Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-18014300-20170112113427/@comment-18014300-20170119072231

73.70.13.201 wrote: To me your focusing on only certain aspect of him and too much to it. Also Why not? you keep making arguements that sound like you just don't like it not that you can't see him being a Templar. Your also too attach to the Idea that Templars just dictators or authoritarian.

"My objection is that his political and ideological views were  extremely in favor of freedom and democracy"

The Templar were not against Democracy  or "freedom".

Templars are against Free Will. a lack of direction. a invitation to chaos. During Sun time.You can totally make the argument that China needed some direction from the Templar order.

His Three Principles are nationalism (non-ethnic, independence from imperialist domination), modern government/western Democracy, and the people's livelihood. These Do not go against Templar Ideology.

Templars.... believe that order, purpose and direction are key in the construction of a perfect world." Templar are these Three principle above all else. It doesn't matter what ~ism follow or what personal freedom you have. What matter to the Templars is that they be the head of the direction.

Also the Chinese Templar goal in China at that time was to bring stability and unity in China. Him being a Templar also make sense that the PRC also revere him as well. Mao was a student of his and Templar puppet. Hence why the Templar order choose him after Chang betrayed the Templar Order. It also contributes to why the US never really supported Chang later on.

"he was opposing an authoritarian like Yuan Shikai"

There's no conflict of interest here. The Weak Chinese Templar order had to go against powerful warlords like Yuan Shikai. The Templar aren't in charge remember? i wouldn't be surprise that the Templars are the real reason why he died.

Okay, I think you're missing my point. You're still arguing about whether it makes sense or not, or whether it's possible, or whether Sun Yat-Sen could've been a Templar, which is not completely aside from my topic.

I'm not saying that I think Templars can't ever support western democracy or they're necessarily, always, absolutely authoritarian.

And I am always the one reminding people that it is actually incorrect to see it as a conflict between order vs. freedom/chaos, which is the perspective of Templars. Assassins value order, discipline, direction, and purpose too, just as some Templars sincerely believe that they are being altruistic or do have value egalitarianism. I kind of think you yourself might be expressing their dichotomy as one of order vs. free will as well which is totally a misconception, but let us not go into that. I'm getting that impression because you're talking about Templar goals of bringing stability and unity, which aren't necessarily at odds with Assassin goals or methods. The differences between the two in my mind should never be whittled down to order/security/discipline vs. freedom & free will because that doesn't capture the nuances of either factions.

Now, I was about to explain what I meant and why it sounded like I was saying that Sun Yat-Sen couldn't have been a Templar simply because he supports democracy, but that's aside from the point. (Not to mention that you said that Templars oppose free will which in that case, I highly disagree Sun Yat-sen opposed the natural right to free will)

My point isn't whether Sun Yat-Sen could've been a Templar or not. My point isn't that it's impossible for a leader that values democracy or a leader of his specific views to be a Templar.

You're looking at my point from an in-universe perspective, hence why I said, they can wing it this way. They can make him a Templar, and it is doable, but my point is from an out-of-universe perspective, I strongly disagree it's a good choice, not because of who Sun Yat-sen is necessarily but relative to the other Chinese historical characters of that era, it's not ideal.