Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-28601337-20160602221928/@comment-2112031-20170727210641

Callum Konstantin wrote: Sol Pacificus wrote:

Callum Konstantin wrote:
 * "It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm."
 * ―Benjamin Church, 1778


 * Though this guy Sebastian Monroe has the right idea. Monroe values free will, he doesn't believe the Assassins share that belief, considering that their members swear loyalty and absolute obedience to the Brotherhood.

The line spoken by Benjamin Church is ironically a key idea of the Assassin's Creed itself and echoes their core philosophy. Ironically, Connor did not seem to have caught this given the fact he was taught by a Mentor who notoriously did not understand the Assassins' ideals as well as he should have.

Assassins are taught to think for themselves and to always be wary of the danger of blind faith and loyalty, and moreover, to strive above superficial labels and black-and-white modes of thinking. Absolute obedience is the very thing that is antithetical to their organization, repudiated in particular by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad and Ezio Auditore da Firenze, though there are certainly cases of corrupt Assassins like Louis-Joseph Gaultier, Chevalier de la Vérendrye and Al Mualim failing to understand this.

In fact, the Assassins' main disagreement with the Templars is that while they advocate perspectivism and that no one is absolutely right about everything, the Templars assert their way is the irrevocable truth. You forget Arno's free-thinking while it slowly freed France from warfare got him exiled from the Brotherhood.

Just like Sebastian Monroe, i agree that free will is precious, but neither the Assassins nor the Templars are the good guys nor the bad guys. The story is set in such a way, Ubisoft could've made the Templars the protagonists instead mate.

1. Perhaps in another time, Altair would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights for peace and free will instead, against the Assassins who seek to enslave humanity.

2. Perhaps in another time, Ezio would've been written as a Templar Knight who fights Rodrigo, the Assassin mentor who seeks to becmome the absolute ruler of Italia.

3. Perhaps in another time, Jacob and Evie Frye would've been as Templar Knights who save London from the Mentor and Antagonist, Crawford Starrick.

4. Perhaps in another time, Edward Kenway would've been written to become a Templar Knight sho kills the Assassin mentor Torres.

See mate, its just how they are written. The organizations don't really matter, merely the ideology. The hypothetical examples you provided don't really work though. The Templars don't fight for free will and the Assassins don't wish to enslave humanity, they want the exact opposite in fact.

That's not really an example of switched perspectives, it's simply a case of "If they were different, then they'd be different". Well, yeah, I agree.

Arno's exile is, in my opinion, a good indicator of how the Parisian Brotherhood differed from other contemporary Brotherhoods. The Colonial Brotherhood would have probably far more approving, or at least less harsh, of Arno's actions. It should be noted that Arno was exiled primarily because he did not consult the Council before taking action, killing target without their permission, as well as the fact that they felt that he was primarily driven by revenge. The Parisian Brotherhood was far more controlling and reactionary, at least during the time of the French Revolution.

Anyway, the ideology of the Assassins emphasizes personal responsibility for one's actions while discouraging their members from believing in absolutes. The Templars, on the other, are thoroughly convinced that their beliefs and goals are absolutely correct, and many of them are willing to sacrifice innocents in order to achieve said goals.