the Assassins without any criticism.

Isn't that basically a Templar trait? :rolleyes:

lol. I just to see what would happen and how discussions go if assassins didn't exists..........

I'm up for it if you want to criticize the assassins.

COME AT MEE TEMPLAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Namikaze_17
12-18-2014, 11:53 PM
Because I'm evil, all Templars are :rolleyes:

I'll admit I mentioned them but it was to further a point, not to make one order more superior.

As have I.

But it may come off I'm making one seem superior, but I'm really make a point between the two.

Something I'm trying to have Embodying understand.


This is how I see the conflict:

Templars - Atheist. People who believe in reason.

Assassins - Religion. People who believe in faith.

Don't h8 me, just saiyan.

The Assassins aren't Religious...

They just have faith from within and all that.

EmbodyingSeven5
12-18-2014, 11:55 PM
As have I.

But it may come off I'm making one seem superior, but I'm really make a point between the two.

Something I'm trying to have Embodying understand.
I understand. the assassins and Templars need each other to keep a balance between order and chaos.

I JUST LIKE TAKING SIDES:p

Namikaze_17
12-19-2014, 12:04 AM
I understand. the assassins and Templars need each other to keep a balance between order and chaos.

But such a simple concept is also very complicated.

SixKeys
12-19-2014, 01:46 AM
This is how I see the conflict:

Templars - Atheist. People who believe in reason.

Assassins - Religion. People who believe in faith.

Don't h8 me, just saiyan.

Nope. Both sides are atheist. Kinda hard not to be when both sides have conclusive evidence that gods are made up.

JustPlainQuirky
12-19-2014, 02:50 AM
Nope. Both sides are atheist. Kinda hard not to be when both sides have conclusive evidence that gods are made up.

Not true. Some templars and assassins have both had instances of believing in God. I forget where.

Which is weird considering the concept of TOWCB

spotgimer
12-19-2014, 03:36 AM
This is how I see the conflict:

Templars - Atheist. People who believe in reason.

Assassins - Religion. People who believe in faith.

Don't h8 me, just saiyan.

It's Ironic how backwards that statement is

spotgimer
12-19-2014, 04:30 AM
Remember girls/guys, the MD templars are using the apple in a satellite to control the entire population, and then "deal" with the ones that are unaffected by the apple. Remember the apples powers in AC1? It controlled people without them even knowing I think. From this information I am assuming that everyone who supports the templars and/or puts them at the same spectrum within light, neutral and evil as the assassins would agree with a world that has absolutely no control over themselves.

ShoryukenMan
12-19-2014, 06:32 AM
Juno FTW!!

pirate1802
12-19-2014, 06:49 AM
Meh, if the satellite was launched I'd still have control over myself. Because I'd be sipping tea with my fellow Knights Templar (and smoking cuban cigars). Better rule in hell than serve in heaven afterall.

I'd be the one controlling, rather than getting controlled. *insert evil laughter here*

Fatal-Feit
12-19-2014, 07:18 AM
The Assassins aren't Religious...

They just have faith from within and all that.

Being religious isn't my point. Faith is.

What the Assassins' strive for have led to chaos such as the Reign of Terror, yet they still persist because they believe . It's much like, *cough*.

The Templars see the truth. You cannot have peace without order.


Nope. Both sides are atheist. Kinda hard not to be when both sides have conclusive evidence that gods are made up.

Actually, UNFORTUNATELY, they aren't all atheist. They have referenced God many times.

In AC:1, Al Mualim commanded the Assassins prove to the Templars they don't fair death and to go to God (do ze leap of faith).

In AC:2, Ezio told Rodrigo that his mere PoE rod cannot kill God.

In AC:IV, Edward responded to Mary's question about his wife with ''In God's eye, we are''.

There's many more. It really does hurt the overall the story for me, but eh.

Namikaze_17
12-19-2014, 07:29 AM
Being religious isn't my point. Faith is.

What the Assassins' strive for have led to chaos such as the Reign of Terror, yet they still persist because they believe . It's much like, *cough*.

The Templars see the truth. You cannot have peace without order.

That's what I meant.

They have all this faith in themselves and Humanity that they fail to see the harsh realities it brings.

(I.e. Reign of Terror)

So yeah, you're right. ^^


Actually, UNFORTUNATELY, they aren't all atheist. They have referenced God many times.

In AC:1, Al Mualim commanded the Assassins prove to the Templars they don't fair death and to go to God (do ze leap of faith).

In AC:2, Ezio told Rodrigo that his mere PoE rod cannot kill God.

In AC:IV, Edward responded to Mary's question about his wife with ''In God's eye, we are''.

There's many more. It really does hurt the overall the story for me, but eh.

Don't forget that Connor believed in the Spirits...

I think the only Atheist Assassin we've truly had is Altaļr.

Unless people got other characters.

Fatal-Feit
12-19-2014, 07:37 AM
Don't forget that Connor believed in the Spirits...

I think the only Atheist Assassin we've truly had is Altaļr.

Unless people got other characters.

U see, the thing about Connor believing in the spirits was totally okay. The spirits are the First Civ, which he discovered. I like that! The First Civ are suppose to be God. Or ghosts. The reasons for the world's anomalies throughout history. And yet, in a game about wisdom and philosophy, men and women who sees the truth, have came in contact with the First Civ one way or another, they still believe in God.

Now, I don't have anything against religion, don't get me wrong, but it feels completely out of place for the Assassins and Templars. They should be above that, especially with the First Civ shenanigans. I like the concept that these two factions have seen the truth and know better than the people. It's why they don't go to church and pray like the civilians, no, they fight in the name of their Creed and have manhunts for the PoEs. Sure, Rodrigo was the Pope, but I always considered it as some line of duty for power, not beliefs.

OH GAWD. WHAT HAVE I DONE. CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Namikaze_17
12-19-2014, 08:41 AM
U see, the thing about Connor believing in the spirits was totally okay. The spirits are the First Civ, which he discovered. I like that! The First Civ are suppose to be God. Or ghosts. The reasons for the world's anomalies throughout history. And yet, in a game about wisdom and philosophy, men and women who sees the truth, have came in contact with the First Civ one way or another, they still believe in God.

Now, I don't have anything against religion, don't get me wrong, but it feels completely out of place for the Assassins and Templars. They should be above that, especially with the First Civ shenanigans. I like the concept that these two factions have seen the truth and know better than the people. It's why they don't go to church and pray like the civilians, no, they fight in the name of their Creed and have manhunts for the PoEs. Sure, Rodrigo was the Pope, but I always considered it as some line of duty for power, not beliefs.

OH GAWD. WHAT HAVE I DONE. CHANGE THE SUBJECT.


Yeah, I agree. ^^

O__O Oh...well...uh....there needs to be a third faction.

It would really spice up the war if you'd ask me.

And no, not something like Initiates or Erudito...they're dead.

ShoryukenMan
12-19-2014, 08:54 AM
She will lead us into the grey!

May her will be done!