PDA

View Full Version : Shay Cormac



AngelDiMaria08
04-22-2015, 02:06 PM
Shay Cormac is a hero he left the assassins because he saw them responsible for the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake.

Agree or do you see him a traitor.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 02:17 PM
Shay Cormac is a hero he left the assassins because he saw them responsible for the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake.

Agree or do you see him a traitor.

Shay Cormac is definitely a traitor. When Al Mualim went nuts and used a PoE or Abbas turned on the Brotherhood, Altair didn't turn to the Templars and hand over objects saying "Assassins can't be trusted with dangerous artefacts, therefore I trust you warcriminals and slaveowners instead." He stared into the abyss and blinked.

I don't think what Shay did was heroic at all, and I think that's fair because that takes away all the value from his story. Sometimes good things (this is true in life) can be done by traitors, turncoats and renegades and Shay did think what he was doing was right and had doubts right through the game, well at least for a while, since by the time we see him in the epilogue, he seems to have zero doubts or regrets.

Markaccus
04-22-2015, 02:19 PM
It's an interesting twist. The Assassins as a whole are not responsible, but are mislead by an angry and bitter leader. Shay is the only one who sees things as they are. I hated playing as a templar. I did not even finish the game. Shay is a decent bloke who did the right thing, and i wish he had been given a better game.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 02:28 PM
It's an interesting twist. The Assissins as a whole are not responsible, but are mislead by an angry and bitter leader.

They aren't misled. Achilles did what all Mentors since Altair would do. It's just his bad luck that it was one time he was wrong and he and his crew suffered for it. He was a competent leader who built a great brotherhood and led wisely, and in the end, his saving grace was that he came to accept he was wrong. It's a tragedy of poor communication.


Shay is the only one who sees things as they are. I hated playing as a templar. I did not even finish the game. Shay is a decent bloke who did the right thing, and i wish he had been given a better game.

To be frank, I don't think Shay being "nice" was all that interesting. I wanted to play as a real Templar and the game really whitewashes (pun intended) the Templars. We are told that one of Shay's early targets massacred countless native tribes, another is a slaveholder and then Christopher Gist talks about how they are great guys and guilt trips Shay about it. A real Templar game would have you do downright evil things for the greater good, not mope around in an Irish accent about how guilty you feel, that's not Templar, that's a bad IRA movie. In the game, Shay can kill civilians as well which means that he's a darker character than all the protagonists but it doesn't fit with the story.

In Rogue, the main gimmick is absurd. Objects causing earthquakes is pure C-grade superhero comic and the overall message of Rogue is "Put a black guy in charge and he will sink the world and its up to right-thinking white man to put them down." Undoubtedly the reason why AC3 critics are warming towards it.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 02:41 PM
But Altair was a charismatic leader and high ranked who was able to get followers to help him with the purging of AlMualim then Abbas, Shay was not Charismatic nor had followers to help him purge Achilles, maybe if he was in Altair position and strength he would have done the same as Altair, we can compare the situtaion they were put in but it is unfair to judge their reactions equally as they were in different circumstances

Not really. Shay after returning from Lisbon is angry and emotional, doesn't think straight. He doesn't talk or discuss what he saw to anyone. His first idea is to straight up steal valuable objects and artefacts from Achilles' room like a thief. As a Mentor, Achilles may have been concerned about what Shay said, but then when he sees Shay enter his room and steal stuff, its logical and natural for him to assume that Shay is betraying him and compromising the brotherhood. Shay could have also written notes and messages to Assassins in the Carribean like Adewale or whoever is in England. There were a bunch of different things he could have done. The fact is he didn't bother trying.

As for why he did that, Shay is essentially a conformist. Despite saying "I make my own luck" he never does that (he's supremely lucky throughout the game, lucky the Templars don't kill him, lucky he survives Lisbon and so on). He's a conformist and he doesn't want to share responsibility for what happened in Lisbon, he wants the Assassins to be guilty for making him do it (when in fact he identified the port on the map and volunteered to do the mission solo). It's what Juhani Otso Berg says, "When pushed against the corner, Assassins choose order", now that's not true of all Assassins but its true of Shay. Ultimately, what really makes Shay a traitor is that despite knowing what the Box can do and all that, he decides to keep it in Templar hands rather than say hurling it to the ocean with an iron weight (what Connor does with the Apple) or like Ezio deciding that he has seen enough for one life, or even Edward who feels that no man should have the Observatory (after initially wanting to use it for personal gain).

D.I.D.
04-22-2015, 02:43 PM
I don't think he's either, he's just monumentally stupid. Shay plugs his ears and runs away for 20 years shouting "lalalalala" not because this makes the tiniest bit of sense but because that's the way it had been decided that the story was going to go, and they thought of no better way to get there. It's as if they wrote the trailer and then had to write the story.

Markaccus
04-22-2015, 02:45 PM
They aren't misled. Achilles did what all Mentors since Altair would do. It's just his bad luck that it was one time he was wrong and he and his crew suffered for it. He was a competent leader who built a great brotherhood and led wisely, and in the end, his saving grace was that he came to accept he was wrong. It's a tragedy of poor communication.



To be frank, I don't think Shay being "nice" was all that interesting. I wanted to play as a real Templar and the game really whitewashes (pun intended) the Templars. We are told that one of Shay's early targets massacred countless native tribes, another is a slaveholder and then Christopher Gist talks about how they are great guys and guilt trips Shay about it. A real Templar game would have you do downright evil things for the greater good, not mope around in an Irish accent about how guilty you feel, that's not Templar, that's a bad IRA movie. In the game, Shay can kill civilians as well which means that he's a darker character than all the protagonists but it doesn't fit with the story.

In Rogue, the main gimmick is absurd. Objects causing earthquakes is pure C-grade superhero comic and the overall message of Rogue is "Put a black guy in charge and he will sink the world and its up to right-thinking white man to put them down." Undoubtedly the reason why AC3 critics are warming towards it.

It just seems to me that the game was an afterthought to try and keep the last-gen users happy.

On Achilles... i think he does lose clarity at the point where he loses his family, which is why i believe at that moment he lead the Brotherhood down a dark and dismal path. You are right, he does accept in the end that he was to blame for things. Many people wanted to know more during ac3 how exactly he had fkd things up, so maybe that is one reason why suddenly a few have warmed to ac3 as you say. Personally i am not a big fan of either game.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 02:57 PM
It just seems to me that the game was an afterthought to try and keep the last-gen users happy.

On Achilles... i think he does lose clarity at the point where he loses his family, which is why i believe at that moment he lead the Brotherhood down a dark and dismal path. You are right, he does accept in the end that he was to blame for things. Many people wanted to know more during ac3 how exactly he had fkd things up, so maybe that is one reason why suddenly a few have warmed to ac3 as you say. Personally i am not a big fan of either game.

I don't think anyone wanted to know about Achilles' backstory, they wanted more Haytham. The plot is just pointless fanfiction, no historical dimension and it waters down the whole "play the bad guy" part by holding back on how bad the Templars are. Even Darby McDevitt said as much, he noted that Shay saying that no one should decide on humanity's behalf, he pointed out that was absurd since Templars do believe that.

Overall I found the game worse than Unity. If people want more Black Flag, replay Black Flag or wait for the inevitable Pirate/Naval spin-off IP.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 03:16 PM
I don't think the Al Mualim/ Altair comparison is fair. The Levantine Assassins were all under the influence of Al Mualim and the POE- if Altair could secure the Apple, he could break the mentor's spell on Masyaf.

It was more complicated for Shay. It's clear that the order in the Americas was thoroughly corrupt, but they were not necessarily under the spell of a POE- sure, the Assassins were searching for POEs and First Civ ruins, but it was their own ambition and doctrine that drove them, and one's doctrine is much harder to sway. Shay had no simple solution like taking an Apple away from Achilles.

However, Shay's initial plan was to steal the manuscript and run. He did not want to kill the Assassins. He did not run straight to the Templars. His first priority was preventing the Assassins from acquiring the manuscript, his second was his own survival. It wasn't until much later that he realized how closely his goals aligned with the Templars.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 03:27 PM
I don't think the Al Mualim/ Altair comparison is fair. The Levantine Assassins were all under the influence of Al Mualim and the POE- if Altair could secure the Apple, he could break the mentor's spell on Masyaf.

It was more complicated for Shay. It's clear that the order in the Americas was thoroughly corrupt, but they were not necessarily under the spell of a POE- sure, the Assassins were searching for POEs and First Civ ruins, but it was their own ambition and doctrine that drove them, and one's doctrine is much harder to sway. Shay had no simple solution like taking an Apple away from Achilles.

However, Shay's initial plan was to steal the manuscript and run. He did not want to kill the Assassins. He did not run straight to the Templars. His first priority was preventing the Assassins from acquiring the manuscript, his second was his own survival. It wasn't until much later that he realized how closely his goals aligned with the Templars.

I don't see how the American Assassins were corrupt. They were no different than other Assassins we see. The French Assassins in UNITY were far more corrupt.

Shay's plan to steal the manuscript and box and run shows the problem. Where would he run to? Achilles couldn't let some runaway with valuable documents go in a wild, where the Templars would eventually track him down. And in any case, why did Shay steal the manuscript, why didn't he say, break into Achilles room and burn that manuscript right then and there. Put it in the fireplace and finish it.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 03:36 PM
I don't see how the American Assassins were corrupt. They were no different than other Assassins we see. The French Assassins in UNITY were far more corrupt.

Shay's plan to steal the manuscript and box and run shows the problem. Where would he run to? Achilles couldn't let some runaway with valuable documents go in a wild, where the Templars would eventually track him down. And in any case, why did Shay steal the manuscript, why didn't he say, break into Achilles room and burn that manuscript right then and there. Put it in the fireplace and finish it.

You REALLY don't see how the American Assassins were corrupt- or are you just playing Devil's Advocate? You saw what happened to Portugal, right? Achilles's refusal to acknowledge the issue, and his insistence on playing with powers that he doesn't understand? The Assassins alliance with thieves and gangsters that terrorized the colonies? Sure, the French order was corrupt in Unity, too, but that's pretty much irrelevant to the point we're discussing.

I'm not saying Shay's plan was well thought out, but it was formed with the best of intentions. Heck, maybe he was planning on taking the book to the fireplace. Remember, the Assassins found him in Achilles' office almost immediately after he picked up the manuscript. He didn't really have any time to do anything but grab it and run. After all, when Shay later learns of what happened at the cliffs, he is satisfied that the ocean destroyed the book- so I think it's pretty clear that he fully intended to destroy it as soon as possible.

Markaccus
04-22-2015, 03:37 PM
I don't think anyone wanted to know about Achilles' backstory, they wanted more Haytham. The plot is just pointless fanfiction, no historical dimension and it waters down the whole "play the bad guy" part by holding back on how bad the Templars are. Even Darby McDevitt said as much, he noted that Shay saying that no one should decide on humanity's behalf, he pointed out that was absurd since Templars do believe that.

Overall I found the game worse than Unity. If people want more Black Flag, replay Black Flag or wait for the inevitable Pirate/Naval spin-off IP.

All in all, avoiding both my and your analysis of achilles and of why people are warming to ac3, i completely agree that rogue is poor. Fan fiction? Probably a good way to describe it...... "I just had an amazing dream, and you were in it, and you, and you too!" :D

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 03:51 PM
You REALLY don't see how the American Assassins were corrupt- or are you just playing Devil's Advocate? You saw what happened to Portugal, right? Achilles's refusal to acknowledge the issue, and his insistence on playing with powers that he doesn't understand? The Assassins alliance with thieves and gangsters that terrorized the colonies?

The Assassins always play with powers they don't understand. Think Altair holding on to that Apple, think of all the Tombs that they explore around, all the First Civ areas they activate. Like in the Da Vinci Disappearance, Ezio listens to leonardo and both of them decide to look for the Pythagorean number. They had no idea what this number does or could be, it could have driven them mad, unleashed some plague or disease. In AC3, the MD and all the Assassins never stopped to think that they really shouldn't take what Juno says and does at face value. She could have started an earthquake too. It's just that Rogue is the first time in games, where you see consequences. The Lisbon scene is done like a Tomb puzzle for that very reason, to create that false sense of complacency. Though i still think causing earthquakes is way overpowered.

Fact is, Achilles' behavior was consistent with Altair and Ezio.

As for allying with gangsters and thieves, Assassins have done that too. In Ezio's time, he palled around with Volpe, helped him start a bad guy bar, in AC2, Ezio was friends with Antonio and Rosa. It's consistent with their behaviour and way of operating. The Assassins are outlaws remember. Most of the Assassins are women, minority members and outsiders and most of the gangs likewise rob rich, white people (like that family that houses Shay) while the Templars have one token black guy (who is friends with a slaveowner Lawrence Washington, in other words, a collaborator) amidst a white picket fence.


I'm not saying Shay's plan was well thought out, but it was formed with the best of intentions.

Well, Achilles' plan was done with the best of intentions too.


After all, when Shay later learns of what happened at the cliffs, he is satisfied that the ocean destroyed the book- so I think it's pretty clear that he fully intended to destroy it as soon as possible.

Not really. It's more like "I'm alive, the oceans swallowed the books...sweet no moral responsibility, now I can think of myself." He never makes that choice because he is lucky. He never makes his own luck.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 04:09 PM
Fact is, Achilles' behavior was consistent with Altair and Ezio.



I'm sure you're aware that the topic of the Assassin's true virtues is an often discussed topic on these forums. I'm also sure you're aware that the idea that Ezio and Altair's orders were corrupt to some extent is also not a novel concept. The difference with Shay is that he was able to recognize this, and acted accordingly.

Whether or not the American order at that time was a pinnacle of Assassin corruption is certainly a topic of no small debate. However, I think it's a bit naive to claim that Achilles worked with the best of intentions. He knew what happened in Haiti. He knew what happened in Portugal. And still he persisted! And for what? Just because he thought that the First Civ sites might contain some secret knowledge? I can easily forgive the Assassins for the mistake in Haiti. I can even understand their mistake in Portugal, seeing as Haiti could have been an anomaly. But the brotherhood's refusal to even entertain the idea that they were wrong shows how foolish and arrogant they were.

As for Shay apparently thinking "sweet no moral responsibility, now I can think of myself"... is that honestly what you think? He was literally willing to give his life to destroy the book in the previous scene. I'm sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on your entire theory.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 04:39 PM
I'm sure you're aware that the topic of the Assassin's true virtues is an often discussed topic on these forums. I'm also sure you're aware that the idea that Ezio and Altair's orders were corrupt to some extent is also not a novel concept.

When I think of corrupt Assassins, I think Abbas Sofian and Al Mualim and early-AC1 Altair as the games have themselves outlined. The Assassins are outlaws and killers, they operate by illegal means and never hide or deny that, by their own distinct idea of ethics they have a consistency and logic, and that is side with the oppressed and outsiders of the society and strike against the people who have power. Achilles' Assassins operate on that.


The difference with Shay is that he was able to recognize this, and acted accordingly.

He acted accordingly by working with Templars who are two-faced corrupt hypocrites.


However, I think it's a bit naive to claim that Achilles worked with the best of intentions.

If Achilles didn't act with the best of intentions, you are as good as accusing him of planning to destroy cities.


As for Shay apparently thinking "sweet no moral responsibility, now I can think of myself"... is that honestly what you think? He was literally willing to give his life to destroy the book in the previous scene. I'm sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on your entire theory.

Shay was only willing to kill himself because he was cornered by the Assassins, he felt that they, and he was right about this, he felt that they would kill him and so he jumped. The whole death on my terms thing.

I am not trying to say that Shay is evil or anything. I think he acted with the best of intentions and he was in a difficult position and not everyone can know or do the right thing in that, in that his story is touching, at least to a point since the game whitewashes the Templars and what being-a-Templar actually means. But the point is that doesn't mean that Achilles or the Assassins in the games are evil. They are the same good guys in the earlier games and from their perspective, they are right as well based on how Shay over-reacts.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 04:48 PM
When I think of corrupt Assassins, I think Abbas Sofian and Al Mualim and early-AC1 Altair as the games have themselves outlined. The Assassins are outlaws and killers, they operate by illegal means and never hide or deny that, by their own distinct idea of ethics they have a consistency and logic, and that is side with the oppressed and outsiders of the society and strike against the people who have power. Achilles' Assassins operate on that.
That's fine, that's your personal opinion. When I think of corrupt, I think of a man who doesn't blink at the idea of wiping out an entire city.




He acted accordingly by working with Templars who are two-faced corrupt hypocrites.
Not until much later in the story. You did play the game, right?



If Achilles didn't act with the best of intentions, you are as good as accusing him of planning to destroy cities.
Not quite. I'm accusing him of accepting the destruction of cities and people as an acceptable risk for his sating his own curiosity. After all, he did know what would happen, and he proceeded anyway.



Shay was only willing to kill himself because he was cornered by the Assassins, he felt that they, and he was right about this, he felt that they would kill him and so he jumped. The whole death on my terms thing.
Or he could have handed over the book. But he didn't.


I am not trying to say that Shay is evil or anything. I think he acted with the best of intentions and he was in a difficult position and not everyone can know or do the right thing in that, in that his story is touching, at least to a point since the game whitewashes the Templars and what being-a-Templar actually means. But the point is that doesn't mean that Achilles or the Assassins in the games are evil. They are the same good guys in the earlier games and from their perspective, they are right as well based on how Shay over-reacts.
This, this I can agree with. The original post, I believe, proposed the question of whether or not Shay was a traitor. Well, he left the Assassins, which (regardless of whether or not he would have joined their sworn enemies, the Templars) is probably grounds enough to brand him a traitor. I don't really see how anyone could argue around that one. But I believe that the circumstances of his betrayal were more complex than the circumstances faced by many of the other Assassins mentioned. You're absolutely right that he was in a difficult position, and I think that's an essential part of the game. Shay never set out to be a Templar- it was just a slow natural process that (ironically, given the stated purpose of the Assassins in the lore) formed as a natural reaction the the Assassins actions.

Kaschra
04-22-2015, 05:10 PM
I don't think the Al Mualim/ Altair comparison is fair. The Levantine Assassins were all under the influence of Al Mualim and the POE- if Altair could secure the Apple, he could break the mentor's spell on Masyaf.

It was more complicated for Shay. It's clear that the order in the Americas was thoroughly corrupt, but they were not necessarily under the spell of a POE- sure, the Assassins were searching for POEs and First Civ ruins, but it was their own ambition and doctrine that drove them, and one's doctrine is much harder to sway. Shay had no simple solution like taking an Apple away from Achilles.

However, Shay's initial plan was to steal the manuscript and run. He did not want to kill the Assassins. He did not run straight to the Templars. His first priority was preventing the Assassins from acquiring the manuscript, his second was his own survival. It wasn't until much later that he realized how closely his goals aligned with the Templars.

Well said!

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 05:23 PM
That's fine, that's your personal opinion. When I think of corrupt, I think of a man who doesn't blink at the idea of wiping out an entire city.

Achilles would never willingly do that. What we see at the end of ROGUE shows that, he stops Liam tells him Shay was right and then says "he knows more than me" with his best I-Let-my-disciples-die for no reason look on his face.


Not until much later in the story. You did play the game, right?

The first Templars in Rogue is a slaveowner, the second massacred countless native Americans and the third is some bent corrupt treasurer. Those are the targets Assassin!Shay attacks. The only reason he joins the Templars is because they are nice to him and George Munro is a nice guy, he doesn't think too deeply if he, an Irish-streetkid-taken in by Assassins should really be serving a bunch of WASPy dudes who talk of order and purpose but don't do much to help people who aren't white, except for this one guy with glasses. The earthquake-stupidity kind of diverts the racist schema of the story but at its core its a story about white dudes saving the world from a cranky old black guy in charge of the Assassins, it's actually kind of disturbing that they put that there.


Not quite. I'm accusing him of accepting the destruction of cities and people as an acceptable risk for his sating his own curiosity. After all, he did know what would happen, and he proceeded anyway.

That's the same as planning it. It was only when he came to the site and saw it that he backed down at the end which means that he wasn't sure, genuinely believed he was right and Shay was wrong. So I don't think that's corrupt at all. It is vain and judgmental but Altair and Ezio could be that too.


Well, he left the Assassins, which (regardless of whether or not he would have joined their sworn enemies, the Templars) is probably grounds enough to brand him a traitor. I don't really see how anyone could argue around that one. But I believe that the circumstances of his betrayal were more complex than the circumstances faced by many of the other Assassins mentioned. You're absolutely right that he was in a difficult position, and I think that's an essential part of the game.

Betrayal isn't always a cut-and-dry thing. Shakespeare wrote a play about Brutus betraying Caear and the point is Brutus does betray Caesar but he is right to do so, he has understandable reasons to do it, and you don't know at the end if he was right or wrong to have done so or if there could have been another way. That part in Rogue is there as well. The point is Shay did betray the Assassins, there's no denying that.


Shay never set out to be a Templar- it was just a slow natural process that (ironically, given the stated purpose of the Assassins in the lore) formed as a natural reaction the the Assassins actions.

The difference is that the Assassins like Ezio or Connor are initially driven by vengeance but gradually think, accept and understand what being an Assassin means. With ROGUE, you have a very clumsy story that fails to understand the Assassin-Templar conflict and so you have Shay who's a Templar but never actually thinks or reflects what that really means, so as such I don't think he's a very complex character. The situation, plot and circumstance he is in is complex but Shay himself is not. That's why ROGUE fails as a game.

The fact is the Templars are the dark side. They lie, betray, murder and destroy large groups of people and they do that wilfully (as opposed to magic accident like Achilles) and think it serves the greater good. They are villains at the end of the day, a villain can have smart, intelligent and realistic reasons for being a villain but that doesn't make them any less of villains. Shay in ROGUE is not so much a Templar as an Ex-Assassin.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 05:51 PM
Achilles would never willingly do that. What we see at the end of ROGUE shows that, he stops Liam tells him Shay was right and then says "he knows more than me" with his best I-Let-my-disciples-die for no reason look on his face.
Exactly. He's finally repentant when it's too late. Haiti has fallen, Portugal has fallen, his order is in shambles, and he's at the epicenter of another impending disaster. I think this change of heart is necessary for the story of ACIII, but this is far from the arrogant Achilles in the rest of the game.




The first Templars in Rogue is a slaveowner, the second massacred countless native Americans and the third is some bent corrupt treasurer. Those are the targets Assassin!Shay attacks. The only reason he joins the Templars is because they are nice to him and George Munro is a nice guy, he doesn't think too deeply if he, an Irish-streetkid-taken in by Assassins should really be serving a bunch of WASPy dudes who talk of order and purpose but don't do much to help people who aren't white, except for this one guy with glasses. The earthquake-stupidity kind of diverts the racist schema of the story but at its core its a story about white dudes saving the world from a cranky old black guy in charge of the Assassins, it's actually kind of disturbing that they put that there.
I don't remember the exact quote, but Shay realizes that he's using the Templars much as they're using him. Honestly, until perhaps the epilogue, I see Shay's story as more like ACII, in that he's using the order to further his own agenda rather than work for the good of the Templars (especially when he officially joins the Templars, his missions are almost exclusively dealing with working to stop Achilles from reaching another temple).

As for the other Templars- yeah, some have bad traits(though being a slave owner, as despicable as it is, is more of a modern taboo than one from the period). I certainly don't think this game tries to show the Assassin/conflict in binary at all. And in regards to the race issue- I did find it a bit off-putting that the majority of the Templars were WASPy and the two main Assassins were black- but I'm not entirely sure that was meant to specifically reference a race issue, or if it was just a choice by the game developers. After all, Haytham, Achilles, and Adewale were all already characters from previous games, fitted into their roles again for this one last ride.




That's the same as planning it. It was only when he came to the site and saw it that he backed down at the end which means that he wasn't sure, genuinely believed he was right and Shay was wrong. So I don't think that's corrupt at all. It is vain and judgmental but Altair and Ezio could be that too.
Perhaps. It's unclear what exactly made Achilles change his mind, but we do know that Shay played a part in it (based off of Achilles own acknowledgement that "Shay was right"). In fact, many things about Achilles are unclear. We don't know exactly what he wanted in the temples, either.




Betrayal isn't always a cut-and-dry thing. Shakespeare wrote a play about Brutus betraying Caear and the point is Brutus does betray Caesar but he is right to do so, he has understandable reasons to do it, and you don't know at the end if he was right or wrong to have done so or if there could have been another way. That part in Rogue is there as well. The point is Shay did betray the Assassins, there's no denying that.
That's what I'm saying, Shay's betrayal was complicated.



The difference is that the Assassins like Ezio or Connor are initially driven by vengeance but gradually think, accept and understand what being an Assassin means. With ROGUE, you have a very clumsy story that fails to understand the Assassin-Templar conflict and so you have Shay who's a Templar but never actually thinks or reflects what that really means, so as such I don't think he's a very complex character. The situation, plot and circumstance he is in is complex but Shay himself is not. That's why ROGUE fails as a game.
In retrospect, it makes sense that the game developers so often called Shay an "Assassin Hunter" rather than a Templar. I'd agree that Shay rarely embodies a true Templar, but I'd also argue that the game doesn't really attempt to portray him as so, either. I think that's just what the fans were expecting. As someone once mentioned on these forums, a more accurate Templar game would play out more like an RTS than a third person action game.


The fact is the Templars are the dark side. They lie, betray, murder and destroy large groups of people and they do that wilfully (as opposed to magic accident like Achilles) and think it serves the greater good. They are villains at the end of the day, a villain can have smart, intelligent and realistic reasons for being a villain but that doesn't make them any less of villains. Shay in ROGUE is not so much a Templar as an Ex-Assassin.
I was getting so close to thinking that we'd come to a mutual understanding... but now this? Casting the Templars as nothing more than villains, the "dark side"? Yikes! Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to this, I thought that the complexity of the Templars was better understood on these forums.

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 06:23 PM
Shay was a freaking idiot. If he was so concerned about First Civ artefacts having power that no man should tinker with, why the hell would he go to Templars for help? He knew the Templars were all about controlling mankind and using PoEs for that very reason. If he was an absolute rookie with no prior information about either faction, his naivete would have made sense, but the fact that he already knew the philosophies of both sides and still chose to ally himself with the ones who think PoEs should be used to control the masses just makes him appear immensely stupid.

Shahkulu101
04-22-2015, 06:28 PM
Shay was a freaking idiot. If he was so concerned about First Civ artefacts having power that no man should tinker with, why the hell would he go to Templars for help? He knew the Templars were all about controlling mankind and using PoEs for that very reason. If he was an absolute rookie with no prior information about either faction, his naivete would have made sense, but the fact that he already knew the philosophies of both sides and still chose to ally himself with the ones who think PoEs should be used to control the masses just makes him appear immensely stupid.

This is why I think Shay should have been neutral, trying to deter both sides. That would fit with his characteristics more IMO.

He doesn't want the Assassins to look for the Temples, so it makes sense that he would oppose him, but he also values human life and is concerned about the well-being of innocents so it was counter-productive to join the Templar's as you say.

The whole thing felt very contrived to me, and it's not because I don't want a Templar game or Templar protagonist - that was a selling point for me - I just think that Rogue didn't handle it all that well. I hope they try again though.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 06:33 PM
Technically, he didn't go to the Templars for help, though. He made friends who, as he much later discovered, happened to be Templars. I think the game devs were very clever with how the developed this transition.

Namikaze_17
04-22-2015, 06:35 PM
Seems both stories this year are lackluster...

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 06:46 PM
Technically, he didn't go to the Templars for help, though. He made friends who, as he much later discovered, happened to be Templars. I think the game devs were very clever with how the developed this transition.

Clever as in adorning every character Shay meets with visible Templar insignia? "Hmmm, this guy has the Templar cross all over his clothes. I wonder....." Even Shay's interim outfit had it. I figured out immediately that the old couple's deceased son must have been a Templar just by looking at his outfit.

D.I.D.
04-22-2015, 06:46 PM
Shay was a freaking idiot. If he was so concerned about First Civ artefacts having power that no man should tinker with, why the hell would he go to Templars for help? He knew the Templars were all about controlling mankind and using PoEs for that very reason. If he was an absolute rookie with no prior information about either faction, his naivete would have made sense, but the fact that he already knew the philosophies of both sides and still chose to ally himself with the ones who think PoEs should be used to control the masses just makes him appear immensely stupid.

Not only that, and beyond the complete refusal to think about why the assassins would be willingly destroying cities, he's then taking the Templars word as gospel that the Assassins are planning to kill all of New York with poison gas, which again doesn't bear five seconds of consideration before a real person would think, "... Okay, and this is good for them... why?". Granted, towards the end he has started to wonder if he's on the right side of things, but he doesn't exactly think too hard about it.

If they wanted to have a Sympathy For The Templar game, they should have gone for it and thought of a reason why they destroyed Lisbon - a big, impenetrable Templar HQ, maybe - and then said, "Yeah, the Assassins killed all those people to out of a misguided idea that it was for the greater good". Have the assassins be full-on evil for once, why not? Over centuries, out of desperation at times, of course they're going to go off the rails. Even better, to have Achilles be the cause so that every time you go back to AC3, the idea that he's haunted by a past he won't talk about becomes utterly devastating. Achilles's unwillingness to train Connor would feel totally different.

I know I'm like a stuck record, but it's this thing about heroes: Ubisoft will not tarnish its brand, even though its brand is cultist murderers.

Shahkulu101
04-22-2015, 06:48 PM
Technically, he didn't go to the Templars for help, though. He made friends who, as he much later discovered, happened to be Templars. I think the game devs were very clever with how the developed this transition.

It's still a contradiction that he joins them anyway.

"How dare you make me kill innocents!"

*joins order totally okay with killing innocents*

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 06:50 PM
Not only that, and beyond the complete refusal to think about why the assassins would be willingly destroying cities, he's then taking the Templars word as gospel that the Assassins are planning to kill all of New York with poison gas, which again doesn't bear five seconds of consideration before a real person would think, "... Okay, and this is good for them... why?". Granted, towards the end he has started to wonder if he's on the right side of things, but he doesn't exactly think too hard about it.

If they wanted to have a Sympathy For The Templar game, they should have gone for it and thought of a reason why they destroyed Lisbon - a big, impenetrable Templar HQ, maybe - and then said, "Yeah, the Assassins killed all those people to out of a misguided idea that it was for the greater good". Have the assassins be full-on evil for once, why not? Over centuries, out of desperation at times, of course they're going to go off the rails. Even better, to have Achilles be the cause so that every time you go back to AC3, the idea that he's haunted by a past he won't talk about becomes utterly devastating. Achilles's unwillingness to train Connor would feel totally different.

I know I'm like a stuck record, but it's this thing about heroes: Ubisoft will not tarnish its brand, even though its brand is cultist murderers.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/550/771/7ac.jpg

Namikaze_17
04-22-2015, 06:52 PM
Who is deemed innocent to both orders though?

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 06:54 PM
It's still a contradiction that he joins them anyway.

"How dare you make me kill innocents!"

*joins order totally okay with killing innocents*

Yeah, the fact that killing innocents was actually allowed in gameplay as opposed to usual "your ancestor didn't kill innocents" desynchronization stuff just created this huge, gaping chasm of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the player is for the first time ever allowed to kill as many civilians as they want without penalty, on the other Shay's character is apparently opposed to killing innocents. Which is it? It's similar to the John Marston dilemma in RDR, but at least that game gives you a choice to gather good or bad karma.


Who is deemed innocent to both orders though?

Civilians.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 06:58 PM
It's still a contradiction that he joins them anyway.

"How dare you make me kill innocents!"

*joins order totally okay with killing innocents*

As gamers, we totally know that the Templars can be pretty dark sometimes- especially when their order is more corrupt, like under the Borgias, Germain, or Charles Lee. As far as we know, though, as an Assassin Shay's only dealt with some rather smaller scale Templar conspiracies. I guess he saw them as the lesser evil compared with the Assassins' destruction of cities.

When Rogue was released lot of people complained that the game's perspective on morality was too binary- but this conversation is helping me realize that it may have been more complex than I originally thought.

ze_topazio
04-22-2015, 07:02 PM
It should be noticed that Shay did not believe the Assassins were destroying cities on purposes, he believe the Assassins were being irresponsible by messing around with the precursor temples.

Rogue could be called "Assassin's Creed Lack of Communication", Shay failed to explain to Achilles what happened in Lisbon and blamed him for the event, and Achilles didn't even bother listening to what Shay had to say and disregard him as being mad.

Maybe this could be explained by Shay feeling extremely guilty for killing thousands and Achilles being still affected by his family sudden death and the preconceived idea that the Assassins had of Shay being a immature fool.

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 07:04 PM
I was getting so close to thinking that we'd come to a mutual understanding... but now this? Casting the Templars as nothing more than villains, the "dark side"

When I say "dark side", I meant they represent the darker side of history. If you read a history book you will find people who do shady things but who also tend to be respected by society for the good they did, like Alexander the Great. The Templars at their best written ought to pose the same kind of difficult questions. Like the Assassins in that they want peace and end of war, but they are different in that there's no restraints or limits. If that means they will kill twenty populated villages to do it, then its a small sacrifice. That is what all the targets in all the games from AC1 to AC2 to AC3 have said and done.

If ROGUE wanted to have you play a Templar than you have to do shady and downright evil things that's what I meant on why Rogue failed. We don't get objectives like "burn down whole villages to flush out one lone Assassin", the player isn't challenged morally at all. ROGUE should ideally be like Spec Ops: The Line, in that Shay starts out with idealistic and defensible goals but grows darker and harder. That's what playing a Templar should be like. You should be doing something really dark and achieve your goals and then see the community and economy you upgraded and think "It was worth it, all the blood I spilt" or "was it worth it?".

Instead we get a boring trite repetitive guilt-fest of a game. Shay accidentally triggered an earthquake (which I can't take seriously at all and I can take Magic Mind-Controlling Apples seriously) and feels guilty, Shay kills his friends and feels guilty. And that's it. Being a Templar is not about being guilty, its about looking someone in the eye and doing your best Jack Nicholson impression and saying, "You are damn right I ordered the Code Red and I'd do it again if I have to"


Yikes! Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to this, I thought that the complexity of the Templars was better understood on these forums

The complexity of the Templars is solely in their nature as complex villain. A villain can be complex and remain a villain. Ganondorf in Wind Waker was fairly complex as a villain but he was still a bad guy. A complex Templar exists solely to challenge the hero and question his complacency, like in AC1 and AC3. But at the end of the day, Haytham believes the Boston Massacre is justified, and where Connor will compromise the Brotherhood to reach out to his Dad, Haytham will strangle his own son rather than compromise being a Templar. The Templars can never really be the heroes the way the Assassins are intended to be. They believe in getting their hands dirty and not thinking twice about it, in getting power and using that to control. That's not really a heroic idea.

ze_topazio
04-22-2015, 07:09 PM
Yeah, the fact that killing innocents was actually allowed in gameplay as opposed to usual "your ancestor didn't kill innocents" desynchronization stuff just created this huge, gaping chasm of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the player is for the first time ever allowed to kill as many civilians as they want without penalty, on the other Shay's character is apparently opposed to killing innocents. Which is it? It's similar to the John Marston dilemma in RDR, but at least that game gives you a choice to gather good or bad karma.

I think that was because Shay killed thousands of innocents with the earthquake, after that event the message "Your ancestor did not kill civilians" stopped appearing because it did not make sense for Shay anymore considering his past, I may be wrong but I thought that was a pretty cool little detail.

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 07:13 PM
I think that was because Shay killed thousands of innocents with the earthquake, after that event the message "Your ancestor did not kill civilians" stopped appearing because it did not make sense for Shay anymore considering his past, I may be wrong but I thought that was a pretty cool little detail.

That's an interesting point. Still, from a gameplay perspective it makes sense that after the disaster Shay would never want to be responsible for more bloodshed if he could help it, yet the game practically encourages you to kill civilians. Even the berserk dart's function has changed from AC4 and Unity, where it would only make guards attack each other, not civilians. In Rogue, berserked guards will attack anyone, including innocents. Why the hell would Shay ever risk using such a weapon?

VestigialLlama4
04-22-2015, 07:20 PM
When Rogue was released lot of people complained that the game's perspective on morality was too binary- but this conversation is helping me realize that it may have been more complex than I originally thought.

The situation and dilemma Shay has is complex (albeit in a comic book way) but the way the game presents it is very binary and silly. There's no real sense that Shay has compromised himself at all.

ROGUE could have been a complex game and the conversation largely revolves on how a real Templar game is like.


It should be noticed that Shay did not believe the Assassins were destroying cities on purposes, he believe the Assassins were being irresponsible by messing around with the precursor temples.

And what exactly do the Templars do? Messing around with precursor temples and artefacts is entirely what both Assassins and Templars have done. I mean in ROGUE even after hearing what Shay has said about it, Haytham actually is more interested in the Temples.


Shay: If the Assassins do trigger an earthquake, at least there's few around to suffer.
Haytham: I have no intention of letting your former colleagues destroy a Precursor site, regardless.

In other words, Haytham is more worried about damage to property than loss of life. And why exactly is Shay doing what he does?


I think that was because Shay killed thousands of innocents with the earthquake, after that event the message "Your ancestor did not kill civilians" stopped appearing because it did not make sense for Shay anymore considering his past, I may be wrong but I thought that was a pretty cool little detail.

That makes really little sense. I mean Altair killed innocents in the first mission of AC1, and later got many of his brothers killed. So technically shouldn't Altair not desynchronize for adhering to the Creed later. Its a silly concept.

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 09:14 PM
If ROGUE wanted to have you play a Templar than you have to do shady and downright evil things that's what I meant on why Rogue failed. We don't get objectives like "burn down whole villages to flush out one lone Assassin", the player isn't challenged morally at all. ROGUE should ideally be like Spec Ops: The Line, in that Shay starts out with idealistic and defensible goals but grows darker and harder. That's what playing a Templar should be like. You should be doing something really dark and achieve your goals and then see the community and economy you upgraded and think "It was worth it, all the blood I spilt" or "was it worth it?".



I guess we just differ on a matter of taste, then. What I like about Rogue is how it shows a difference in perspective- we see the Assassins as deeply imperfect, and we see the Templars saving the day. Seeing as how the morals of the Templars have been explored through a complex lens since Altair's very first game, I think this fits well within the confines of the themes and lore of the series.

You claim the Templars are complex only in their capacity as villains. I guess I just don't like the characterization of either of the two parties as "heroic" or "villainous". They've both certainly filled each role over the ages (such as more obvious villains like Cesare and more obvious heroes like Ezio) but to say that the organizations as a whole could fit into those labels is extremely simplistic and naive.

SixKeys
04-22-2015, 09:29 PM
I guess we just differ on a matter of taste, then. What I like about Rogue is how it shows a difference in perspective- we see the Assassins as deeply imperfect, and we see the Templars saving the day.

How are the Templars "saving the day" in Rogue? Apart from Shay going around restoring buildings, which I thought was the only defensible, morally grey thing about his character. In the end the American brotherhood is wiped out and the Precursor artefact they tried to prevent Achilles from using gets used anyway, so they cause another earthquake.

Hans684
04-22-2015, 09:42 PM
Judging by the discussion I'd say most view their war like Bellec(at least fully Assassin supporters). A black and white view with a kill em' all mentality that makes other perspectives(and peace) impossible to understand(and them fanatic in the prosses). Bellec as a biased Assassin wouldn't know what it means to a Templar, their target pratice to him. His ignorance knows no bounds, like what it means to be a Templar, the most common thing people make wrong or their goal. It's live people slept trough AC1, ACR, AC3, BF and Rogue. But white washishing(even by fans) sides is popular theses days, like being naive enough to belive the Assassins don't kill innocent. That every kill is justified, that every action is justified(regarding both orders). Templars are warcriminals and Assassins are terrorists wagging war at each other for ever, their disagreement in inability to peace doesn't help either side. Haytham for example wanted to unite the orders but Achilles is blind to their cause and has a fanatical order(and Connor breaking the truce) destroyed that, same as Ezio ignoring Ahmet saying that both are grown ups and shouldn't fight each other. The Borgia(Corrupt Templars) is an example of what the Templars and theirs goals isn't, same with Germain(Extremist Templars) or MD Templars who's misguided(mind control as goal), corrupt(personal gain(power)), extreme(everything they've done) and fanatic(can't be reasoned with). Shay's more Templar than any of them, where in their oath or ideology do they approve things like destroying a village to flush out an Assassin? Where it they say corruption is allowed(it's a death sentence)? Where does it say their goal is mind control? Do any of you even know their rules and principles? For the thread question, Shay is both a hero and traitor, he wanted to take the manuscript and simply fade away(but failed), Achilles can't be reasoned with as he's both blind to the Assasdin cause and a fanatic(like Bellec). Instead of simply talking it out he gets angry(despite him not listening to Shay to begin with) and attacks him. Shay escapes but get cornered but the earthquake broke him("all those souls lost, one more hardly matters") so he'd be wiling to kill himself if it meant stopping them. He didn't want to kill them but a fanatic order(with a black and white view that's blind to the cause and don't question it) can't be reasoned with. They belive what they do is right(and view themselves as "good guys" and that everything is justified, it's an all and everything mentality that ingnore a lot of context.

Namikaze_17
04-22-2015, 09:47 PM
How are the Templars "saving the day" in Rogue?

I think he means the Templars stopping the Assassins from destroying more cities. Accidental or not.



Apart from Shay going around restoring buildings, which I thought was the only defensible, morally grey thing about his character. In the end the American brotherhood is wiped out and the Precursor artefact they tried to prevent Achilles from using gets used anyway, so they cause another earthquake.



It was Liam who caused the earthquake. :rolleyes:

cawatrooper9
04-22-2015, 11:46 PM
How are the Templars "saving the day" in Rogue? Apart from Shay going around restoring buildings, which I thought was the only defensible, morally grey thing about his character. In the end the American brotherhood is wiped out and the Precursor artefact they tried to prevent Achilles from using gets used anyway, so they cause another earthquake.

*sigh

As I've already been over, the Assassins in this game are the enemy, and our perspective in the game paints them as such. Regardless of what is true (and, as Achilles would say, "what is true and what IS aren't always the same"), the Asassins play a darker role in this game then we've seen before- thus, stopping them would be "saving the day".

As far as the Templars not stopping Achilles in time- well, I guess all you can say is they tried.

Stealth Gamer92
04-23-2015, 12:51 AM
Shay Cormac is a hero he left the assassins because he saw them responsible for the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake.

Agree or do you see him a traitor.

Neither, Shay was young and brash and Achilese didn't help with his previous actions like saying Shay messed it up and then just sending Shay away, Achilese drove Shay to what he did even though he wasn't intending it the way Shay took it..

SixKeys
04-23-2015, 01:30 AM
*sigh

As I've already been over, the Assassins in this game are the enemy, and our perspective in the game paints them as such. Regardless of what is true (and, as Achilles would say, "what is true and what IS aren't always the same"), the Asassins play a darker role in this game then we've seen before- thus, stopping them would be "saving the day".

The whole game I never got the sense that I was doing good (except when upgrading buildings). I never felt like the assassins were wrong and Shay was right. The entire time I felt Shay was a misguided fool doing bad things and too much of an idiot to realize it. I never felt sympathy for him, never felt like his cause was justified. So my perspective of the assassins as "the enemy" never happened. They were the good guys, trying to stop me from doing terrible things, and I was the one going around killing civilians left and right like this was GTA. The game actively encouraged me to do bad things without giving me a good justification. Why was Shay a pirate/privateer? What cause did he have going around robbing ships? Edward was a legitimate pirate, he was morally bankrupt for most of his game. But Shay is supposed to be a good guy from our perspective, so why is the game constantly pushing us to do things that can't be read as anything other than malicious?

Xstantin
04-23-2015, 01:54 AM
I see Shay as a dude with a terrible haircut at least in the beginning. Liam was cooler imo

I-Like-Pie45
04-23-2015, 02:10 AM
Shay is Morrissey!

Shay Patrick Morrissey

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 04:56 AM
You claim the Templars are complex only in their capacity as villains. I guess I just don't like the characterization of either of the two parties as "heroic" or "villainous".

The point is, so long as the games continue being about Assassins killing Templars, no matter how much you want it, the schema will not change. Some people here are enamored of the idea of the "noble Templar" or "good guy" Templar and I will agree that it can exist in theory. But we never see any evidence in the games themselves. And ultimately the games are the games, not the transmedia, not the fanfiction, not Tumblr. Even UNITY which had decent Templars has you fighting with your Templar Girlfriend against even worse Templars. And Elise herself is a Templar-In-name, she doesn't talk about it nor does she have any vision for the Templar order, she's just Arno's arm candy in the game, for all the fake-feminist postures that Ubisoft have her take.


They've both certainly filled each role over the ages (such as more obvious villains like Cesare and more obvious heroes like Ezio) but to say that the organizations as a whole could fit into those labels is extremely simplistic and naive.

It is simplistic and naive for the games to continue present things that way, I agree, but to say that the games don't show the Assassins,Templars as Heroes and Villains is wishful thinking.


Shay's more Templar than any of them, where in their oath or ideology do they approve things like destroying a village to flush out an Assassin?

Look the Nazi Oath of Allegiance didn't say, "We're going to kill a whole bunch of people" either. The Templars do evil stuff all the time. Haytham kenway started the Boston Massacre, William Johnson was going to murder innocent people under a diplomatic meeting to strongarm his way, Woodes Rogers is a slaveowner, Governor Torres massacred an entire village of Taino people. These are the "enlightened" Templars by the way, not the AC2 ones. Remember the only ones who say the AC2 Templars were a perversion of the Templar orders are the MD Templars (in the multiplayer section), as far as I can see they are the only ones being totally honest.

Fact is if people want to root for the Templars that's understandable but at least be honest, at least say that "Templars are massmurdering psychopaths but damn they have style and sass". There's no point rooting for the bad guy if you are going to ignore the fact that he's bad. My favorite Templars is Abul Nuqood because I think a gay guy throwing a huge party for everyone he hates and then murdering these war profiteers and evil proto-capitalists is "more Assassin than the Assassins"

cawatrooper9
04-23-2015, 01:57 PM
The point is, so long as the games continue being about Assassins killing Templars, no matter how much you want it, the schema will not change. Some people here are enamored of the idea of the "noble Templar" or "good guy" Templar and I will agree that it can exist in theory. But we never see any evidence in the games themselves. And ultimately the games are the games, not the transmedia, not the fanfiction, not Tumblr. Even UNITY which had decent Templars has you fighting with your Templar Girlfriend against even worse Templars. And Elise herself is a Templar-In-name, she doesn't talk about it nor does she have any vision for the Templar order, she's just Arno's arm candy in the game, for all the fake-feminist postures that Ubisoft have her take.



It is simplistic and naive for the games to continue present things that way, I agree, but to say that the games don't show the Assassins,Templars as Heroes and Villains is wishful thinking.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I'll point out that I'm not even asking for "decent" Templars or "villainous" Assassins, as I've already acknowledged how traditional ideas of heroism or evil do not mesh well with Assassins Creed.

So yeah, if you're unwilling to admit that the factions in AC are very much in the grey area of morality, I just don't see how this discussion is going to be of any further value, because I will absolutely disagree. I have appreciated talking with you though, brother. Safety and peace.

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 02:54 PM
So yeah, if you're unwilling to admit that the factions in AC are very much in the grey area of morality, I just don't see how this discussion is going to be of any further value, because I will absolutely disagree.

When we say Gray Area do we mean Gray in the comicbook sense (where a single decent speech by a bad guy is enough to make it gray) or Gray in the sense of The Godfather films(actual work of art intended for adults)? Let's not get into the real world or historical stuff here. Let's look at the AC games as they are, not as we want it to be. Are the AC games really gray?

The real reason why AC games can never really be gray, and actually why most video games (even the ones people think are good) aren't really gray, is that you are never really playing a character who makes moral compromises or does something that challenges the gamer's identification. In a movie like Taxi Driver, you have the hero who is a racist vigilante and psychopath and you are challenged throughout, you are asked to consider how someone like that would feel and see the world, how close and far it is from normal behavior. The Godfather likewise, the gangster asks and gets your sympathy even when he does evil stuff its for his family and you wonder if "family values" is a good thing. In games you are asked to play fantasies and never have to consider consequences. There are some games that challenge that like in Shadow of the Colossus(which does it best), but other games its more expressed and spoken on screen than something that bothers you in gameplay. in Spec Ops: The Line you have White Phosphorus and in Bioshock you have Would You Kindly. Then you have games with Choice Mechanic where if you don't like the Bad Ending, you go by another route and get a Good Ending, (which needless to say is absent from life, sadly enough). So when we are calling AC gray, we have to consider it in relative terms and not actual terms.

The way I rank the series, in the most-to-least gray ratio is:
AC1 > AC3 > Black Flag > Revelations > AC2 > Rogue > Brotherhood > Unity

AC1 is still the grayest of all the games (partially because it wasn't made with long-term lore and future MD concerns in mind). Altair gives you a very bad first impression and doesn't ask for your sympathy via tragic backstory or witty quips and posturing. For most of the game, he is the least sympathetic and likable of Assassins. The Targets you meet are shown as evil in their first impression but the deathbed conversations show that they are likable and human. And by the end of the game (without considering future games in mind), you actually don't know if Altair has become evil with the Apple (that awesome line "Destroy the Apple like you said you would" "I can't" "Yes you can...Altair...but you won't") or any different from Al Mualim and Robert. There's a real ambiguity there. And in the case of some targets like Abul Nuqood you actually wonder why you are Assassinating them or that you see those lunatics walking around disrupting your social stealth and think ("Ah Garnier was right, these lunatics should have their legs broken and off the streets!").

So already that's slightly gray. But then you know the main schema of the MD ruins it since Warren Vidic is a total a--hole and the Assassins are the "good guys", the ones who are trying to free Desmond, the hero. So we know that in the long-run the Templars are the bad guys. There's no narrative ambiguity there. It's not like you meet Desmond as a runaway asked to choose between nice Templars and nice Assassins, or that the Jerk Templar Warren is actually good all along. There's also that unspoken assumption that these Templars and Assassins are the "real Templars/Assassins" when it could simply be some cult or mind control thing, then they bring in the First Civ and Solar Flare. You know its a very clear franchise concept and based on Desmond's MD perspective, you have to choose the Assassins. Ergo, the Assassins versus Templar conflict is not a gray conflict. Between two choices of Assassins and Templars, the game presents you zero reasons to side with the Templars since there isn't a single likable or more than 1-dimensional MD Templar. What the game does at its best is show that Templars have sound reasons for being Templars but there's no agree-to-disagree and both are right there. But so long as the games, like most games, work on the premise of never getting the player's hands truly compromised and challenged, its not an actual gray thing.

Sorry for the long post.

cawatrooper9
04-23-2015, 04:19 PM
Again, your claims hinge a lot on your own personal preference. I tend to disagree with you on a fundamental level with this- and that's okay!

SixKeys
04-23-2015, 07:09 PM
When we say Gray Area do we mean Gray in the comicbook sense (where a single decent speech by a bad guy is enough to make it gray) or Gray in the sense of The Godfather films(actual work of art intended for adults)? Let's not get into the real world or historical stuff here. Let's look at the AC games as they are, not as we want it to be. Are the AC games really gray?

The real reason why AC games can never really be gray, and actually why most video games (even the ones people think are good) aren't really gray, is that you are never really playing a character who makes moral compromises or does something that challenges the gamer's identification. In a movie like Taxi Driver, you have the hero who is a racist vigilante and psychopath and you are challenged throughout, you are asked to consider how someone like that would feel and see the world, how close and far it is from normal behavior. The Godfather likewise, the gangster asks and gets your sympathy even when he does evil stuff its for his family and you wonder if "family values" is a good thing. In games you are asked to play fantasies and never have to consider consequences. There are some games that challenge that like in Shadow of the Colossus(which does it best), but other games its more expressed and spoken on screen than something that bothers you in gameplay. in Spec Ops: The Line you have White Phosphorus and in Bioshock you have Would You Kindly. Then you have games with Choice Mechanic where if you don't like the Bad Ending, you go by another route and get a Good Ending, (which needless to say is absent from life, sadly enough). So when we are calling AC gray, we have to consider it in relative terms and not actual terms.

The way I rank the series, in the most-to-least gray ratio is:
AC1 > AC3 > Black Flag > Revelations > AC2 > Rogue > Brotherhood > Unity

AC1 is still the grayest of all the games (partially because it wasn't made with long-term lore and future MD concerns in mind). Altair gives you a very bad first impression and doesn't ask for your sympathy via tragic backstory or witty quips and posturing. For most of the game, he is the least sympathetic and likable of Assassins. The Targets you meet are shown as evil in their first impression but the deathbed conversations show that they are likable and human. And by the end of the game (without considering future games in mind), you actually don't know if Altair has become evil with the Apple (that awesome line "Destroy the Apple like you said you would" "I can't" "Yes you can...Altair...but you won't") or any different from Al Mualim and Robert. There's a real ambiguity there. And in the case of some targets like Abul Nuqood you actually wonder why you are Assassinating them or that you see those lunatics walking around disrupting your social stealth and think ("Ah Garnier was right, these lunatics should have their legs broken and off the streets!").

So already that's slightly gray. But then you know the main schema of the MD ruins it since Warren Vidic is a total a--hole and the Assassins are the "good guys", the ones who are trying to free Desmond, the hero. So we know that in the long-run the Templars are the bad guys. There's no narrative ambiguity there. It's not like you meet Desmond as a runaway asked to choose between nice Templars and nice Assassins, or that the Jerk Templar Warren is actually good all along. There's also that unspoken assumption that these Templars and Assassins are the "real Templars/Assassins" when it could simply be some cult or mind control thing, then they bring in the First Civ and Solar Flare. You know its a very clear franchise concept and based on Desmond's MD perspective, you have to choose the Assassins. Ergo, the Assassins versus Templar conflict is not a gray conflict. Between two choices of Assassins and Templars, the game presents you zero reasons to side with the Templars since there isn't a single likable or more than 1-dimensional MD Templar. What the game does at its best is show that Templars have sound reasons for being Templars but there's no agree-to-disagree and both are right there. But so long as the games, like most games, work on the premise of never getting the player's hands truly compromised and challenged, its not an actual gray thing.

Sorry for the long post.

Good post, I agree with pretty much everything.

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 07:41 PM
Good post, I agree with pretty much everything.

Miracles can happen...:o

But yeah its something I've been thinking of. I think if people want "Gray Templars", Ubisoft has to rethink the entire franchise and metaphor. Or properly reboot it. Make it about Assassins as a Secret Society but with no single overarching enemy. Go back to the Crusades, I'd love to go there for a next-gen, not a remake of AC1, but new characters in that period.

I-Like-Pie45
04-24-2015, 02:42 AM
how about a game where we play as the templars who committed the great disaster one score and four years ago as a means of manufacturing a war to funnel oil profits into their puppet companies and provide their presidential pawn a platform of paranoia to mask the true issues of failing economy and manipulate the American populace's votes.

that would be very grey.

pirate1802
04-24-2015, 06:34 AM
A miracle indeed, I find myself agreeing with Vestigial as well. I was meaning to write a longass thing on why this recent templar fascination and 'moral grey' feels forced but that never materialized. What I thought was essentially the same as Vestigial said. That if they wanted actual moral grey and not the comicbookish moral grey, they should have thought it out much better from the start. While writing the lore, if they really wanted the Assassins and Templars to be seen on equal pedestal they should not have had one side almost exclusively commit all the genocides in history. From there you could never go on to say it's moral gray. Yes, maybe superficially but not deeper. And that's not even going into the MD part. Nobody in their right minds would support th MD Templars as shown ingame.

I think it has to do in parts with Ubi not thinking it out their moral grey on long term, and also that gaming is still in its nascent stage as far as storytelling is concerned. I mean for real morally grey characters you need to look at someone like Rhaegar Targaryn, who is a noble upstart prince by all accounts, mingles with the poor, sings songs to them and is also a bloody rapist. Or someone like Rorschach, who is a vigilante and the only one in his story who actually cares about innocent people dying, but in the same breadth is a racist, homophone and a first rank misogynist. Are people ready to 'play' as such characters yet? I think not.

As it is, I think the first three sequences of AC3 were a better 'Templar game' than Rogue. Those parts showed them as ruthless, willing to kill innocents, but also having a supposedly noble goal.

GunnerGalactico
04-24-2015, 04:35 PM
The way I rank the series, in the most-to-least gray ratio is:
AC1 > AC3 > Black Flag > Revelations > AC2 > Rogue > Brotherhood > Unity

AC1 is still the grayest of all the games (partially because it wasn't made with long-term lore and future MD concerns in mind). Altair gives you a very bad first impression and doesn't ask for your sympathy via tragic backstory or witty quips and posturing. For most of the game, he is the least sympathetic and likable of Assassins. The Targets you meet are shown as evil in their first impression but the deathbed conversations show that they are likable and human. And by the end of the game (without considering future games in mind), you actually don't know if Altair has become evil with the Apple (that awesome line "Destroy the Apple like you said you would" "I can't" "Yes you can...Altair...but you won't") or any different from Al Mualim and Robert. There's a real ambiguity there. And in the case of some targets like Abul Nuqood you actually wonder why you are Assassinating them or that you see those lunatics walking around disrupting your social stealth and think ("Ah Garnier was right, these lunatics should have their legs broken and off the streets!").

So already that's slightly gray. But then you know the main schema of the MD ruins it since Warren Vidic is a total a--hole and the Assassins are the "good guys", the ones who are trying to free Desmond, the hero. So we know that in the long-run the Templars are the bad guys. There's no narrative ambiguity there. It's not like you meet Desmond as a runaway asked to choose between nice Templars and nice Assassins, or that the Jerk Templar Warren is actually good all along. There's also that unspoken assumption that these Templars and Assassins are the "real Templars/Assassins" when it could simply be some cult or mind control thing, then they bring in the First Civ and Solar Flare. You know its a very clear franchise concept and based on Desmond's MD perspective, you have to choose the Assassins. Ergo, the Assassins versus Templar conflict is not a gray conflict. Between two choices of Assassins and Templars, the game presents you zero reasons to side with the Templars since there isn't a single likable or more than 1-dimensional MD Templar. What the game does at its best is show that Templars have sound reasons for being Templars but there's no agree-to-disagree and both are right there. But so long as the games, like most games, work on the premise of never getting the player's hands truly compromised and challenged, its not an actual gray thing.


As it is, I think the first three sequences of AC3 were a better 'Templar game' than Rogue. Those parts showed them as ruthless, willing to kill innocents, but also having a supposedly noble goal.

Couldn't agree more. :D

SixKeys
04-25-2015, 01:20 AM
A miracle indeed, I find myself agreeing with Vestigial as well. I was meaning to write a longass thing on why this recent templar fascination and 'moral grey' feels forced but that never materialized. What I thought was essentially the same as Vestigial said. That if they wanted actual moral grey and not the comicbookish moral grey, they should have thought it out much better from the start. While writing the lore, if they really wanted the Assassins and Templars to be seen on equal pedestal they should not have had one side almost exclusively commit all the genocides in history. From there you could never go on to say it's moral gray. Yes, maybe superficially but not deeper. And that's not even going into the MD part. Nobody in their right minds would support th MD Templars as shown ingame.

I thought it was hilarious when at the end of Rogue the MD floating tablet gets offered a "choice": join the templars and live the sweet life, or......Otso Berg takes a gun and shoots you in the head right then and there.
That's indicative of the whole problem with the so-called moral ambiguity in the series. The Templars are always, always extremist a-holes. You spend the whole game trying to sympathize with Shay, being told the divide between the two factions isn't all black-and-white, only for the end to once again confirm that there's never truly a choice with Templars. You're either with them or against them.

Mr.Black24
04-25-2015, 01:46 AM
I thought it was hilarious when at the end of Rogue the MD floating tablet gets offered a "choice": join the templars and live the sweet life, or......Otso Berg takes a gun and shoots you in the head right then and there.
That's indicative of the whole problem with the so-called moral ambiguity in the series. The Templars are always, always extremist a-holes. You spend the whole game trying to sympathize with Shay, being told the divide between the two factions isn't all black-and-white, only for the end to once again confirm that there's never truly a choice with Templars. You're either with them or against them. Especially the modern Templars, hell they caused WWII according to the glyphs in Assassin's Creed 2.
As trying to sympathize with Shay....ugh for a so called "dark" story, I don't feel it as much. I am finally playing Rogue right now, and so far....I feel like Shay is a total goof. I also wished that we took even more time to befriend our Assassin brothers, since I feel very little for each passing so far, I'm not Adewale far, just yet but still.
Eh I got to play more before I make a huge thread about it...

I-Like-Pie45
04-25-2015, 01:48 AM
shay is a dumb mary sue whose journey is a series of contrivances to completely put him in the total right

Shahkulu101
04-25-2015, 02:04 AM
shay is a dumb mary sue whose journey is a series of contrivances to completely put him in the total right

Whenever your posts are relevant to the topic (0.1% of the time) they are spot on.

pirate1802
04-25-2015, 05:59 AM
I thought it was hilarious when at the end of Rogue the MD floating tablet gets offered a "choice": join the templars and live the sweet life, or......Otso Berg takes a gun and shoots you in the head right then and there.
That's indicative of the whole problem with the so-called moral ambiguity in the series. The Templars are always, always extremist a-holes. You spend the whole game trying to sympathize with Shay, being told the divide between the two factions isn't all black-and-white, only for the end to once again confirm that there's never truly a choice with Templars. You're either with them or against them.

You know, as the reigning templar forum grandmaster ( :rolleyes: ) I never could see myself siding with someone like Osto. A bullet it is for me, then.

Namikaze_17
04-25-2015, 06:07 AM
Fellow Brothers & Sisters.

We should know that the MD Order, like the Borgia, are another low point in our fold. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
04-25-2015, 08:37 AM
Fellow Brothers & Sisters.

We should know that the MD Order, like the Borgia, are another low point in our fold. :rolleyes:

Then which is the high point? People who are Templar-fans keep thinking that they represent some grand master-plan or benevolent vision of future. On the evidence of the games, how do the "good"
"non-corrupt" Templars measure?

AC1 - We don't know much about Robert de Sable, but the fact that he allows Maria Thorpe to serve alongside him suggests he isn't all that bad. His actions against the Assassins are justified considering that Al Mualim screwed him over and overall you can say he's less hypocritical than Al Mualim certainly. On the other hand, he can't be all that competent. He allows an armless one-handed Malick to escape with the Piece of Eden despite him being this huge bulky knight, honestly if Malick were that good and I were Al Mualim, I'd make Altair the desk jockey and send Malick al-Sayf to the field so I think its safe to say that Robert de Sable and his two other knights f--ked up badly in handling him. The fact that he puts a diverse crew together shows that he's a man with a multinational vision and quite good at politics. The Holy Land Templars are probably the most diverse crew of all Templars so you can say he practises what he preaches. But on the whole we don't know a lot about him to say either way. He's not really the main villain of AC1 and I don't think anyone believes that Al Mualim (a totally corrupt manipulative hypocrite who screws over his allies and disciples) is their kind of Templar.

REVELATIONS - Prince Ahmet is a character I like a lot. He's genuinely sincere and his speech to Ezio, ("When the light of civilization falls then Ezio Auditore can stand in the darkness and proudly claim I stayed true to my creed...") is a really valid criticism. He seems like a better person than his Sultan Brother on the whole. But again, there's the lack of competence. He put all his time and effort in trying to get Altair's Library instead of winning support from the Janissaries and other factions. Instead he revives neo-Byzantines and wants to get Turkish support by allying with the "enemy", there's a lack of reality to that scheme. And then instead of genuinely making a case with Ezio, he tries to be a jerk to him by attacking Sofia, that's not a wise Templar strategy that's a street gang concept so he's not that smart, not that wise, is maybe sincere and likable.

AC3 - Haytham gets points for focusing less on magical First Civ stuff and more on political and social control. That's actually one reason why AC3 is so cool as a game, its the one time where Assassins and Templars aren't battling for some magical object or artifact but fighting for tangible relatable sociopolitical goals. But on the other hand, Haytham the Great's grand plan for the future of America is...Charles Lee will be the Puppet Dictator of the Totalitarian States of America. I cannot repeat how stupid that idea is. It would make more sense if Haytham is pro-Loyalist and feels America should be under British control, that's still more defensible than this idea.

BLACK FLAG - Governor Torres is another "nice guy" Templar Grandmaster, he's this gentleman aristocrat, deeply polite guy and he's anti-slavery (though as Governor of Cuba you would think he would do something about that). That said he can barely control his own crew, he is surprised that Woodes Rogers is still a slaveowner (which suggests a lack of oversight of his subordinates) and isn't able to convince him to stop selling human cargo. Then he launches on his harebrained scheme, go to the Observatory without the Magic Skull, slaughter a bunch of villagers on his way and then gets most of his squad incinerated thanks to his stupidity. Also he plans to blackmail the world with the Observatory. He doesn't use his own political clout as a wealthy Spanish official to do any of the changes he wants. So all in all, not someone who's all that benevolent.

So I really don't see any of the Templars as ultimately worth writing home about. They are all corrupt, shortsighted and incredibly incompetent. I mean its actually kind of hard to believe that they have secretly manipulated manking throughout the centuries. The only Templars who have some kind of plans are Germain, who totally won(against highly incompetent and brainless Assassins) and Rodrigo Borgia (who came "this" close to getting hands to the Vatican Vault, generally stays one step ahead of Ezio). Yeah he's evil and corrupt, but at least his plans are logical (acquire as much power as possible) make some amount of sense.

Hans684
05-03-2015, 01:27 PM
Look the Nazi Oath of Allegiance didn't say, "We're going to kill a whole bunch of people" either.

If their goal is a world with let's say only blond and blue eyed people, then obviously killing a bunch of "lesser" people is part of being one.


The Templars do evil stuff all the time.

I don't deny that, only a someone blind to the cause would. It's like denying Ezio is worse than Prince Ahmet when clearly he did far worse.


Haytham kenway started the Boston Massacre

No argument there.


William Johnson was going to murder innocent people under a diplomatic meeting to strongarm his way

Missing context, like Connor murdering his workers and destroying his source of income. If Connor didn't do that it would have been solved peacefully, he'd be a landowner. Something Connor himself is at his little homestead. There is also the fact that Johnson has been supporting and supplying them, so Connor stepping in and making a deal(his father is Grand Master so it's entirely possible) with him should work just fine. "Diplomatic", nice touch but Johnson at least was diplomatic unlike Connor. Connor didn't do anything diplomatic to solve it, he butchered his workers and destroyed his supply before arrogantly dropping the last crate at their faces. Didn't attempt to contact or have a diplomatic meeting.


Woodes Rogers is a slaveowner.

True but what does his personal business have to do with Templars and what it means to be one?


Governor Torres massacred an entire village of Guardians. Who is both part of the war and work with Assassins. Their as innocent as people working with Templars.

Context, we have already discussed this and as said I'm not continuing it since it don't get anywhere. We have talked in circles.


These are the "enlightened" Templars by the way, not the AC2 ones.

I know.


Remember the only ones who say the AC2 Templars were a perversion of the Templar orders are the MD Templars (in the multiplayer section), as far as I can see they are the only ones being totally honest.

Honest to what exactly? They have broken their of Oath more than any other Templars(exepth maybe the WW Templars)


Fact is if people want to root for the Templars that's understandable but at least be honest, at least say that "Templars are massmurdering psychopaths but damn they have style and sass".

I've never denied they've done bad things, but both orders is that. Both is massmurdering psychopaths that work outside the public and law killing anyone they see fit. That's a natural perspective.


There's no point rooting for the bad guy if you are going to ignore the fact that he's bad.

Never have, just take everything to consideration. Things like their character, what might have been, their goals, their rules, what they do etc... By taking away context it become biased, cheer picking what suits the preacher. Lesser evil is a better word for characters in the series.


My favorite Templars is Abul Nuqood because I think a gay guy throwing a huge party for everyone he hates and then murdering these war profiteers and evil proto-capitalists is "more Assassin than the Assassins"

Now you're just using my line without taking to consideration what it means it be an Assassin. What is an Assassin? And my saying more Templar then Templars I meant he followed their Oath better than "honest" Templar. Those Templars use the order for personal gain(power or money)death sentence according to the Oath)), taking it extreme(death sentence) etc... Even being a Templar have rules, it would be less Assassin than Assassins to murder innocents because their creed forbids them. Breaking a rule makes you less of what you are, extreme, corruption etc... But you're gonna ignore that. What's a Christian? What's their rules? What's their goals?

Abu'l: "War threatens to consume us all. Salāḥ ad-Dīn bravely fights for what he believes in, and you are always there to support him without question. It is your generosity, that allows this campaign to continue."
Abu'l: " I wish to speak more of this war, and your part in it. You give up your coin, quick as can be, knowing all too well it buys the deaths of thousands. You don't even know why we fight. "The Sanctity of the Holy Land" you'll say. Or "The Evil Inclination of our enemies." But these are lies you tell yourselves!"
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassination_(Abu'l_Nuqoud), not gonna copy everything. So for more context just read.

VestigialLlama4
05-03-2015, 02:17 PM
True but what does his personal business have to do with Templars and what it means to be one?

It has everything to do with it. We measure people by how they practise their ideology. That's where phrases like "limousine liberal, bourgeois bohemian, armchair communist, cafeteria catholic" all come from. If Woodes Rogers is a Templar and practises slavery against his master's wishes, then he's an evil hypocrite.


Honest to what exactly? They have broken their of Oath more than any other Templars(exepth maybe the WW Templars)

And what is the Templar oath? I mean the Templars are all about herding power in the hands of the few, acquiring rare knowledge, killing Assassins and safeguarding peace. Rodrigo Borgia practised that very well, he's also a highly totalitarian person. That's part of that as well.

Hans684
05-03-2015, 03:17 PM
It has everything to do with it. We measure people by how they practise their ideology. That's where phrases like "limousine liberal, bourgeois bohemian, armchair communist, cafeteria catholic" all come from. If Woodes Rogers is a Templar and practises slavery against his master's wishes, then he's an evil hypocrite.

Tyranny is weak minded according to the Templar ideology, so any Templar that enclave people have broken a rule. Woodes Rogers is an evil hypocrite. And the ideology is used to measure how good they follow it, since it comes with it's own term & conditions. Breaking those makes one less worthy, like Alta´r breaking the Assassins Creed in the begging. He shoud be dead but was only alive because if his skill. He was a novice once more.


And what is the Templar oath?

After all our discussions you ask it now? I've been saying it for ages. "People desire the truth, yes, but even when they have it, they refuse to look. How do we fight this kind of ignorance?" ~ Ahmet. Couldn't resist, you've been refusing to even look.


I mean the Templars are all about herding power in the hands of the few

Power is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Tyranny, corruption and extremism(like WW extreme, WW enslavement or Germain's order(Germain was sentenced to death by De La Serre but kept alive by his supporters)) is against the ideology, all those are punished by death. Those are rules. It's no different that an Assassin killing innocents that gets sentenced to death. Both breaks their ideologies rules.


acquiring rare knowledge

Both orders deal with rare knowledge, like humans being created by the First Civ. Not a rule.


killing Assassins and safeguarding peace.

Their are enemies, it is normal in a battle to kill each other but Rodrigo didn't safeguard peace.


Rodrigo Borgia practised that very well, he's also a highly totalitarian person. That's part of that as well.

Everything he did falls fiat because he did it got personal gain, he didn't fight for the cause. Only himself, that's a death sentence. The only reason he didn't get that by Templars because he's a Grand Master. He excused himself from the Templar ideology for personal gain, he's selfish, corrupt and weak minded.

VestigialLlama4
05-03-2015, 03:44 PM
After all our discussions you ask it now? I've been saying it for ages. "People desire the truth, yes, but even when they have it, they refuse to look. How do we fight this kind of ignorance?" ~ Ahmet. Couldn't resist, you've been refusing to even look.

I am actually serious because what the Templars want is never stated aside from "Order". How that "order" justifies being on both sides of the Crusades, several Italian feuding families, fomenting war and the like never made a great deal of sense to me.


Power is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Tyranny, corruption and extremism(like WW extreme, WW enslavement or Germain's order(Germain was sentenced to death by De La Serre but kept alive by his supporters)) is against the ideology, all those are punished by death.

Germain says quite clearly that he was purging the corrupt Templars, from his perspective De La Serre was an idiot more interested in being an aristocrat rather than acting on bold ideas. So why is Germain not representative of the Templar order? And Germain didn't do anything for personal gain either, he sacrificed himself for his cause.


Everything he did falls fiat because he did it got personal gain, he didn't fight for the cause. Only himself, that's a death sentence. The only reason he didn't get that by Templars because he's a Grand Master. He excused himself from the Templar ideology for personal gain, he's selfish, corrupt and weak minded.

As opposed to...which Templars? Prince Ahmet? Haytham? Governor Torres?

Again the Templars you talk about are not the ones in the games but some dream version outside the games. It's no more legitimate than Connor's Tumblr followers.

Hans684
05-03-2015, 04:02 PM
I am actually serious because what the Templars want is never stated aside from "Order". How that "order" justifies being on both sides of the Crusades, several Italian feuding families, fomenting war and the like never made a great deal of sense to me.

It's clearly stated it isn't tyranny. Still better than aimless and "peaceful" governments that let's say use slavery as a source of income, destroying such a rule sounds like something both the Assassins and Templars would do. Exepth the Templars would infiltrate and change it instead of simply assassinate all it's leaders & co.


Germain says quite clearly that he was purging the corrupt Templars, from his perspective De La Serre was an idiot more interested in being an aristocrat rather than acting on bold ideas.

The end goal is peace so starting the war again by killing his Grand a Master before gong extreme should make it obvious.


So why is Germain not representative of the Templar order? And Germain didn't do anything for personal gain either, he sacrificed himself for his cause.

He's an extremist. Is Abbas a representative of the Assassin Order?


As opposed to...which Templars? Prince Ahmet? Haytham? Governor Torres?

Yes. Those are some.


Again the Templars you talk about are not the ones in the games but some dream version outside the games. It's no more legitimate than Connor's Tumblr followers.

I'm fully aware what I'm talking about. It's all in the lore, just look it up.

VestigialLlama4
05-03-2015, 07:27 PM
It's clearly stated it isn't tyranny.

No tyrant in the history of the world has ever called what he's done tyranny. The Templars do want to implement a tyranny that much is clear.


Exepth the Templars would infiltrate and change it instead of simply assassinate all it's leaders & co.

Okay here's a simple question, if the Templars wanted to end slavery, why did slavery continue for 400 years in the New World? If Haytham was anti-slavery, why is that after Achilles was defeated and the Assassins purged, he didn't go ahead and get slavery abolished before the Revolution? The fact is they had a chance to infiltrate and change the system, had no opposition and yet they did nothing.


He's an extremist. Is Abbas a representative of the Assassin Order?

Well, the Templars are fairly inconsistent. Even Robert de Sable who seemed decent employed Majd Addin, Rodrigo Borgia was obviously quite powerful and respected, Haytham dealt with Thomas Hickey and collaborated with war criminals like James Wardrop and slaveowners like Lawrence Washington.

The Assassins are far more consistent. So you can call Abbas unrepresentative but the Templars tolerate and incorporate all kinds of scum that they have no standards to look anyone down with.


Yes. Those are some.

Some? You say "some" as if there are other decent Templars. Those are the only decent Templars in the games and all of them are only decent by virtue of not-being-Rodrigo.


I'm fully aware what I'm talking about. It's all in the lore, just look it up.

Which lore, some in-house Abstergo propaganda that is full of lies?

Hans684
05-03-2015, 08:32 PM
No tyrant in the history of the world has ever called what he's done tyranny. The Templars do want to implement a tyranny that much is clear.

Again a tyranny is weak minded, so anyone doing it is clearly breaking a rule of the Templar ideology. You listen but you don't understand.


Okay here's a simple question, if the Templars wanted to end slavery, why did slavery continue for 400 years in the New World? If Haytham was anti-slavery, why is that after Achilles was defeated and the Assassins purged, he didn't go ahead and get slavery abolished before the Revolution? The fact is they had a chance to infiltrate and change the system, had no opposition and yet they did nothing.

Obvious first awnser is that it would historical inaccurate and it's the county's source of income, it would require far more than a few politicians(Templars) to change an economy. The Hatian Revolution and the American Civil War is an example, their not gonna give up their slaves just like that. And it can't change over night either, trying to solve all words problems at once won't work.


Well, the Templars are fairly inconsistent.

I'm not saying they are perfect either.


Even Robert de Sable who seemed decent employed Majd Addin,

An action out of need(not saying it's good), they wanted the city but Majd Addin only wanted power. If they had succeeded he'd be dead sooner or later.


Rodrigo Borgia was obviously quite powerful and respected,

What you expect, he was surrounded by corrupt people only caring for themselves.


Haytham dealt with Thomas Hickey and collaborated with war criminals like James Wardrop and slaveowners like Lawrence Washington.

Thomas wanted an easy life, he's as corrupt on the regard as Edward or any other pirate. Fair point with the two rest but as again what has personal business got it do with what it means to be a Templar?


The Assassins are far more consistent. So you can call Abbas unrepresentative but the Templars tolerate and incorporate all kinds of scum that they have no standards to look anyone down with.

Because the Templars usually act out of need, what is needed for them to reach their goal. That's what makes it easier for them to get tyranny, corrupt, extreme or misguided. They break their of ideology more than Assassins.


Some? You say "some" as if there are other decent Templars. Those are the only decent Templars in the games and all of them are only decent by virtue of not-being-Rodrigo.

Wait? You don't know of others? How much of the Templars do you know? Or do simply accept everything the Assassins tell you like a sheep?


Which lore, some in-house Abstergo propaganda that is full of lies?

The entire lore, I'm a story player. And I'm not stupid either, I know Abstergo lie, their as reliable as an Assassin saying what it means to be a Templar or what their cause is. I'm up to date on everything I can get my hands on.

VestigialLlama4
05-04-2015, 03:41 AM
Again a tyranny is weak minded, so anyone doing it is clearly breaking a rule of the Templar ideology.

So when Haytham wants to install a puppet dictatorship run by Charles Lee, what is he but not being tyrannical? How is keeping the world in the hands of a few white people not tyrannical? Please look at the evidence from the game and not some headcannon you cooked up.


Obvious first awnser is that it would historical inaccurate and it's the county's source of income, it would require far more than a few politicians(Templars) to change an economy. The Hatian Revolution and the American Civil War is an example, their not gonna give up their slaves just like that. And it can't change over night either, trying to solve all words problems at once won't work.

The last line is not a Templar line, it comes from the Patriot Samuel Adams, a non-Templar Assassin ally who is himself an abolitionist.

Look if Templars aren't going to solve all the world's problems, if they can't or won't change things, then there's no purpose for an all powerful secret society to exist. They are either evil or incompetent or ineffective, between those three, I'd prefer the Templars to be evil.


Because the Templars usually act out of need, what is needed for them to reach their goal. That's what makes it easier for them to get tyranny, corrupt, extreme or misguided. They break their of ideology more than Assassins.

Look in any organisation, you can only call them corrupted if they actually practise their ideology at some point. The Catholic Church have periodically done good stuff worthy of their calling, the Communists at various points helped people around the world and likewise with other organisations that we consider corrupt precisely because they have strayed from what they are supposed to be doing. We see the Assassins practise their creed several times, but we never see the Templars not be what they are, so how can they possibly be called corrupted when they were always misguided extremists.


Wait? You don't know of others? How much of the Templars do you know? Or do simply accept everything the Assassins tell you like a sheep?

First of all these are games. Assassins and Templars do not exist. I base my judgment solely on the games and what we play. That is the only thing that matters, not the lore, not the other stuff.


The entire lore, I'm a story player. And I'm not stupid either, I know Abstergo lie, their as reliable as an Assassin saying what it means to be a Templar or what their cause is. I'm up to date on everything I can get my hands on.

Look, what we play finally is what matters, and there's never a coherent, consistent challenging or sympathetic look at Templars in any of the games.

Mr.Black24
05-04-2015, 03:59 AM
Again the Templars you talk about are not the ones in the games but some dream version outside the games. It's no more legitimate than Connor's Tumblr followers. *Ahem*

VestigialLlama4
05-04-2015, 04:41 AM
*Ahem*

Hey I am throwing an insult back at them. And yes, fanfiction is not a good subsitute for an actual official epilogue.

Hans684
05-04-2015, 04:33 PM
So when Haytham wants to install a puppet dictatorship run by Charles Lee, what is he but not being tyrannical? How is keeping the world in the hands of a few white people not tyrannical?

How will their "tyranny" be then? It's not like their gonna decide when people should eat or ****. Anyway equality is one goal, so obviously slaves will be free. Unity is a goal, they want to unite the country. You know working together for a better future, they worked to see the land united and at peace.

Haytham: "These men are united now by a common cause(freedom). But when this battle is finished they will fall to fighting amongst themselves about how best to ensure control. In time it will lead to war. You will see."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States (I guess this didn't happen then)


Please look at the evidence from the game and not some headcannon you cooked up.

Always do, the lore isn't a headcannon. You can disregard as much as you want, I won't.


The last line is not a Templar line, it comes from the Patriot Samuel Adams, a non-Templar Assassin ally who is himself an abolitionist.

Does't change that's it's true, can't solve all at once.


Look if Templars aren't going to solve all the world's problems, if they can't or won't change things, then there's no purpose for an all powerful secret society to exist.

They obviously intend to solve all since peace is their ultimate goal. It's not rocket science.


They are either evil or incompetent or ineffective, between those three, I'd prefer the Templars to be evil.

You have a black and white view, so I don't expect otherwise.


Look in any organisation, you can only call them corrupted if they actually practise their ideology at some point. The Catholic Church have periodically done good stuff worthy of their calling, the Communists at various points helped people around the world and likewise with other organisations that we consider corrupt precisely because they have strayed from what they are supposed to be doing.

An ideology has terms & contritions(rules/norms), it's that who us used to measure it's followers with. Those who break the rules is corrupt, misguided etc...


We see the Assassins practise their creed several times,

Because we know their creed, we know it's rules and they follow it.


but we never see the Templars not be what they are, so how can they possibly be called corrupted when they were always misguided extremists.

It's their ideology that decide who's corrupt, misguided etc... Please look at the lore, it's all there.


First of all these are games. Assassins and Templars do not exist.

You don't say.


I base my judgment solely on the games and what we play. That is the only thing that matters, not the lore, not the other stuff.

So keeping out context to suit your own view. Why even bother discussing?


Look, what we play finally is what matters, and there's never a coherent, consistent challenging or sympathetic look at Templars in any of the games.

Never is an overstatement but we are not getting anywhere.