PDA

View Full Version : [Spoilers] Maybe the Templars aren't actually the bad guys after all...?



AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 02:57 AM
SO. Midway through AC3, I began wondering if maybe the game had us fooled into thinking that we were playing as the good guys?
I felt the whole way through, that maybe the first civilisation were actually NOT these good people needing help, maybe they were bad and the Templars were trying to stop them gaining power again but the Assassins kept foiling that by falling for the pleading of Juno and Minerva for help.
Juno did make Desmond kill Lucy, and remember he said that when he saw what was to come through Juno if Lucy got the apple, it wasn't bad...
Then the ending had me thinking that yep, maybe I really am right. Clearly someone has their own agenda.

So what do you think? Do you think it's possible that maybe the Templars aren't actually the bad guys we've been made to believe they are?
Maybe we've been playing the bad guy all along? Or that maybe it's the first civilisation who are the bad guys?
Hmmm my brain is going to be ticking over it all until the next installment!

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:00 AM
Templars are not "Bad Guys" They`re the Antagonists for most of the Game. The opposing faction..

No one is "Bad" per say.

Assassins and Templars are both Grey, but possess noble qualities..

Chocoburger
11-17-2012, 03:02 AM
You're supposed to put a spoiler tag in the subject line.

Desmond did say that bad things would happen (Templars launching a rocket) if Lucy got the apple, that's why she had to die.

You're reading too much into this, Assassin's Creed is not meant to be a complete mind**** like the TV show LOST. The Templars are the bad guys, they want to control the human race, borderline enslave them. They want a complete dictatorship. That's bad. The Assassin's Brotherhood want people to have the power of choice. Thus the bad guys must die to preserve freedom.

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:03 AM
You're supposed to put a spoiler tag in the subject line.

Desmond did say that bad things would happen (Templars launching a rocket) if Lucy got the apple, that's why she had to die.

You're reading too much into this, Assassin's Creed is not meant to be a complete mind**** like the TV show LOST. The Templars are the bad guys, they want to control the human race, borderline enslave them. They want a complete dictatorship. That's bad. The Assassin's Brotherhood want people to have the power of choice. Thus the bad guys must die to preserve freedom.
A VERY naive outlook..

TrueAssassin77
11-17-2012, 03:03 AM
*mind blown*

MT4K
11-17-2012, 03:03 AM
Contains spoilers from past games and is a question that will get people talking about other events in the franchise which would also be spoilers to new players. Moved to hints and tips.

AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 03:06 AM
That's pretty much what I'm getting at. We're led through the game franchise to believe that the Templars are these 'not very nice' (seeing as you dislike the word 'bad' so much) people with a selfish agenda based on control and order.
But maybe they know the first civilisation is BAD, and they're about stopping them?

I think if you think the game is what it is without further depth, you're very naive as already pointed out.
WHY can't there be more to it?

Apologies about the spoiler tag, I meant to go back and change the title but forgot before posting.

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:07 AM
Your comment wasn't very constructive, I was looking for interesting discussion, not to be patronised.
Are you referring to my post ??

TrueAssassin77
11-17-2012, 03:07 AM
A VERY naive outlook..

like connor lol

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:09 AM
like connor lol
At least Connor understood later that Templars are not all that bad..

RatonhnhakeFan
11-17-2012, 03:10 AM
A VERY naive outlook..
Not really, in-game quotes. Charles Lee says it (and he specifically says that either Colonial government will accept Templar leadership or it will fall), Church says it, Haytham does everything to get Lee in charge, Johnson kills Natives that refuse to sell him land etc etc. Sugarcoating doesn't change that they want control and force their way.

AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 03:11 AM
Are you referring to my post ??

No sorry, was directed at Chocoburger :)

Desmond did say a rocket was launched, but he also said it failed.
Perhaps the rocket was launched to stop the goings on that were being reported, an attempt at 'saving the world'?

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:11 AM
Not really, in-game quotes. Charles Lee says it (and he specifically says that either Colonial government will accept Templar leadership or it will fall), Church says it, Haytham does everything to get Lee in charge, Johnson kills Natives that refuse to sell him land etc etc. Sugarcoating doesn't change that they want control and force their way.
Sugar coating what Assassins do does not justify their actions either..

AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 03:15 AM
Not really, in-game quotes. Charles Lee says it (and he specifically says that either Colonial government will accept Templar leadership or it will fall), Church says it, Haytham does everything to get Lee in charge, Johnson kills Natives that refuse to sell him land etc etc. Sugarcoating doesn't change that they want control and force their way.

But maybe forcing it is the only way to keep the world as whole, safe from the first civilisation and whatever they have planned?
Like a sort of 'tough love' approach? Sacrificing a few for the greater good.

AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 03:16 AM
Sugar coating what Assassins do does not justify their actions either..

Agreed. The Assassins also see about getting their way through force.

jamgamerforever
11-17-2012, 03:20 AM
There are both good and bad Assassins. There are both good and bad Templars.

In the end, these two factions represent two opposing ideologies. It's up to you, as a human being, to choose which you think is best.

The Assassins believe that freedom is too important to give up, for any reason, and kill to preserve it. They themselves recognise the irony that to save people, they must kill.

The Templars believe that true freedom causes chaos and death (not an incorrect viewpoint by any means), and so they wish to be the guiding hand for humanity. To make sure we do not misstep, or fall. To make sure we avoid petty conflicts and maintain productivity.

The Assassins are the protagonists, but I wouldn't call them "the good guys".

TrueAssassin77
11-17-2012, 03:21 AM
my opinion.

absolute freedom is not the right way

absolute control is not the right way

democracy is the right way :cool:

Chocoburger
11-17-2012, 03:40 AM
A VERY naive outlook..
Said the man who is wrong.


That's pretty much what I'm getting at. We're led through the game franchise to believe that the Templars are these 'not very nice' (seeing as you dislike the word 'bad' so much) people with a selfish agenda based on control and order.
But maybe they know the first civilisation is BAD, and they're about stopping them?

I think if you think the game is what it is without further depth, you're very naive as already pointed out.
WHY can't there be more to it?

Apologies about the spoiler tag, I meant to go back and change the title but forgot before posting.
Just because you want something more there, doesn't mean it actually exists. Keep looking though if you're that bored.


No sorry, was directed at Chocoburger :)

Desmond did say a rocket was launched, but he also said it failed.
Perhaps the rocket was launched to stop the goings on that were being reported, an attempt at 'saving the world'?
My post was constructive, explaining why your logic was flawed, but you instead plugged your ears and was only hoping to read a response that agreed with you and nothing more. There can not be interesting discussion out of thin air just because you wish it. As for patronizing you? Seriously? That wasn't my goal, but if you felt that way, so be it, I suppose it was warranted. :o

Assassin_M
11-17-2012, 03:46 AM
Said the man who is wrong.


Just because you want something more there, doesn't mean it actually exists. Keep looking though if you're that bored.


My post was constructive, explaining why your logic was flawed, but you instead plugged your ears and was only hoping to read a response that agreed with you and nothing more. There can not be interesting discussion out of thin air just because you wish it. As for patronizing you? Seriously? That wasn't my goal, but if you felt that way, so be it, I suppose it was warranted. :o
Oh Wow.... That.. That was one of the worst posts I`v ever seen here...You do not apologize for sounding like a Jerk, but you also manage to somehow maintain your Idiotic claims without any base, but "You`re wrong"..

Wow... Simply... Wow..At least try to sound smarter..

AddictsCreed
11-17-2012, 04:03 AM
My post was constructive, explaining why your logic was flawed

Please explain how my logic is flawed?
Because YOU don't agree with my thinking? Hmm now that seems awfully contradictory from someone who just complained of being dismissed for having a differing opinion, doesn't it...

I think there's more to it. Yes, I really do actually believe that. WHY can't there be? You haven't actually given any justifiable reason as to why it can't go in any direction it wants. IAll you've done is stamped your foot and shouted "NOPE" like a defiant toddler.
Just because you don't want something more there, doesn't mean it isn't. Keep being a jerk though, if you're that bored.

TrueAssassin77
11-17-2012, 05:19 AM
chococbuger...

defaq did you say???

PurpleHaze1980
11-17-2012, 06:25 AM
Throughout most of ACIII was beginning to really question whether the Templars might not have been as necessarily 'evil' as they were being painted out to be. Alright, so they were trying to 'rule' the world so to speak...but then what are the Assassins really trying to do?

Assassins are also more or less trying to 'shape the world' so it fits what they've planned for it much in the way the Templars are. They are also killing people to make sure the 'wrong' political people don't get into power and so that the 'right ones - who are generally associated with the Brotherhood anyway - do get in. But who's to say that the ones the Assassin's are putting into power are necessarily the 'right' ones either.

Assassins are practically like a back seat driver constantily telling who is behind the wheel what way they should be going to get to the right destination (when there may be more than one road that gets you there).

Is every kill the Assassins make justifiable? What about the countless troops they have decimated in seconds who were more or less minding their own business or just simply following orders? Is every 'enemy' hanging around guarding gates or patrolling the streets of every city necessarily 'evil'? Every sword-wielding soldier and straight-backed guard can't literally 'be a Templar'. Were they just innocent men being paid to follow orders?

Not to mention there's been quite a few examples of Assassins killing the wrong man (not necessarily an enemy to the Brotherhood) through miscommunication or lack of knowledge.

The more I watched the story unfold, the more I got the feeling that both Assassins and Templars were part of a very huge grey area that couldn't really be defined as good or bad for various different reasons and at times it seemed like they were almost fighting for the same exact thing.

At this point, I wouldn't put it past Ubisoft to start making games based around the Templars and their stories and characters as they oppose the Assassins who try to get in their way at every opportunity. I'd play that.

Farlander1991
11-17-2012, 06:35 AM
You know, reading the thread it feels like nobody ever wondered in ACI that Templars are not as bad as they seem. Just saying, that kind of makes me sad, that the Borgia from AC2 and ACB have tipped the scale into a 'bad guy' territory. Things just got back the way they were in ACI (although, thanks to the Haytham prologue, the Templar characters are much more fleshed out).

Rithrius
11-17-2012, 09:44 AM
Assassins and Templars both want the same. But whereas the Assassins are idealists, the Templars are realists.

I agree with the Templar's perspective of things actually, if they weren't a bunch of *******s half the time, i'd favor them entirely.

Farlander1991
11-17-2012, 09:54 AM
if they weren't a bunch of *******s half the time

Like the assassin's aren't :p Heck, our very first introduction of the very first assassin we meet (Altair) is of him being an *******. And then the third assassin that we meet, Abbas, is also an *******. :p

On a side note. This is kinda glossed over in the games, but the Assassin's have royally messed up in Wallachia. There's a reason why Vali from ACR feels betrayed. Yes, Vlad Tepes was a templar in the game's lore, but Wallachia was in deep **** at the time, and he, while not being the nicest of guys (and let's keep in mind that a lot of stories about him are largely exaggerated), he managed to get that country out of it. And also protect it from being controled by the Ottomans. The Ottomans who were supported by Assassins to capture and take control of Wallachia. I can imagine that most of the Wallachian Assassins probably went 'WTF?! What about our Creed and all the things about freedom, and now you're assisting a government to pretty much take control of our land and people, demanding a huge tribute and whatnot?!'. Vali had solid grounds to be pissed off at Assassins and join the Templars instead.


Is every kill the Assassins make justifiable?

I would like to point out, that when it comes to killing guards, we can't be sure on how many people Assassins we play as have ACTUALLY killed with the exception of those required for full synchronization. It's funny how the gameplay and story segregation works in the game.... I mean, you as a player can kill 1000s of people and yet the main character still technically is on a count of, like, 10. And it wouldn't be jarring either, thanks to the Animus. Really a wonderful device for such things.

TheHumanTowel
11-17-2012, 11:37 AM
That's what I like about this series, both factions have good points and neither is really right or wrong. I think Ubi did a really good job of making the Templars relatable in AC3. Haytham's such a great character and has noble aims. The Templars only really became the actual bad guys in the AC2 era, some Templars were sympathetic but the Borgias only cared about power and were hilariously evil. Glad the moral greyness has come back into the series.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-17-2012, 06:28 PM
My problem with Assassin's Creed is that, while Ubisoft paints the Templars as a gray area, and as antagonists more than "bad guys", at the end of the day you have Abstergo, who ARE bad guys, and very stereotypical bad guys at that. Another reason I could pass on the modern story.

vivaxardas
11-17-2012, 07:34 PM
Well, this whole conflict of ideologies is presented in a very sloppy, uneducated way. Recall Desmond's father - Templars want (social) order through control, we are against it. So, does he really mean that assassins strife for (social) DISorder with citizens being totally OUT OF CONTROL? Gee, I was in a war zone, when no side is controlling territory, so I know what it looks like. The weak are hiding in the basements hoping nobody comes and kills /rapes/robes them, while armed gangs roam the streets. This is a situation of a war of all against all, when human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes) To be honest, after experiencing it first-hand, I would prefer total control any day without hesitation. Obviously, the best way of life is between these two extreme opposites, with enough control to prevent us, humans, who are pretty nasty creatures, from harming each other, but still allowing us to pursue our harmless goals unhindered.
BTW, Widik in AC1 tells about social ills, and wars, and believes that through control they can eliminate them. It is a worthy goal, even if the means are somewhat questionable. If you ever were a victim of a crime, or a refugee, you would want human liberty limited, like castrating sex-offenders, or gun control. When you are on a receiving end of human freedom on a rampage, to take freedom from criminals is an extremely appealing idea. And it's an irony that templars actually speak for, or from a position of the VICTIMS, the ones who are harmed by cruel free actions, and demand protection against such freedom.

And that some templars like Borgia are bad, does not harm the idea itself. Al Mualim also was bad. Whatever social idea you take, be that animal rights, or environmentalism, there are always bad people there with all domestic terrorism crap. It does not make the ideas themselves any less good or worth pursuing.

TomSalata
08-14-2014, 05:13 PM
Throughout most of ACIII was beginning to really question whether the Templars might not have been as necessarily 'evil' as they were being painted out to be. Alright, so they were trying to 'rule' the world so to speak...but then what are the Assassins really trying to do?

Assassins are also more or less trying to 'shape the world' so it fits what they've planned for it much in the way the Templars are. They are also killing people to make sure the 'wrong' political people don't get into power and so that the 'right ones - who are generally associated with the Brotherhood anyway - do get in. But who's to say that the ones the Assassin's are putting into power are necessarily the 'right' ones either.

Assassins are practically like a back seat driver constantily telling who is behind the wheel what way they should be going to get to the right destination (when there may be more than one road that gets you there).

Is every kill the Assassins make justifiable? What about the countless troops they have decimated in seconds who were more or less minding their own business or just simply following orders? Is every 'enemy' hanging around guarding gates or patrolling the streets of every city necessarily 'evil'? Every sword-wielding soldier and straight-backed guard can't literally 'be a Templar'. Were they just innocent men being paid to follow orders?

Not to mention there's been quite a few examples of Assassins killing the wrong man (not necessarily an enemy to the Brotherhood) through miscommunication or lack of knowledge.

The more I watched the story unfold, the more I got the feeling that both Assassins and Templars were part of a very huge grey area that couldn't really be defined as good or bad for various different reasons and at times it seemed like they were almost fighting for the same exact thing.

At this point, I wouldn't put it past Ubisoft to start making games based around the Templars and their stories and characters as they oppose the Assassins who try to get in their way at every opportunity. I'd play that.

Have you ever heard of Critical Theory? All I have seen above is just a criticism of the Assassin's. Instead of criticizing them for doing what they think is right, what do you think the Assassin's should or should not have done differently? What solutions do you propose? The major flaw is that you are under the assumption that the Assassin's are doing something that is inherently evil or has evil intention. Never take the life of an Innocent person, always remain hidden, and never compromise the brotherhood: These three tenants of the Assassin's creed are based in the philosophy of the protection and preserving the sanctity of the lives of INNOCENT people. You don't see assassin's attacking random farmers, or shop keepers, or ordinary folk. In truth, they fight to protect them, not oppress them

immJimmyy
08-21-2014, 04:43 PM
Have you ever heard of Critical Theory? All I have seen above is just a criticism of the Assassin's. Instead of criticizing them for doing what they think is right, what do you think the Assassin's should or should not have done differently? What solutions do you propose? The major flaw is that you are under the assumption that the Assassin's are doing something that is inherently evil or has evil intention. Never take the life of an Innocent person, always remain hidden, and never compromise the brotherhood: These three tenants of the Assassin's creed are based in the philosophy of the protection and preserving the sanctity of the lives of INNOCENT people. You don't see assassin's attacking random farmers, or shop keepers, or ordinary folk. In truth, they fight to protect them, not oppress them

Honestly as I'm reading all of these posts, I was waiting for someone to say exactly what you said. The Templars and Assassins are one and the same, but at the same time two totally opposites. The Templars want order, and to guide humanity so we do not fail. Although, doing it under their control may take away most freedoms of citizens of any land. The Assassins on the other hand are killing people, just the same as the Templars do, knowing that murder is wrong, but killing for the greater good, and the safeness of humans abroad.
As you said, the Assassins aren't out there killing random farmers, etc. They're protecting them by killing the people who would just go kill them. Hence, the Templars; who kill and depend on Fear for the idea on control they perceive as good, for them at least. The Assassins may scare some regular people walking down the street with their swords and weapons:D but they do assure them that they're safe, even when the people do not know their names, faces, or even if they're there. The Assassins pretty much depend on themselves, the brotherhood, the people, and the durability of their own skills. So I will always say that the Templars, are the older version, of the modern day Abstergo
and that Desmond ran away from them because he knew they were bad and wanted to find the truth and expose it to help save humanity. Hence: Assassins Vs. Templars in modern day.

MJaSterling
09-20-2014, 04:05 PM
I also think that "bad" or "good" are too extreme as a label for the entirety of both factions. Both have their good and bad examples. However I would like to point out that the worse of the assassin groups do seem to tend to switch to the Templar side. Just saying. But to suggest that an entire group, even a group that the members chose to enter, is a certain way in their actions, or morality is nothing short of stereotypical thinking. Yes the Templar doctrine is to bring a world through which everything will think and act the same through mental and physical domination but that does not make them all small-minded control freaks.
That said I, personally, simply cannot fall in with the Templar ideology. I f for nothing else than simply because whatever their creed is it allows for objectively terrible people to join their ranks and even hold a controlling interest. And perhaps you could say the same for the Assassin's Creed however the first tenet of the creed is to never harm an innocent person. So while a person who genuinely enjoys killing people could possibly find a happy home among the assassins if they hope to remain an assassin (as well as, likely, alive) they must control their impulse or bloodlust at least to an extent. The rules within the Templar faction seem to be far less stringent in that regard at least, as it seems as long as you fulfill your end of the Templar bargain you can pursue your own goals and tastes at your leisure. Even when rising through the ranks in the Revelations Multiplayer you're eventually told that you get whatever you want from now on, including whatever man or woman you set your sights on.
To me the Templar order resembles a religion that has lost its focus on the basis the religion was founded on and is now focused entirely on the religion itself. Thus, as I tend to put it, putting the cart before the horse. Where as the Assassin's Creed is both the basis and the religion founded on it. Furthermore the one rule of the Assassin's creed (disregarding the tenets for now) is that the rules must change to accommodate the situation, culture or society one finds their self in, therefore meaning that not only that the religion must be subject to change but also the reason for the religion itself. This one firm immutable rule, forcing the flexibility of all rules (except for itself, of course) has three modifiers that are also as inflexible as the original rule. And while I can keep rambling on I think I'll stop myself here (on this point at least) and more or less repeat that the Assassin's creed cannot be abused in the same fashion as putting the cart before the horse since they are, if not the same thing, very close to it as well as fashioned to be completely adaptable to any outside parameters.
On another note I can't say I entirely disagree with some of the Templar's ideologies. Going back to Revelations during ... Haras'(?) (the traitor you meet in the first Altair flashback) (I know it's not a flashback, I'm only calling it that because I want to save on words in an already obviously wordy (wow, that's a word) post) Anyway, during his death dialogue he says the Templars know the truth, that humans are weak, base and petty. I, frankly, agree. We are. That said, I don't believe that anything would be solved by using mind control to make them forget those aspects. If for no other reasons than the fact that the first civ couldn't make it work, not for long anyway, and they knew everything there was to know about those pretty pieces of Eden. The Templars, for obvious reasons, can't do better, they are mere weak, base and petty humans like the rest of us after all.
Basically my main gripe with the Templars is their doctrine of the ends justifying the means which even extends to the private lives of their members and their way of dealing with misbehavior is "Do as I say or else." And while you could say the same with that last bit of the Assassins, unlike the Templars, it does not apply to the world at large, there are people who are exempt, and furthermore the members of their own faction are in fact subject to more rules. Do the Assassins hunt down every person who takes an innocent life? Do they kill every loud and obnoxious (indiscreet) ******* they come across? Hell they don't even random wholesale slaughter the Templars and even they, The Templars admit all it takes is one Assassin. Basically, as long as any Templar doesn't make their self too much of a pain in the ***, they are allowed to carry on as they will, even though, in theory they are mortal enemies. As we have seen The Templars do not appear to extend the same courtesy to the Assassins, not on a large scale at least.
To me, if I have to pick between the two, the Assassin's number one tenet is their saving grace. How can you argue with a rule the protects lives? Really, to me, with how close the Templars' goals and even some of their ideologies and methods are to the Assassins' you could see them almost like a rogue faction of the Assassins, who didn't agree with their views and broke off. Actually that'd be kinda cool to see, like maybe the Templars and Assassins were once part of a larger group based upon a concept and split due to different perceptions of it. Assassin's Creed: Origins. Finally we get to see how the Joker came to be. heh. Sorry.
Anyway, back to the original idea of this thread, after I just went on forever, between the Assassins and Templars I wouldn't say one's just good and the other's just bad but relative to each other I feel the Assassins are slightly better. And I'll shut up now.

M0nsterSkillz
10-16-2014, 01:17 AM
OP is one of the few players out there that has actually spotted that the templars are depicted in the totally wrong way, what we are playing here is much more than just ''a game series''. TRUE Assassins can be seen below in the wiki links, and this is what ubisoft based the game of. The characters are a fairytale compared to real life, learn about the crusades and islamic ideology if you truly want to understand assassins origins. I mean come on, Alta´r Ibn-La'Ahad is not a ''Christian'' name now is it ? And the dates aren't a coincidence that is set throughout the game series. I would have been much happier should Ubisoft have portrayed Templars in the TRUE way. Sure SOME was corrupt, but corruption runs deep everywhere does it not ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan

Green_Reaper
10-22-2014, 10:10 PM
SO. Midway through AC3, I began wondering if maybe the game had us fooled into thinking that we were playing as the good guys?
I felt the whole way through, that maybe the first civilisation were actually NOT these good people needing help, maybe they were bad and the Templars were trying to stop them gaining power again but the Assassins kept foiling that by falling for the pleading of Juno and Minerva for help.
Juno did make Desmond kill Lucy, and remember he said that when he saw what was to come through Juno if Lucy got the apple, it wasn't bad...
Then the ending had me thinking that yep, maybe I really am right. Clearly someone has their own agenda.

So what do you think? Do you think it's possible that maybe the Templars aren't actually the bad guys we've been made to believe they are?
Maybe we've been playing the bad guy all along? Or that maybe it's the first civilisation who are the bad guys?
Hmmm my brain is going to be ticking over it all until the next installment!

It was always about the clash of differing ideals, morals, ambitions, and how one viewed how the world should be. I don't think there was ever a "good" or "bad" side. I remember a saying that goes something like "the victors write the history books" or something similar. For instance, who's to say the British didn't view how the American Revolution turned out to be the same way Americans view it? Perhaps the British see it in a less glorifying way than Americans do. It's all a matter of viewpoint. The interesting thing about AC3 is that it allowed you to see how things played out from more than one perspective, whereas previous AC games you were always looking through the eyes of an Assassin. I mean, in the beginning of AC3, you almost believed Haytham was an Assassin until that surprise twist where he was revealed to be a Templar. One's idea of justice, order, etc. could be completely different from another person's way of thinking towards the same philosophies.

similarly
11-08-2014, 01:10 AM
This is something that has struck me all through AC3 and AC4. Whenever I kill a Templar, they're always like "You fool! You've made it worse! I was trying to HELP! Now you've ruined everything
!!" I was actually SORRY when Haythem was killed. Certainly there are BAD templars, but many of the Templars are seeking peace through order and authority, while the assassins seem only to want to thwart the templars.

Many of the Templars are obviously on a power-trip, but others genuinely want to see something good come. What was it that one of the templars said as he was dying? "At the end of a blade I've found a friend" or something to that effect, when he learned that Edward Kenway also wanted to stop Roberts.

I think that's one of the things I most enjoy in AC. There are no white hats or black hats, and the attitude of the Templars is deliberately designed to make us wonder if we're on the right team. Rogue, I'm thinking will take us to the other side of that.

Vaard
11-13-2014, 10:40 AM
i don't think of it as "good vs bad" as much as "them vs us"......