Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-28601337-20160602221928/@comment-18014300-20180103033810

Arcsalvo wrote: The way Ubisoft writes them, Templars are usually the bad guys because the game needs one. That said, because both sides are only human, whether somebody or some group is good or bad depends on who they are.

Templars can be nice when they're focused on helping people be fed, healthy, prosperous, and content. The best Templars want human beings to be happy and fulfilled, they just want to limit choice and control people to prevent crime and disorder.

Assassins want freedom, but sometimes they can go to far, potentially allowing things like anarchy, crime, and poverty, and even doing very Templar-like things just to keep up with the Templars in the arms race between the two. Universal warrantless surveillance, relying on organized crime for funding and recruiting (let's face it, law abiding average Joes probably don't have the skillset to be good Assassins, whereas lawless rogues like Edward Kenway are more likely to) killing anyone that gets in their way (including innocent guards who're just doing their job) and taking control of or heavily influencing corporations and governments...

Sometimes I feel that Assassins and Templars are so similar in their methods (due to the reality of the logistics of gaining and maintaining money / power / resources) that the differences in their actual ideology are the only real point of contention, and that even those might be less different than either side might think. It may be that the feud may continue more out of habit than anything else. I would have to strongly disagree with you, and, not to be harsh, but I would hazard to say that this is a typical case of moderating a fictional faction's ideology so as to make it more presentable or potentially good if practiced well. Canonically, and without sugarcoating it, world domination is the very core feature of Templar beliefs, not the mere limiting of freedom and choice. You can say that this is the 'mission statement' of the Templars as an organization, so I think to say that the best Templars "only want to limit choice" is an understatement. Not to invoke no true Scotsman, but I think if we define a Templar by adherence to their mission statement, a Templar isn't just an individual whose political philosophy leans more towards authoritarianism, or else any typical conservative politician would be a Templar. Templars have a specific goal: and that is to create a new world order, a world government under their dominion. I suppose a "good" Templar would be one who can actually manage this world order without abusing his or her power and improve the quality of life of the people, but I've read many comments from fans online with the misconception that simply believing in the limiting of freedoms makes a Templar. It is not that simple. Even many Assassins believe in some limits to freedom, and there have also been Templars who are technically liberals who believe in democracy.

And if Haytham is to go by as the archetypal Templar, then Templars are by and far political realists. Political realists are usually so obsessed with security and order that they neglect quality of life, happiness, and welfare of the people, treating them as elements that can be sacrificed for state security. Templars define world peace by security and stability. In contrast, the Assassins are fairly archetypal liberal internationalists, meaning that they believe that civil rights, quality of life, happiness, and social welfare should not be sacrificed for security and stability. Assassins define world peace not by mere security and stability, but fulfillness of individuals and social harmony, so I find your description that the best Templars only want humans to be happy and fulfilled to be quite dubious.

As for the Assassins, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this above before as this is a long thread, and I haven't visited this in at least half a year, but I think that proper Assassin philosophy, when taken to the extreme dark end, doesn't manifest in anarchism but in vindictiveness and lack of constructive peace-building. That is, they are so preoccupied with eliminating enemies of human rights and dictators, that they can neglect to foment a society based on their humanitarian values. Moreover, I think that the Assassins' aversion to power—because yes, my interpretation is that 'mainstream' Assassins have a dogma against cultivating political power—might also be an obstacle to constructive solutions for the world. But I do not think that the dark side of the Assassins is anarchism at all because Assassin norms is fundamentally opposed to extremism. An Assassin extremist who actually practices Assassin principles is more likely to conflate justice with vengeance than be someone who supports anarchy for freedom's sake. Note that I am not talking about Assassins like Achilles's disciples or Pierre Bellec because they are extremists who violated Assassin principles. I'm referring to when actual Assassin principles are actually practiced to an extreme.

It is true that Assassins have recruited and managed organized crime (as have the Templars in equal measure from the looks of it), and Assassin methods sometimes tend to resemble that of the Templars. I disagree with your point in that I think questionable acts committed by the Assassins stem not from anarchism because that is not an extreme product of their philosophy, but vindictiveness (conflating justice with revenge and being willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve it) or moral nihilism.

By the way, citing "taking control over corporations and governments" is far more of a Templar practice than an Assassin practice, especially given Abstergo Industries. I'm wondering if you somehow switched the two factions around.