PDA

View Full Version : Article- Matter Of Perspective: The Assassins



rob.davies2014
04-22-2013, 01:24 PM
A good article about the practicalities of the ideologies of Assassins and Templars.
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/04/22/matter-of-perspective-the-assassins/

I find the writer's interpretation of the Assassin's idea of freedom quite limited.

"If their goal isn’t this kind of anarchy, then maybe the Assassins want a free world as long as that world meets their definition of freedom; a world where everyone is free as long as they don’t pursue the Templar’s ideals. A world where the Assassins become everything they fought against. A world run as the Templars would have wanted."

I don't see a hypocrisy here, society should be given freedom to the point where they don't try and control other people. And that's not to say society cannot be governed, so long as a government is aware of the needs and desires of the governed.
I suppose there are many interpretations of the different philosophies, which makes this franchise'n narrative really enjoyable. Although I thought that Connor's assertion that "Freedom is peace" was naive and stupid. I thought Manuel Palaiologos' statement that "Power begets peace" a lot closer to the mark.

pirate1802
04-22-2013, 02:27 PM
Interesting, I was thinking about it just yesterday. Nothing is true and everything is permitted, but apparently only if you're an Assassin. If you are a commoner then only that is permitted which the Assassins deem suitable. I agree with the article. really great minds like Altair understood and embraced this irony, while lesser minds sought to parrot taught lines without understanding them deeper (I'm looking at you Ezio and Connor!)

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 02:34 PM
"Haytham, one of the main antagonists of Assassin’s Creed III, represented a new direction for the Templars, the next step in the Templar evolution. He wanted to move the group away from focusing on the first civilisation, instead trying to create an ordered world where people were treated with respect and equality."

The problem with this statement is that things actually got worse after the American war of independence. Haytham and most of his comrades may indeed have had better ideals than the Templars before them (at least the Borgias), but somewhere down the line before Abstergo's founding things must have gotten muddied again. In AC2 and ACB we were given evidence that the Templars allowed Hitler to use a PoE for his genocidal goals. In fact, Thomas Edison in one of his his letters says "Lord knows that kind of purge will be good for Europe", obviously referring to the "Jewish problem". So there were Templars who supported WW2 and felt the New World Order required the purging of an entire race. There's just no redemption for such things. If Ubisoft wanted us to feel sympathetic towards Templar goals, maybe they should have thought twice before basically making them responsible for every genocide and needless war in history. In AC1 the assassins and Templars were still two different shades of grey. Both did good and bad things and it was up to the player to ponder which side was right, if any. Starting with the glyph puzzles they clearly made the Templars the bad guys and now with AC3 they want to bring back the greyness and say "ah well, there's two sides to every coin, isn't there?". I'm sorry, but whichever side supports racial purging and mass genocide is simply wrong, period. The Templars cannot be redeemed in my eyes anymore, despite the occasional ideologist like Haytham.

rob.davies2014
04-22-2013, 03:27 PM
I don't think that when AC2 and Brotherhood came out that Ubisoft were thinking that these Borgia would be a Templar slip and that they would return one day to the grey area.
I think they wanted to move the Templar/Assassin conflict in general into a more black and white setup, so there was no distinction between the Renaissance and modern Templars.

To rectify this, they could portray the Templars of the early 20th century as another 'dark patch' for the order and that the 21st century Templars view them with as much disdain as they do the Borgia.

Rugterwyper32
04-22-2013, 03:33 PM
While Assassins and Templars have both had their ups and downs throughout history, I do believe the Assassins, while naive to a degree (the degree changing according to the time) and doing a bunch of questionable choices, haven't reached their point of no-return. As SixKeys mentioned, and we've had Templars (probably highly influential) supporting things such as genocide. Being familiar with the history of Guatemala for obvious reasons, the mention of "1954 liberation of Guatemala" in one of the rifts was the other point where I officially considered Templars on the wrong beside the WW2 events they were behind.

There have been idealistic Templars in the past, yes, but the bad has clearly outnumbered the good. Even in what we know of modern day and how bad it is, if they really even cared about making stuff better for the world they could have, but they focus on taking out the Assassins and reaching control rather than keeping the world safe, because they don't use power as a means to help others and make the world better anymore, in fact, they clearly use the people as a stepping stone to power. We're basically seeing a repeat of the Borgia, just that not as mustache-twirling and actually trying to justify what they do.

AvK KiNgKoBrA
04-22-2013, 04:42 PM
Assassins represent frredom/peace though force. Being able to want something an having the will to take it. All 3 Assassins even Desmond have showed Templar traits an at one point in each one's life they were even referred to by the 'Templars' as being similar to them an that their view on society is one-sided based on teachings an reasons from an old era that were completly legit at the time, but not now.

Templars believe that freedom is an illusion an that if the reigns of order were undone, it would only lead to chaos. AC3 displays this perfectly with the death of.each of Haythams crew, who all explain their morals an reasons.

I say that wit each new generation of Assassins an Templars their views are extremly scattered(ACR/3) to very conformed(AC1/2)

I dont believe the Templars are the 'bad guys' nor do ii believe that the Assassins are the 'good guys'. They both show/value/an act upon different opinions on how to handle the present situation:society

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 05:10 PM
I don't think that when AC2 and Brotherhood came out that Ubisoft were thinking that these Borgia would be a Templar slip and that they would return one day to the grey area.
I think they wanted to move the Templar/Assassin conflict in general into a more black and white setup, so there was no distinction between the Renaissance and modern Templars.

To rectify this, they could portray the Templars of the early 20th century as another 'dark patch' for the order and that the 21st century Templars view them with as much disdain as they do the Borgia.

Problem is, the ACB glyphs were mostly about modern day Templar schemes and those clearly indicated there's still a lot of shady stuff going on that the Templars support. There was something about George W. Bush and the Iraq war and several corrupt judges who I believe were still in power when the game came out. It was very much implied that the modern day Templars are just as corrupt as the ones at the beginning and middle of the 20th century.

Bastiaen
04-22-2013, 06:24 PM
This is one of the great ironies of the creed. Ezio acknowledges this hole. To truly endorse absolute freedom would be to only teach, to liberate the mind, never to kill, but of course, this isn't even real freedom. The problem is, that unless somebody is using drugs, or a POE to control you, you are free, no matter your circumstances, and if you want change, you have to bring it. Freedom isn't something given or granted, it's something we just have, which no one can take away. You may die trying to be free, or you may live, choosing to continue in the oppression around you, but maintaining the freedom of your mind.

I don't think the Assassins want Anarchy though. What they want is a society that supports liberty, where government only interferes where it is truly needed (libertarianism). They kill to prevent others from creating a society in which government or individuals control and force away freedoms, especially freedom of thought.

Rugterwyper32
04-22-2013, 07:11 PM
I think that to get to the core of this, we also need to see how easily both groups can easily forget what they're really fighting for and they can lose sight of their original goal, leading to different ends of the situation. Templars forget that they want to use their control as a way for peace, and in the end start using the people they originally wanted to keep safe and in peace as a way for reaching power and control. They become obsessed with power, and they become willing to go great lengths to keep it.
On the other hand, the Assassins forget they want a society where they can keep freedom of the people and give solutions to the problems, and turn into a reactionary group killing Templars while yelling "FREEDOM!" without giving any options where that freedom wouldn't become anarchy. They oppose the Templars so much that they ignore that some sort of power, some sort of government, would be useful to keep things working, and they take out the Templars without offering any solutions to the problems that they see.

who-can-i-be
04-22-2013, 08:25 PM
I've always seen it as Democracy vs Dictatorship. If the Assassins win, I think they would establish a hierarchy of command, but it would consist of people that are best suited for their roles, and more importantly, voted in by the people. Afterwards, these people will continue to act as per the people's wishes (like how Machiavelli stepped down as Mentor and elected Ezio).
The Templars, on the other hand, would rather elect one of their own, to do what they think is best for the people.

Bastiaen
04-22-2013, 08:31 PM
Also, the article claimed that Ezio helped to set up Suleiman as sultan. No. No. He didn't. He didn't even kill Ahmet. They supported certain politicians who would further the interests of the Assassin's (liberty), but the templars attempted to assert control and/or dictatorship through their chosen leaders.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 08:43 PM
Assassins are Hypocrites, Templars are misguided <---- How I see it

No Assassin managed to win an argument with a Templar ever before.....Altair, Ezio and Connor all looked like Idiots when they argued with Templars and the Templar always has the final words in the argument with the Assassin just either telling them to shut it or standing there bewildered

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 08:47 PM
Assassins are Hypocrites, Templars are misguided <---- How I see it

No Assassin managed to win an argument with a Templar ever before.....Altair, Ezio and Connor all looked like Idiots when they argued with Templars and the Templar always has the final words in the argument with the Assassin just either telling them to shut it or standing there bewildered

Oh c'mon, really? Cause it makes sense to have a long constructive argument with someone that is exerting their last breaths? The assassins need the intel that these templar posses before they die, no time for quarrels of belief.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 08:49 PM
Oh c'mon, really? Cause it makes sense to have a long constructive argument with someone that is exerting their last breaths? The assassins need the intel that these templar posses before they die, no time for quarrels of belief.
Actually, Altair had an argument with Almualim who was still alive, Ezio had an argument with Ahmet who was alive as well....Connor ?? *shrugs*..........Haytham xD

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 09:03 PM
Actually, Altair had an argument with Almualim who was still alive, Ezio had an argument with Ahmet who was alive as well....Connor ?? *shrugs*..........Haytham xD

Connor "handles his sword like a man but his tongue like a child", he doesn't count. Ezio explained the creed more with Sofia. As for Alta´r, I never saw the argument. Even then, an argument doesn't constitute that one of the sides becomes approving of the other. It's an opposition of two opinions, not wrong or right. Both sides can represent their opinion, but at at the end, they are arguing opinions and not facts. What you view as a strong argument may not always echo for someone else. Last thing, they are video games not debates. People want to kill stuff, not have old people argue about their validity of opinion for minutes. Maybe the books have more in depth debates, but I know for sure that assassins make more convincing opinions in the game that are out of the context of a debate.


Disclaimer:
I don't represent the assassins or Templars in any way. Just don't go Templar jerking.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 09:14 PM
Connor "handles his sword like a man but his tongue like a child", he doesn't count. Ezio explained the creed more with Sofia. As for Alta´r, I never saw the argument. Even then, an argument doesn't constitute that one of the sides becomes approving of the other. It's an opposition of two opinions, not wrong or right. Both sides can represent their opinion, but at at the end, they are arguing opinions and not facts. What you view as a strong argument may not always echo for someone else. Last thing, they are video games not debates. People want to kill stuff, not have old people argue about their validity of opinion for minutes. Maybe the books have more in depth debates, but I know for sure that assassins make more convincing opinions in the game that are out of the context of a debate.


Disclaimer:
I don't represent the assassins or Templars in any way. Just don't go Templar jerking.
Woah...Connor doesn't count ? What ?? of course he counts...Altair and Ezio were pretty much "freedom...SHUT UP" as he was...Connor`s naivete was just more apparent...AlMualim PWNED Altair as much as Haytham owned Connor...I`m not saying who`s right and who`s wrong, an argument between these 2 factions would not lead to mutual agreement in the end, what i`m presenting is the fact that the Templars know their ****....so much better....they realize their irony as well, presented facts that NONE of the Assassins managed to counter...they either stand their silent or "I`LL KILL YOU ARARADRATFATFGHGHRGR"

Altair: It isn't right
Almualim: Ah and now Logic has left you

What you do think Altair says after this ?? that`s right..."What`s to be done then" and proclaims that he`ll kill Almualim....PFFFF

Ezio: Liberty can be messy, but it is priceless
Ahmet: of course, and when the lights of Civilization dim. Ezio Auditore can stop atop a mountain and say I stayed true to my "Creed"

Ezio stands there.....silent

Connor: Freedom IS peace
Haytham: Oh no...it`s an invitation to chaos.

What does Connor do ?? "It seems your mouth has tasted sour grapes" Oh sure, Connor yes, that`s VERY convincing..

I admire the Assassins` conviction and strong belief, but isn't that what they`re about too ?? exposing the dangers of blind faith ??

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 09:31 PM
Woah...Connor doesn't count ? What ?? of course he counts...Altair and Ezio were pretty much "freedom...SHUT UP" as he was...Connor`s naivete was just more apparent...AlMualim PWNED Altair as much as Haytham owned Connor...I`m not saying who`s right and who`s wrong, an argument between these 2 factions would not lead to mutual agreement in the end, what i`m presenting is the fact that the Templars know their ****....so much better....they realize their irony as well, presented facts that NONE of the Assassins managed to counter...they either stand their silent or "I`LL KILL YOU ARARADRATFATFGHGHRGR"

Altair: It isn't right
Almualim: Ah and now Logic has left you

What you do think Altair says after this ?? that`s right..."What`s to be done then" and proclaims that he`ll kill Almualim....PFFFF

Ezio: Liberty can be messy, but it is priceless
Ahmet: of course, and when the lights of Civilization dim. Ezio Auditore can stop atop a mountain and say I stayed true to my "Creed"

Ezio stands there.....silent

Connor: Freedom IS peace
Haytham: Oh no...it`s an invitation to chaos.

What does Connor do ?? "It seems your mouth has tasted sour grapes" Oh sure, Connor yes, that`s VERY convincing..

I admire the Assassins` conviction and strong belief, but isn't that what they`re about too ?? exposing the dangers of blind faith ??


I'll let the assassins argue.
Apparently, Alta´r wrote the three ironies:

"Do we bend the rules in service to a greater good? And if we do, what does it say of us?"―Alta´r's Codex, page 4.[src]The three great ironies were observations that described the contradictions between the Creed, and the actions of the Assassins who followed it. They were:The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules.The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.Though seemingly hypocritical, the ironies did not undermine the Assassins' cause. Rather, they demonstrated the way in which they embraced contradiction,*"that one may be two things – opposite in every way – simultaneously."[2]

Ezio Auditore*once spoke of the maxim at length with*Sofia Sartor, who found it rather cynical. However, he told her that the maxim was not a doctrine to be followed, but merely an observation of the world.[4]In detail, he explained that*"To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 09:33 PM
Why the hell doesn't Ubisoft show the three ironies and more the assassin philosophy in the game? Seems as realistic as that of the templars, but Ubi nearly always shows it as inferior, just like you said.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 09:38 PM
Why the hell doesn't Ubisoft show the three ironies and more the assassin philosophy in the game? Seems as realistic as that of the templars, but Ubi nearly always shows it as inferior, just like you said.
The Assassins have to be inferior somewhere, given that they`re always shown as the honorable bunch as opposed to the Templars` ruthlessness...

The scales are pretty balanced between the 2...The Assassins always suck at arguing, but are so much more "good", if you catch my meaning....The templars are better at arguments, but are cruel and ruthless...

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 09:47 PM
Anyway, I'll add a little bit of my mind. Who would want to live a lie? An illusion that this world is in peace, when it actually isn't? What is it about Control over humanity that is so alluring? Is this how people want peace, by the whip? A life that is nothing but a mere scheme by some pretentious condescenders? Have you any guarantee that those you have sought to give control, would never backlash at you? Freedom may bring chaos, but would peace even do us? We will live, we will build and at the end it will all be in vain. Everything will turn to ashes, so why in the world would it matter if you had order in the first place. Freedom is the only value we humans truly posses, so let us practice it freely. Right here lies some of the most meaningless words I have ever wrote, but somehow felt I had to write them.

Sushiglutton
04-22-2013, 09:47 PM
I never thought of the Assassin's views as being so extreme. Given the condition of the civilizations we have so far encountered, striving for more individual freedom was the right direction imo. Is their goal anarchy? I have never seen it that way, but I'm not an AC scholar. I disagree with the Asssassin's means though. Their only political method seems to be violence (they are basically terrorists), which is a questionable way to achieve their noble goals. Ofc in their fictional world the templars exist which changes things a bit.

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 09:48 PM
The Assassins have to be inferior somewhere, given that they`re always shown as the honorable bunch as opposed to the Templars` ruthlessness...

The scales are pretty balanced between the 2...The Assassins always suck at arguing, but are so much more "good", if you catch my meaning....The templars are better at arguments, but are cruel and ruthless...

I get you, but they certainly could have executed it better.

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:01 PM
It's true that sometimes the assassins are left without words because they're at a loss for a good counter-argument. But there are also times when they can see it's simply impossible to convince the other side so they decide to let it slide. Like Alta´r when Al Mualim said "so logic has left you". What else can you say to a person like that?

"No, logic has not left me.
-It has too!
-Nuh-uh!
-Ya-huh!"

At a point when the other party sees you as completely without logic even after you've argued for your points, there's no sense in keeping the argument going. At some point all assassins recognize that the Templars will never see things their way, so they simply stop mincing words and rather take action to stop them before it's too late.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:06 PM
It's true that sometimes the assassins are left without words because they're at a loss for a good counter-argument. But there are also times when they can see it's simply impossible to convince the other side so they decide to let it slide. Like Alta´r when Al Mualim said "so logic has left you". What else can you say to a person like that?

"No, logic has not left me.
-It has too!
-Nuh-uh!
-Ya-huh!"

At a point when the other party sees you as completely without logic even after you've argued for your points, there's no sense in keeping the argument going. At some point all assassins recognize that the Templars will never see things their way, so they simply stop mincing words and rather take action to stop them before it's too late.
Actually, what you say may have made sense if Altair, Ezio and Connor did not take part and continue the argument, had they locked it down from the start, then I would`v understood what you`re saying, but the Assassins continue on with the argument, usually presenting a weak and robotic rhetoric...The way I see it, it`s like..

Templar: Control, because this..
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: No freedom, because this...
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: See above ?
Assassin: I kill you ARAGRGRGRGRGAGRAG

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:07 PM
Actually, what you say may have made sense if Altair, Ezio and Connor did not take part and continue the argument, had they locked it down from the start, then I would`v understood what you`re saying, but the Assassins continue on with the argument, usually presenting a weak and robotic rhetoric...The way I see it, it`s like..

Templar: Control, because this..
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: No freedom, because this...
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: See above ?
Assassin: I kill you ARAGRGRGRGRGAGRAG

Examples? I don't remember any dialogues in the games that went like that. (Even minus the hyperbole.)

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:16 PM
Examples? I don't remember any dialogues in the games that went like that. (Even minus the hyperbole.)

Example 1

Altair: You wont succeed. others will find the strength to stand against you.
Almualim: Ah and this is why so long as men maintain free will, there can be no peace
Altair: I killed the last man who spoke as such
Almualim: Bull words, boy, but just words...
Altair: Then let me go and i`ll put words into action..

Example 2

Altair: What you plan is no less an Illusion. to force men to follow you against their will..
Almualim: is it any less real from the phantoms the Saracens and crusaders follow now ?? Those craven gods, whom retreat from this world that men might slaughter one another in their names ? They live amongst an illusion already...I`m simply giving them another. one that demands less blood
Altair: At least they choose these phantoms.
Almulaim: Oh do they ? Apart from the occasional convert or Heretic ?
Altair: It isn't right
Almualim: Ah and now logic has left you in its place you embrace emotion.
Altair: What`s to be done then ?
Almualim: You will not follow me and I cannot compel you
Altair: and you refuse to give up this evil scheme
Almualim: it seems then we are at an empass
Altair: No, we are at an end

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 11:20 PM
Actually, what you say may have made sense if Altair, Ezio and Connor did not take part and continue the argument, had they locked it down from the start, then I would`v understood what you`re saying, but the Assassins continue on with the argument, usually presenting a weak and robotic rhetoric...The way I see it, it`s like..

Templar: Control, because this..
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: No freedom, because this...
Assassin: Freedom YA
Templar: See above ?
Assassin: I kill you ARAGRGRGRGRGAGRAG

How can you debate with someone that the outcomes of Freedom may not be chaotic? For god's sake, it's the only argument that Templars make and it can easily be countered with a simple "look at Cesare"

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:23 PM
How can you debate with someone that the outcomes of Freedom may not be chaotic? For god's sake, it's the only argument that Templars make and it can easily be countered with a simple "look at Cesare"
The Templars` plan was never put to action for anyone to see and make an example out of. It was never realized except in Masyaf....What did Cesare do ??

TheHumanTowel
04-22-2013, 11:26 PM
Example 1

Altair: You wont succeed. others will find the strength to stand against you.
Almualim: Ah and this is why so long as men maintain free will, there can be no peace
Altair: I killed the last man who spoke as such
Almualim: Bull words, boy, but just words...
Altair: Then let me go and i`ll put words into action..

Example 2

Altair: What you plan is no less an Illusion. to force men to follow you against their will..
Almualim: is it any less real from the phantoms the Saracens and crusaders follow now ?? Those craven gods, whom retreat from this world that men might slaughter one another in their names ? They live amongst an illusion already...I`m simply giving them another. one that demands less blood
Altair: At least they choose these phantoms.
Almulaim: Oh do they ? Apart from the occasional convert or Heretic ?
Altair: It isn't right
Almualim: Ah and now logic has left you in its place you embrace emotion.
Altair: What`s to be done then ?
Almualim: You will not follow me and I cannot compel you
Altair: and you refuse to give up this evil scheme
Almualim: it seems then we are at an empass
Altair: No, we are at an end
Good lord AC1 has such ****ing good dialogue.

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:27 PM
Example 1

Altair: You wont succeed. others will find the strength to stand against you.
Almualim: Ah and this is why so long as men maintain free will, there can be no peace
Altair: I killed the last man who spoke as such
Almualim: Bull words, boy, but just words...
Altair: Then let me go and i`ll put words into action..

Example 2

Altair: What you plan is no less an Illusion. to force men to follow you against their will..
Almualim: is it any less real from the phantoms the Saracens and crusaders follow now ?? Those craven gods, whom retreat from this world that men might slaughter one another in their names ? They live amongst an illusion already...I`m simply giving them another. one that demands less blood
Altair: At least they choose these phantoms.
Almulaim: Oh do they ? Apart from the occasional convert or Heretic ?
Altair: It isn't right
Almualim: Ah and now logic has left you in its place you embrace emotion.
Altair: What`s to be done then ?
Almualim: You will not follow me and I cannot compel you
Altair: and you refuse to give up this evil scheme
Almualim: it seems then we are at an empass
Altair: No, we are at an end

In the first example I do think Alta´r was speaking more out of pure emotion. He was betrayed by his mentor and father figure, a man who he now sees is no different from those he was sent to kill. Alta´r is telling him "what you're doing is evil, someone should stop you" and Al Mualim basically tells him "they won't if I can control them". That's not an argument for his case, he's just trying to justify why he needs the Apple to protect himself from those who would exact revenge.

I don't see anything wrong with example 2. Al Mualim is determined to hold on to his misguided beliefs and will not listen to reason. Instead he claims it is Alta´r who is without logic. He even acknowledges the impossibility of a solution: "you will not follow me and I cannot compel you" to which Alta´r concedes by basically saying "because your plans are evil". It's not a "rahrah I have no compelling argument so I'mma kill you", it's a solid argument. "Your plans are morally unacceptable, therefore I cannot follow you".

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 11:29 PM
The Templars` plan was never put to action for anyone to see and make an example out of. It was never realized except in Masyaf....What did Cesare do ??

Threw Rome into turmoil, marring any sort of development in it and cursing the citizens of Rome to squalor. Also, he had incest with his sister.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:31 PM
In the first example I do think Alta´r was speaking more out of pure emotion. He was betrayed by his mentor and father figure, a man who he now sees is no different from those he was sent to kill. Alta´r is telling him "what you're doing is evil, someone should stop you" and Al Mualim basically tells him "they won't if I can control them". That's not an argument for his case, he's just trying to justify why he needs the Apple to protect himself from those who would exact revenge.

I don't see anything wrong with example 2. Al Mualim is determined to hold on to his misguided beliefs and will not listen to reason. Instead he claims it is Alta´r who is without logic. He even acknowledges the impossibility of a solution: "you will not follow me and I cannot compel you" to which Alta´r concedes by basically saying "because your plans are evil". It's not a "rahrah I have no compelling argument so I'mma kill you", it's a solid argument. "Your plans are morally unacceptable, therefore I cannot follow you".
Because you refuse to look at both sides, you`re automatically labeling the Templars plan as immoral or wrong...because that`s what you`v been taught your entire life...freedom is so valuable bla bla....that`s what everyone has been taught....FREEDOM...you will never see my point as long as you hold on to the extremely B&W belief that the Templars are ALWAYS wrong, because they want control...

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:31 PM
Threw Rome into turmoil, marring any sort of development in it and cursing the citizens of Rome to squalor. Also, he had incest with his sister.

I don't see what the incest has to do with anything.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:32 PM
Threw Rome into turmoil, marring any sort of development in it and cursing the citizens of Rome to squalor. Also, he had incest with his sister.
The Templar who the 21st century Templars themselves (Who are ****heads no less) view his Family`s rule as a dark age for the order ?

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 11:34 PM
In the first example I do think Alta´r was speaking more out of pure emotion. He was betrayed by his mentor and father figure, a man who he now sees is no different from those he was sent to kill. Alta´r is telling him "what you're doing is evil, someone should stop you" and Al Mualim basically tells him "they won't if I can control them". That's not an argument for his case, he's just trying to justify why he needs the Apple to protect himself from those who would exact revenge.

I don't see anything wrong with example 2. Al Mualim is determined to hold on to his misguided beliefs and will not listen to reason. Instead he claims it is Alta´r who is without logic. He even acknowledges the impossibility of a solution: "you will not follow me and I cannot compel you" to which Alta´r concedes by basically saying "because your plans are evil". It's not a "rahrah I have no compelling argument so I'mma kill you", it's a solid argument. "Your plans are morally unacceptable, therefore I cannot follow you".

Then again, who deems what is morally acceptable and what is not? Is it morally acceptable to see this world crumble to its wits because of "freedom"? is it just as bad as shepherding people so that they move in the right path? I just don't think morals play a role in the argument.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:35 PM
Then again, who deems what is morally acceptable and what is not? Is it morally acceptable to see this world crumble to its wits because of "freedom"? is it just as bad as shepherding people so that they move in the right path? I just don't think morals play a role in the argument.
This

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:35 PM
Because you refuse to look at both sides, you`re automatically labeling the Templars plan as immoral or wrong...because that`s what you`v been taught your entire life...freedom is so valuable bla bla....that`s what everyone has been taught....FREEDOM...you will never see my point as long as you hold on to the extremely B&W belief that the Templars are ALWAYS wrong, because they want control...

You're assuming things. I don't see the Templars as purely evil and always wrong merely because they are Templars. There are a few Templars I sympathize with, in particular the one in AC1 who was letting some people starve because there wasn't enough food to go around for everyone (I forgot who it was). There were one or two guys in AC3 (I'm bad with remembering names...) who did what they did because they simply wanted to shorten the war, not because of their loyalty to some utopian New World Order. I sympathize more with these people because they had reasons beyond "control good, freedom bad".

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 11:38 PM
The Templar who the 21st century Templars themselves (Who are ****heads no less) view his Family`s rule as a dark age for the order ?

Similar to how Templar rule can witness dark ages with prosperity following, Assassins can have dark ages with prosperity. Don't imagine that only Templar rule can give birth to utopian eras. Have you not witnessed Masyaf under Alta´r's rule? Both are equally qualified to lead civilisations, it's just a matter of how and some other things that are too complex.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:40 PM
I don't see the Templars as purely evil and always wrong merely because they are Templars.
That`s not what I said...I said you`ll always view Templars as bad and evil, because they want control....for you, it`s ALWAYS Templar Control = bad, even though we never even saw it in action...

Yeah there are Templars who looked beyond Control good, freedom bad...unlike the Assassins...none managed to look beyond freedom good, control bad

ArabianFrost
04-22-2013, 11:42 PM
I don't see what the incest has to do with anything.

Comical relief.

SixKeys
04-22-2013, 11:50 PM
That`s not what I said...I said you`ll always view Templars as bad and evil, because they want control....for you, it`s ALWAYS Templar Control = bad, even though we never even saw it in action...

Yeah there are Templars who looked beyond Control good, freedom bad...unlike the Assassins...none managed to look beyond freedom good, control bad

Again, you're assuming. I don't see every form of control as evil. I don't mind having representatives in the government, for example. The problem with Templar control is that it is of a very particular kind, just like the freedom the assassins strive for is of a particular kind. We HAVE seen Templar control in action, in Masyaf when Al Mualim turned people into mindless zombies ready to follow anyone blindly. We heard about it in one of the e-mails in AC1 with the guy who saw a PoE being used against innocent civilians. Hitler used a PoE and the Templars not only condoned it but encouraged him to use it for racial purging.

Basically, we have precedents that we can point to and say "okay, this is what happened last time when we gave Templars control". It always ended in people being mistreated. So pardon me if I am inclined to be skeptical of the kind of order the Templars promote. Not because I automatically assume they are evil but because they have shown, through their actions, that they are evil.

Assassin_M
04-22-2013, 11:52 PM
Again, you're assuming. I don't see every form of control as evil. I don't mind having representatives in the government, for example. The problem with Templar control is that it is of a very particular kind, just like the freedom the assassins strive for is of a particular kind. We HAVE seen Templar control in action, in Masyaf when Al Mualim turned people into mindless zombies ready to follow anyone blindly. We heard about it in one of the e-mails in AC1 with the guy who saw a PoE being used against innocent civilians. Hitler used a PoE and the Templars not only condoned it but encouraged him to use it for racial purging.

Basically, we have precedents that we can point to and say "okay, this is what happened last time when we gave Templars control". It always ended in people being mistreated. So pardon me if I am inclined to be skeptical of the kind of order the Templars promote. Not because I automatically assume they are evil but because they have shown, through their actions, that they are evil.
I believe we talked about this in that other Assassins and Templars thread and it was pretty lengthy.....

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 12:00 AM
I believe we talked about this in that other Assassins and Templars thread and it was pretty lengthy.....

We did? I don't remember condoning full-on control. Anyway, Templars are only viewed in a positive light because they can't reach their treacherous end goals.

Assassin_M
04-23-2013, 12:04 AM
We did? I don't remember condoning full-on control. Anyway, Templars are only viewed in a positive light because they can't reach their treacherous end goals.
SixKeys and I did..some time ago...it was a pretty long role play discussion and yeah........I was the templar :P

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 12:11 AM
SixKeys and I did..some time ago...it was a pretty long role play discussion and yeah........I was the templar :P

You're always the Templar. They are quite extremists, you know.

Assassin_M
04-23-2013, 12:13 AM
You're always the Templar. They are quite extremists, you know.
I AM an extremist...

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 12:14 AM
I AM an extremist...

The type of extremist that likes to give extremely great amounts of candy?

Assassin_M
04-23-2013, 12:37 AM
The type of extremist that likes to give extremely great amounts of candy?
How did you know ? :O

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 12:50 AM
How did you know ? :O
www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=RtgrA5Q-A3Q

Assassin_M
04-23-2013, 12:51 AM
www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=RtgrA5Q-A3Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=RtgrA5Q-A3Q)
balash fadaye7 a7eeee yabo soso a7eeeeee xD

Yes, just like that :|

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 12:55 AM
balash fadaye7 a7eeee yabo soso a7eeeeee xD

Yes, just like that :|

Law 3ayez te3raf yeb2a tege we ana a2olak fein.

Assassin_M
04-23-2013, 01:00 AM
Law 3ayez te3raf yeb2a tege we ana a2olak fein.
3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeb

on-topic: Yes, I like the Templars

ArabianFrost
04-23-2013, 01:05 AM
3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeb

on-topic: Yes, I like the Templars


I imagine you have a big fat portrait of Mubarak over your desk with templar crosses all around that anti-aging face of his. God bless you, (Mohamed, Mohanad, Mahmoud, Mohsen, Morsy?)

Isensol
04-23-2013, 01:06 AM
Assassins are Hypocrites, Templars are misguided <---- How I see it

No Assassin managed to win an argument with a Templar ever before.....Altair, Ezio and Connor all looked like Idiots when they argued with Templars and the Templar always has the final words in the argument with the Assassin just either telling them to shut it or standing there bewildered

'Well there are ironies with the the Templars too, they desire control and order to create peace but there can't be order and peace because the templars have no rules or laws to govern them. The Templars have no creed and are free to do as they wish. And as long as there is more then one templar you'll have what happened with the templar order and Rashid ad-Din Sinan or "Al Mualim" there would be infighting with the templars who desire control. Another example being with Cesera and Rodrigo.

Assassins strive for peace through freedom but must have laws and rules and creeds to bind them and can never be free.
Templars strive for peace through order but are free to do as they wish and cause chaos and never have order for themselves.

but eh what do I know :p

On a side note I prefer the templars generally over Assassins when it comes to the ideology but they both lack.