The Ideology of Peace in the first Assassin's Creed? | Forums

[HercRembrandt]

Writing a Masters on just the ideology thing in AC1? Sounds like a tough subject, considering that there's not that much material there to analyze. If I was in your place, I'd probably try to expand to some comparable, yet contrasting media. But hey, if you can make it work, great.

It's been a while since I played AC1, so I don't really recall all the intricacies of the philosophical arguments. It's worth noting how the talk of preserving the peace got pushed out in favor of "Freedom" slogans after the first game, though. Dunno, maybe there are some observations to be made there. Did the writers find the idea of peace through selective violence too hard to justify, while a nebulous "freedom" is vague enough to base a creed of assassination on? Or is it that the idea of "freedom" started to make more sense once the series moved into less rigidly feudal settings?

I guess that's not very helpful. Good luck on your thesis, in any case.

[JustPlainQuirky]

Are you serious? Bush only gets in because 'assassins were wiped out'? Some author certainly hates a certain president.

[Locopells]

Writing a Masters on just the ideology thing in AC1? Sounds like a tough subject, considering that there's not that much material there to analyze. If I was in your place, I'd probably try to expand to some comparable, yet contrasting media. But hey, if you can make it work, great.

It's been a while since I played AC1, so I don't really recall all the intricacies of the philosophical arguments. It's worth noting how the talk of preserving the peace got pushed out in favor of "Freedom" slogans after the first game, though. Dunno, maybe there are some observations to be made there. Did the writers find the idea of peace through selective violence too hard to justify, while a nebulous "freedom" is vague enough to base a creed of assassination on? Or is it that the idea of "freedom" started to make more sense once the series moved into less rigidly feudal settings?

Haytham does quite a good speech on how the Assassin's original goal of Peace, rather then Freedom, made more sense, also see the posts on the first page for how they deal with the other issues.

Are you serious? Bush only gets in because 'assassins were wiped out'? Some author certainly hates a certain president.

Yeah, it's quite clear from what the Assassin Grand Master says, plus radio broadcasts in the background...

[Aisoreal]

Writing a Masters on just the ideology thing in AC1? Sounds like a tough subject, considering that there's not that much material there to analyze. If I was in your place, I'd probably try to expand to some comparable, yet contrasting media. But hey, if you can make it work, great.


I guess that's not very helpful. Good luck on your thesis, in any case

.

Hi and thanks for joining in! To be honest, with the material I have now just from data collection alone and input I have from you wonderful and insightful people so far, I'm actually getting worried that I may overstep the word limit! But, yes, the initial investigation point stems from AC1, but the analysis will undoubtedly look at other relevant and related materials as well.

you could see him as a symbol for the player: Desmond is basically playing a video game, asking the same questions the real player is probably asking as they progress in the game ("what the heck is going on?") and learning to question his own reality, just like players are encouraged to question the world around them. At one point Desmond and Vidic have a conversation where Vidic tells him that Templars have rewritten history books to make themselves look better. This is a huge revelation about the nature of reality to Desmond. Similarly, a player might ask themselves if there are real-life parties who might be skewing the reality they live in.

Hmmm...that's very interesting, I've never seen his role quite like the way you've put it.

Speaking purely from personal experience, I've never met anyone who felt like their faith was being singled out for mockery in the first game. I do think AC1 has a clear secular message, but it's not after Muslims or Christians specifically.

Hmmm...judging on the game's storyline and how it was enacted in the game by the players and such, do you think AC1 easily offered or sided with one particular message? Like other players have commented, the game seems to invite players to engage and discuss, as well as debate about issues, and whatever is true lies in whatever you believe and defend to be the truth?

Altaïr, just like the player, is still learning and all the propaganda he hears is new, but the more he visits different areas of the same cities, the more he hears the same empty rhetoric everywhere. It's easy to grow cynical of something when you hear it repeated over and over and nothing changes. It plays well to the game's general themes about religion and society

. .

When you think about this in terms of the news on war, violence, and terrorism, everyday, do you think what you say apply as well? That, over time, they become just 'empty rhetoric' and people more or less become accustomed to these things being bombarded to them everyday that they grow, not ignorant, but less responsive and receptive?



Back to the topic at hand,
I think it is safe to say that the game offers plenty of criticisms on many aspects of real-life, like religion, politics, society etc. The game has been able to instigate discussions among players like yourselves, bringing up debates and comparing and contrasting different POVs, but do you think the game has presented solutions to the dilemmas and troubles presented in AC1?

[SixKeys]

When you think about this in terms of the news on war, violence, and terrorism, everyday, do you think what you say apply as well? That, over time, they become just 'empty rhetoric' and people more or less become accustomed to these things being bombarded to them everyday that they grow, not ignorant, but less responsive and receptive?

Good question. I would say yes. The street preachers of back then were basically the televangelists and even news outlets of today. Have you ever seen Monty Python's The Life of Brian? There's a funny scene in which we seew a whole row of street preachers, all trying to get their own message heard. When the clueless protagonist Brian has to pretend to be one of them, the crowd he gathers starts off criticizing his performance ("he's making it up as he goes along!") and comparing him to the other preachers. It reminds me of people watching television and trying to choose the channel to watch. In order to stand out, the new "channel" has to offer them something new and more entertaining than the old ones that they've seen and heard a million times. Almost like people are windowshopping for the message they like the most instead of looking for the ultimate truth.

Back to the topic at hand,
I think it is safe to say that the game offers plenty of criticisms on many aspects of real-life, like religion, politics, society etc. The game has been able to instigate discussions among players like yourselves, bringing up debates and comparing and contrasting different POVs, but do you think the game has presented solutions to the dilemmas and troubles presented in AC1?

Solutions? No. Different viewpoints, yes. The Templars and assassins represent two extremes on the same issue. The Templars kill in the name of order, the assassins in the name of freedom. Both groups' ultimate goal is peace. As others have pointed out before, the fact that both groups kill for peace is ironic, that's why they're extreme. I don't think the game seeks to provide answers, but to make players question. We've had numerous threads on these forums where people have asked which group would you support in real life, and the results are always pretty even. I find that fascinating.

[Farlander1991]

The Templars kill in the name of order, the assassins in the name of freedom. Both groups' ultimate goal is peace.

I wouldn't exactly agree with that - I think both group's ultimate goal is order and peace. While the Templars want to force it with control, but the Assassins want to retain free will to allow it to emerge naturally.

Very often the goal of order is applied only to Templars, and I don't think that's fair to the Assassins and their ideology. After all, Altair himself says in AC1 that the Creed does not command them to be free - but to be wise (though, of course, the nature of the Creed's meaning varies from person to person, but Altair's revelation is somewhat universal I think).

[SixKeys]

I wouldn't exactly agree with that - I think both group's ultimate goal is order and peace. While the Templars want to force it with control, but the Assassins want to retain free will to allow it to emerge naturally.

Very often the goal of order is applied only to Templars, and I don't think that's fair to the Assassins and their ideology. After all, Altair himself says in AC1 that the Creed does not command them to be free - but to be wise (though, of course, the nature of the Creed's meaning varies from person to person, but Altair's revelation is somewhat universal I think).

Depends on what is meant by order. The assassins are not opposed to organisation and government, which implies order. But they do not think order is necessary. They just want people to have the choice to organise if they so choose.

[Aisoreal]

.

In order to stand out, the new "channel" has to offer them something new and more entertaining than the old ones that they've seen and heard a million times. Almost like people are windowshopping for the message they like the most instead of looking for the ultimate truth.

IMO, this is much like the AC franchise when they first started off with the first game. We've had a gazillion war and conflict games that are pretty much set on one POV, but with AC, as you said instead of telling players which side to believe in, the game invites players to question the values, beliefs, actions presented in the game.

We've had numerous threads on these forums where people have asked which group would you support in real life, and the results are always pretty even. I find that fascinating

.

Do you think there ever could be a middle ground on all this?

I wouldn't exactly agree with that - I think both group's ultimate goal is order and peace. While the Templars want to force it with control, but the Assassins want to retain free will to allow it to emerge naturally.

Very often the goal of order is applied only to Templars, and I don't think that's fair to the Assassins and their ideology. After all, Altair himself says in AC1 that the Creed does not command them to be free - but to be wise (though, of course, the nature of the Creed's meaning varies from person to person, but Altair's revelation is somewhat universal I think).

This echoes what someone earlier in this thread posted about the Assassin's creed of "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." With careful, reasonable, and rational deliberation, you can see the good and the truth in everything, as well as the bad. There is not one perfect medium to achieve anything.

Very interesting POVs from everyone so far. Now, I'd like to know if you guys ever feel like you 'own' the game and are 'one' with the character during gameplay. For instance, do you feel that the game allows you freedom to do whatever you want? To bend the rules - to follow the Assassin's tenets, or just to be a bad-*** warrior?

Because there has been research that shows that what certain NPCs say during the game (ie the comments a player gets from the public when Altair does something 'socially unacceptable') can affect how the player navigates his/her character in the game. Like, perhaps this has prevented you from making Altair kill innocents or something like that.

PS: And how weird is it that AC does not feature any children? You'd expect some to be lurking around in the cities. But there are none! Is it because children are the embodiment of innocence and thus should not be included in such bloody and violent context?

[SixKeys]

Do you think there ever could be a middle ground on all this?

Not everything has a middle ground. It's possible one side is simply right and the other is simply wrong. It's up to each individual to decide which side they consider that to be. I believe that the two ideologies are too different at the core for there to be a middle ground.

Very interesting POVs from everyone so far. Now, I'd like to know if you guys ever feel like you 'own' the game and are 'one' with the character during gameplay. For instance, do you feel that the game allows you freedom to do whatever you want? To bend the rules - to follow the Assassin's tenets, or just to be a bad-*** warrior?

Because there has been research that shows that what certain NPCs say during the game (ie the comments a player gets from the public when Altair does something 'socially unacceptable') can affect how the player navigates his/her character in the game. Like, perhaps this has prevented you from making Altair kill innocents or something like that.

The first game mostly allows freedom for both approaches. Being loyal to the creed is encouraged simply by the fact that being stealthy is less dangerous than fighting your way out of a tough situation. There are one or two instances where one approach is forced on you, like the final battle against Robert de Sable.

The NPC reactions definitely affect my gameplay style. Sometimes I will direct Altaïr into a quiet alley before making him climb a building, so as not to attract attention from onlookers. I try to steer my horse carefully without trodding over innocents, lest I invite comments like "I almost got hurt, young man!". I only kill guards who are a direct threat, never innocent NPCs.

PS: And how weird is it that AC does not feature any children? You'd expect some to be lurking around in the cities. But there are none! Is it because children are the embodiment of innocence and thus should not be included in such bloody and violent context?

The majority of violent games shy away from including children. I don't know if there are any actual codes against showing violence towards children in games, but at least most companies do it just to avoid complaints. Because game development is tricky and glitches happen, it's sometimes possible for players to harm children in the game even if that was not the developers' intention. AC3 had child NPCs for the first time in the series and the devs disabled being able to hurt or kill them, but some players still found ways to do that through exploits. In AC4, children were gone again. Coincidence?

[Ureh]

The majority of violent games shy away from including children. I don't know if there are any actual codes against showing violence towards children in games, but at least most companies do it just to avoid complaints. Because game development is tricky and glitches happen, it's sometimes possible for players to harm children in the game even if that was not the developers' intention. AC3 had child NPCs for the first time in the series and the devs disabled being able to hurt or kill them, but some players still found ways to do that through exploits. In AC4, children were gone again. Coincidence?

Also they probably didn't want to put children next to the "dancers" and drunk pirates.