PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Templar Propaganda?



daltonesque
11-19-2012, 08:44 AM
Just gettin us all comfortable with the idea that maybe they're not so bad. They just see things differently ya know? I'm just sayin. It's a matter of opinion whether total control or independence is better for us. It's not an evil agenda.

pirate1802
11-19-2012, 09:06 AM
From day one I didn't consider the Templars as "evil". And I'm glad AC III evens the scales a little bit.

scooper121s
11-19-2012, 09:09 AM
We could argue the assassins are evil, because they also want to push their ideals, and thus while the Templars I believe to be corrupt (not evil) the assassins are murderers. Nuff said.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 09:22 AM
the assassin's have no wish to hold power. only to remove those who abuse it. very very very different way of doing things. The assassins aren't so arrogant to say they know how everyone should live only that hey know how we should not be treated. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Although the series is severely revisionist history it is fact that the actual assassin order never killed a civilian and preferred to remove one man to save thousands. It is a cost benefit analysis really. Kill only those targets whose murder will spare the most lives. Templars kill anyone in their way because they know what's best for you. Assassins are not even in the same league of d***head.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 09:23 AM
of course this post was tongue in cheek to begin with. Let's not get too riled up.

scooper121s
11-19-2012, 09:39 AM
If that was directed at me, Shaun even says that the assassins aren't the good guys

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2012, 02:18 PM
Both the Assassins and the Templars represent two extremes. The best course of action is something between the both of them, aka LAWS. Government itself is an in-between. However, IF the goal is peace, which as Haytham was correct in saying, was the Assassins' goal in AC1, then total control (i.e. brainwashing) would be the most achievable method. Problem with the Templars is that 1) they don't care for giving people freedom (if someone's brainwashed, then they wouldn't know they don't have freedom) and 2) absolute power corrupts absolutely, and many Templars in positions of power have been corrupt and downright evil (think the Templars Ezio fought).

vorenus73
11-19-2012, 09:42 PM
We could argue the assassins are evil, because they also want to push their ideals, and thus while the Templars I believe to be corrupt (not evil) the assassins are murderers. Nuff said.
I always found that ironic. The Assassins claim to be all about freedom, but kill people who act against their ideals of freedom. If you are for 100% freedom, then you should really not be killing people for doing things you do not like! It's like "freedom of speech, just don't say X"

kuled2012
11-19-2012, 09:52 PM
I always found that ironic. The Assassins claim to be all about freedom, but kill people who act against their ideals of freedom. If you are for 100% freedom, then you should really not be killing people for doing things you do not like! It's like "freedom of speech, just don't say X"

The three ironies :)

scooper121s
11-19-2012, 09:56 PM
One day I hope ubisoft does a soley templar game haytham show that we may get it

vivaxardas
11-19-2012, 09:56 PM
To be honest, if I were to live in AC Universe, I would support the templars. I simply do not believe that any human society would evolve into a peaceful one without external influence. We may now really like animals, and be all for human rights, only it does not create more oil or food on a planet. So in a world with a scarcity of resources, we will always have conflicts. And, well, as long those who die are people we do not know, we would not, as a society, really care. I am a pessimist, you know, and the only way to get a real peace on earth is either extermination of human life, or pretty radical behavioral modification, possible only involuntary.

scooper121s
11-19-2012, 10:08 PM
To be honest, if I were to live in AC Universe, I would support the templars. I simply do not believe that any human society would evolve into a peaceful one without external influence. We may now really like animals, and be all for human rights, only it does not create more oil or food on a planet. So in a world with a scarcity of resources, we will always have conflicts. And, well, as long those who die are people we do not know, we would not, as a society, really care. I am a pessimist, you know, and the only way to get a real peace on earth is either extermination of human life, or pretty radical behavioral modification, possible only involuntary.
Maybe a MMO, I'd probably be a Templar who's ideals are similar to the assassins but coincide with the templars

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 10:38 PM
I always found that ironic. The Assassins claim to be all about freedom, but kill people who act against their ideals of freedom. If you are for 100% freedom, then you should really not be killing people for doing things you do not like! It's like "freedom of speech, just don't say X"

This game lore is based on the actual Assassin order of the medevil period. It's not murder. It's war. The actual Assassin order really did have a policy of not killing innocents. Nearly all of their targets had committed some sort of abuse against the people usually some type of massacre and were chosen for their strategic benefit. Often they wouldn't kill their targets but "compel" them to comply by leaving a knife and not on the targets pillow as way of saying "don't think we can't touch you". Often the target obliged. However given this policy and record of killing murderers and not civillians historians still painted them as bloodthirsty hash soaked killers and it just isn't true. History is written by the winners. (thank God for the Animus hahaha) I'm not saying the Assassins or Hash'ashin were saints. I'm simply saying that (in the case of the fictional story) killing a tyrant is not murder. Nor is it an infringement on his free speech. It's justifiable homicide. Who would think a man was wrong if he Assassinated Kone in Africa or others of his ilk? If someone has gained so much power he/ she is effectively above the law then justice may wield a blade. That should be something men in power know, understand and fear in my opinion. We haven't seen any of the Assassins in AC kill someone for what they said only for the hurt they caused or meant to cause. I think they embody the spirit of revolution which is a spirit that helped found our land. We used to believe in the right of the individual to determine what they think, feel, live and they're right and fundamental ability to determine what's best for them. What do we believe in now? There is a consistent pattern of the American people trading their privacy for convenience at the detriment of their self-reliance. For that google app or that iphone's helpful gps we'll throw away our privacy and at the same time it makes us weaker by doing for us what we should be able to do for ourselves. Privacy and self-reliance are two core ethos that this country was founded on and we throw them away so we don't have to think as hard. We are becoming dependent upon interests that care nothing about us because that is the nature of things when you give up more and more of your self determination little by little until the temptation to exploit you is just too great. The corporations aren't the problem. Our lack of self involvement is. But I digress............

vivaxardas
11-19-2012, 10:49 PM
Well, not in AC3. As we learn in the end, none of the templars was guilty, or more guilty then non-templars. Washington was more guilty then Lee, but Connor went after Lee anyway, and with a vengeance. So it seems that Connor kills people just because they are templars, i.e. for their views on social; order. And this is against freedom of speech and belief.
Also I do not really fancy an idea that some dumb kid one day wakes up, grabs an axe, and starts executing people because he believes that they are bad. For me it is simply not enough justification for the murders, and Connor is on a hate crime spree. As an American, I really do not like it.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 10:53 PM
To be honest, if I were to live in AC Universe, I would support the templars. I simply do not believe that any human society would evolve into a peaceful one without external influence. We may now really like animals, and be all for human rights, only it does not create more oil or food on a planet. So in a world with a scarcity of resources, we will always have conflicts. And, well, as long those who die are people we do not know, we would not, as a society, really care. I am a pessimist, you know, and the only way to get a real peace on earth is either extermination of human life, or pretty radical behavioral modification, possible only involuntary.

The point isn't peace. It's freedom. Benjamin Franklin said "He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither" The fact is that no one person is capable or could ever know the best for everyone and it must be left to each of us to determine our own path if only for the fact that none of us can truly say we know what's best.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 11:00 PM
Well, not in AC3. As we learn in the end, none of the templars was guilty, or more guilty then non-templars. Washington was more guilty then Lee, but Connor went after Lee anyway, and with a vengeance. So it seems that Connor kills people just because they are templars, i.e. for their views on social; order. And this is against freedom of speech and belief.
Also I do not really fancy an idea that some dumb kid one day wakes up, grabs an axe, and starts executing people because he believes that they are bad. For me it is simply not enough justification for the murders, and Connor is on a hate crime spree. As an American, I really do not like it.

I can appreciate that. I'm def not advocating we all start picking up axes and killing people. I am saying that I'll take strife over enslavement. I'm saying that anyone so arrogant as to believe they are better suited to run my life than I am or yours better than you does not possess the humility required for the responsible wielding of power and that is a worse sin than the assassins. The templars line of thinking has throughout history lead to corruption. No man is morally incorruptible enough to wiled the power they seek justly. That's human nature. That is there folly. Seeing themselves as better and therefore able to benevolently wield absolute power and not fall prey to it's corrosive effects. Man is not capable of this and that's why DEMOCRACY will always be the most suitable though not always most tranquil way.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 11:02 PM
That's why Connor wants to stop the Templars so badly as opposed to the colonialists because he knows what the Templars want no man should have.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2012, 11:05 PM
This game lore is based on the actual Assassin order of the medevil period. It's not murder. It's war. The actual Assassin order really did have a policy of not killing innocents. Nearly all of their targets had committed some sort of abuse against the people usually some type of massacre and were chosen for their strategic benefit. Often they wouldn't kill their targets but "compel" them to comply by leaving a knife and not on the targets pillow as way of saying "don't think we can't touch you". Often the target obliged. However given this policy and record of killing murderers and not civillians historians still painted them as bloodthirsty hash soaked killers and it just isn't true. History is written by the winners. (thank God for the Animus hahaha) I'm not saying the Assassins or Hash'ashin were saints. I'm simply saying that (in the case of the fictional story) killing a tyrant is not murder. Nor is it an infringement on his free speech. It's justifiable homicide. Who would think a man was wrong if he Assassinated Kone in Africa or others of his ilk? If someone has gained so much power he/ she is effectively above the law then justice may wield a blade. That should be something men in power know, understand and fear in my opinion. We haven't seen any of the Assassins in AC kill someone for what they said only for the hurt they caused or meant to cause. I think they embody the spirit of revolution which is a spirit that helped found our land. We used to believe in the right of the individual to determine what they think, feel, live and they're right and fundamental ability to determine what's best for them. What do we believe in now? There is a consistent pattern of the American people trading their privacy for convenience at the detriment of their self-reliance. For that google app or that iphone's helpful gps we'll throw away our privacy and at the same time it makes us weaker by doing for us what we should be able to do for ourselves. Privacy and self-reliance are two core ethos that this country was founded on and we throw them away so we don't have to think as hard. We are becoming dependent upon interests that care nothing about us because that is the nature of things when you give up more and more of your self determination little by little until the temptation to exploit you is just too great. The corporations aren't the problem. Our lack of self involvement is. But I digress............

Yes, it'd be wrong and not JUSTICE if someone up and killed Joseph Kony instead of bringing him to justice, unless it was in self-defense. Just like it was wrong for the Libyan militia to just up and kill Qaddafi without bringing him to trial.



This game lore is based on the actual Assassin order of the medevil period. It's not murder. It's war. The actual Assassin order really did have a policy of not killing innocents. Nearly all of their targets had committed some sort of abuse against the people usually some type of massacre and were chosen for their strategic benefit. Often they wouldn't kill their targets but "compel" them to comply by leaving a knife and not on the targets pillow as way of saying "don't think we can't touch you". Often the target obliged. However given this policy and record of killing murderers and not civillians historians still painted them as bloodthirsty hash soaked killers and it just isn't true. History is written by the winners. (thank God for the Animus hahaha) I'm not saying the Assassins or Hash'ashin were saints. I'm simply saying that (in the case of the fictional story) killing a tyrant is not murder. Nor is it an infringement on his free speech. It's justifiable homicide. Who would think a man was wrong if he Assassinated Kone in Africa or others of his ilk? If someone has gained so much power he/ she is effectively above the law then justice may wield a blade. That should be something men in power know, understand and fear in my opinion. We haven't seen any of the Assassins in AC kill someone for what they said only for the hurt they caused or meant to cause. I think they embody the spirit of revolution which is a spirit that helped found our land. We used to believe in the right of the individual to determine what they think, feel, live and they're right and fundamental ability to determine what's best for them. What do we believe in now? There is a consistent pattern of the American people trading their privacy for convenience at the detriment of their self-reliance. For that google app or that iphone's helpful gps we'll throw away our privacy and at the same time it makes us weaker by doing for us what we should be able to do for ourselves. Privacy and self-reliance are two core ethos that this country was founded on and we throw them away so we don't have to think as hard. We are becoming dependent upon interests that care nothing about us because that is the nature of things when you give up more and more of your self determination little by little until the temptation to exploit you is just too great. The corporations aren't the problem. Our lack of self involvement is. But I digress............

The REAL Assassin's were Ismaili Muslims who targeted Sunni Muslim leaders first, and then Crusaders and Saladin's people. No, they didn't kill innocents, but they weren't noble at all. They killed anyone who didn't agree with them. They weren't some group of enlightened Atheists with a plan of freedom for all. Nor were the Templars some group of Atheists with a plan for global dominance and a new world order. They were a group of nobleman who profited financially from the war and who helped fight some of its battles. That's it. You know, you really should believe Ubisoft when they say that Assassin's Creed is fiction. IT IS.

vivaxardas
11-19-2012, 11:06 PM
The point isn't peace. It's freedom. Benjamin Franklin said "He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither" The fact is that no one person is capable or could ever know the best for everyone and it must be left to each of us to determine our own path if only for the fact that none of us can truly say we know what's best.

Well, in AC1 it was "peace, of all things". Peace is a desirable goal without any restrictions, freedom is not. Freedom sounds like a good concept, but no one really knows how much of it is good for a person, or a society. Too much of it - and it leads to lawlessness, rule of the strong, and constant fights. Some theologians believe that freedom is intrinsically good, but it is probably because they or their loved ones have never been killed, beaten or raped. So no organization can't just say "I am fighting for freedom" and feel being in the right. It seems that we need a good balance of personal freedom and social control, but assassins do not really talk about any kind of balance.
The only thing that makes sense to me is if assassins want for a human society to evolve to this good balance through natural social evolution, and they believe it is actually possible, while the templars do not believe that humans are capable to reach an agreeable balance without external influence. It seems history is on a side of the templars.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2012, 11:11 PM
I can appreciate that. I'm def not advocating we all start picking up axes and killing people. I am saying that I'll take strife over enslavement. I'm saying that anyone so arrogant as to believe they are better suited to run my life than I am or yours better than you does not possess the humility required for the responsible wielding of power and that is a worse sin than the assassins. The templars line of thinking has throughout history lead to corruption. No man is morally incorruptible enough to wiled the power they seek justly. That's human nature. That is there folly. Seeing themselves as better and therefore able to benevolently wield absolute power and not fall prey to it's corrosive effects. Man is not capable of this and that's why DEMOCRACY will always be the most suitable though not always most tranquil way.

I think both are full of folly. The folly of the Templars is that they think that they can rule without corruption. The folly of the Assassins is thinking that everyone will get along if all are free to do what they please. This is why democracy, or rather, a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, is the best middle-ground. There is some level of control, of regulation, and some level of freedom. One is not free to do everything, but one is not enslaved such that he can do nothing.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 11:14 PM
antoine I read the wiki and have extensively researched the crusades. I'm not an idiot. I simply believe liberty is more important than peace. Isn't that want those Muslims established their order for in the first place? To preserve their right to practice their form of Islam?

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 11:16 PM
antoine I read the wiki and have extensively researched the crusades. I'm not an idiot. I simply believe liberty is more important than peace. Isn't that want those Muslims established their order for in the first place? To preserve their right to practice their form of Islam?

I think that peace will reign ideal was just how Mu-alim manipulated Altair. Even Achilles says something to the effect that there is always more fighting that it never ends.

daltonesque
11-19-2012, 11:18 PM
I mean really what good is a peaceful existence in the absence of self-determination? The fact is freedom is possible. Total world peace is not. Also I'd like to thank everyone for their responses and opinions in this thread. Great convo. I'll return later. Stuff tod.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2012, 11:52 PM
antoine I read the wiki and have extensively researched the crusades. I'm not an idiot. I simply believe liberty is more important than peace. Isn't that want those Muslims established their order for in the first place? To preserve their right to practice their form of Islam?

Well, what I see is Shi'a versus Sunni. And then wanting to end the Crusades. Nothing else than that.

Will_Lucky
11-20-2012, 02:14 AM
I've always viewed the Assassins as Liberals/Anarchists and the Templars as Conservatives (At least from a 21st century perspective.) Both want to bring about a revolution but both use a far more distinctive method to do so in line with those ideologies. Its been plain since AC1 the Templars are not inherently evil (The death talks between Altair and his victims are quite frankly some of the best Philosophical discussions I've ever seen in a game) and its nice to see AC3 bring it back to that ideal.

One thing you have to remember about the AC2 timeline is that even Abstergo thought the Templars of Ezios day were a lost cause more focused on attaining power instead of uniting the world in a new order. The Templars from AC2 and Brotherhood were misguided figures who were pretty much evil. The Templars in Revelations were far more in line with there brothers but were a mere flicker in the light of history due to how fast Ezio annihlated them from the face of the Earth, if you listen to Manual and Ahmet you see they were far closer to those Templars in AC1 and 3.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-20-2012, 03:52 AM
I've always viewed the Assassins as Liberals/Anarchists and the Templars as Conservatives (At least from a 21st century perspective.) Both want to bring about a revolution but both use a far more distinctive method to do so in line with those ideologies. Its been plain since AC1 the Templars are not inherently evil (The death talks between Altair and his victims are quite frankly some of the best Philosophical discussions I've ever seen in a game) and its nice to see AC3 bring it back to that ideal.

One thing you have to remember about the AC2 timeline is that even Abstergo thought the Templars of Ezios day were a lost cause more focused on attaining power instead of uniting the world in a new order. The Templars from AC2 and Brotherhood were misguided figures who were pretty much evil. The Templars in Revelations were far more in line with there brothers but were a mere flicker in the light of history due to how fast Ezio annihlated them from the face of the Earth, if you listen to Manual and Ahmet you see they were far closer to those Templars in AC1 and 3.

Abstergo acts just like the Templars of Ezio's day. They are just as evil. Can't stand Abstergo. They deserved to die. Desmond should have cleared out the entire building with the Apple.

pirate1802
11-20-2012, 04:03 AM
if you listen to Manual and Ahmet you see they were far closer to those Templars in AC1 and 3.

Glad someone else noticed that. :D

Namiwakiru
11-20-2012, 04:36 AM
I cant believe this is even being spoken about still.

There is no good or evil, or even a right or wrong on who's goal is just. Only the ways each side seeks the final result is clear.

Both Assassins and Templars want peace, but Templars believe that humanity is incapable of reaching or maintaining it on its own, hence why their peace is sought through manipulation and the suppression of free will. They seek a peace where humans are controlled like sheep, with them on top.

Assassins believe that humanity must be allowed to make its own path, even if the result is bad, at least we were free to make those mistakes.
Even if we as humans never achieve peace, at least we were given the rope to hang ourselves as opposed to being forced.

No matter who you think is the good or right side, no human wants to live a life without freedom to make our own decisions

The sad part of the game is the modern era is completely controlled by Templars already, our freedoms are simply an illusion we think we have and the Assassins can only try to stop the Templars end game

daltonesque
11-20-2012, 10:33 AM
Anyone know how to edit a post name? So many spoilers have shown up in here and I'd prefer not to get booted.

Also please don't take anything I'm saying to be support for any political party or agenda. I'm not jumping the tea party bandwagon or really that stoked about the democrats either. This is a discussion that reaches past all that to something more fundamental and there are people on both sides anywhere you look.


I cant believe this is even being spoken about still.

There is no good or evil, or even a right or wrong on who's goal is just. Only the ways each side seeks the final result is clear.

Both Assassins and Templars want peace, but Templars believe that humanity is incapable of reaching or maintaining it on its own, hence why their peace is sought through manipulation and the suppression of free will. They seek a peace where humans are controlled like sheep, with them on top.

Assassins believe that humanity must be allowed to make its own path, even if the result is bad, at least we were free to make those mistakes.
Even if we as humans never achieve peace, at least we were given the rope to hang ourselves as opposed to being forced.

No matter who you think is the good or right side, no human wants to live a life without freedom to make our own decisions

The sad part of the game is the modern era is completely controlled by Templars already, our freedoms are simply an illusion we think we have and the Assassins can only try to stop the Templars end game

I'm still talking about this from a position of personal philosophy as well. I honestly feel that in the real world people are already giving up too much control. Especially here in the states. not necessarily to any shadow organization like the Templars but more importantly to entities who outwardly display a disregard for anything but their own agendas and also to the machinations of power in today's society. I believe "the founders" knew in the end it is the responsibility of the people to safeguard our freedoms through force only if and when it becomes absolutely necessary but first foremost and always through our mindset. Regarding the latter we seem to be failing. There is an implied responsibility in self-government to reason and think for oneself and to maintain that prerogative through awareness. Manipulation of the masses and attempts at such are a constant threat to liberty. One that no violence is necessary to defend against, only the willingness to pay attention and sadly it's a more and more rare quality these days.


The opposing nature of these two modes of thinking will always be important to keep talking about. I love the game for that (although I'm not too happy about the big decision if you know what I mean) and just wanted to talk about why I agree with one outlook over the other and find out what makes the other side tick as well. Only through dialog will we reach even a modicum of consensus. For while complete peace is never possible there is a greatest possible peace and whatever that attainable goal may be we must continually search for together. I mean in the end isn't government, especially democracy a way of trying to balance our desire for freedom with our capacity for ignorance, selfishness and harm?

daltonesque
11-20-2012, 10:46 AM
Glad someone else noticed that. :D

Borgia= Corrupted reaching for power
Haytham=Power corrupting the well intentioned