Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-28601337-20160602221928/@comment-18014300-20181019100953

Mpsahu101 wrote: Templars are not the "bad" guys. Not all of them. Neither are the Assasins. They all work for one goal, Peace. However, using different ways.

The truth is that all of them are fanatics. They all are blind, neither can see the faults in their beliefs nor the meriits in other's ideas. They all are grown men and women however stubborn as a 4 year old child. The problem is that they are not willing to look the other way, which is what they should do exactly to achieve their goals, the goal of peace. All of them fight each other not asking the question, "Why?"

Assassins and Templars have to understand that people demand both freedom and order. People need someone to lead them not control. And also freedom is required, but excess of it is an invitation to chaos.

And if this is not enough, then mate, JUNO is coming, so brothers and sisters, Assassins and Templars, all should unite. They should all JOIN OR DIE. I think that you are committing the classic golden mean fallacy], also known as  where, when given two opposing factions, the assumption is that either two must be extremes simply because they are the two given not because of their actual beliefs. We see this fallacy, for example, in the United States where Americans see the Democratic and Republican Parties as polarized extremes of left-wing and right-wing politics. In reality, the Democratic Party is center-right, corresponding to the Canadian Conservative Party, while the Republican Party is far-right relative to the world's current political factions. This results in American independents who see themselves as centrists placing themselves at what would still be a deep, right-wing position. I hope you can understand this fallacy from this analogy because many have a hard time understanding my explanations of it.

Another example is assuming that two factions always represent values of -10 and +10 and that taking a balanced position between either two would be a value of 0 when, in reality, the two factions could hold values of -10 and -5, only appearing to be polar opposites because of their conflict, resulting in the "moderate" appealing to balance for the sake of it taking a value of -8 on the political spectrum.

In this case, the assumption is that the Templars and Assassin represent extremes of order and balance respectively, but this is the frequent mistake that has been made time and time again by fans and even a few side developers. The Assassins do not advocate for unbridled freedom to the point of shirking discipline and responsibility. Kang of the Chinese Brotherhood was a Confucian who was quite strict with obedience to moral standards and organizational structure.

Have you played Unity where both sides initially attempted exactly as you suggest: reconciliation. Without spoiling you if you have not played the game, the French Brotherhood's council opposed the radicals in the French Revolution, instead, taking a moderate path of aiding both the constitutional monarchists and Girondins. They sought to ensure that the Revolution did not result in open anarchy and to minimize innocent casualties.

Conversely, the Templars in this period, as they often have done, simultaneously stood for both extremes: order and chaos, by intentionally escalating the anarchy so that they could "purify" France and justify their totalitarian vision.

What makes the Assassins non-fanatical is that anti-fanaticism is a core doctrine of the Assassin's Creed, as explained time and time again by Altaïr, Ezio, Arno, and even Edward. The Creed teaches that there is no absolute truth; instead, one must rely on empirical reasoning to reach towards the impossible objectivity as much as one can, while being ever conscious of the fallibility of one's beliefs. The Creed does not teach freedom for freedom's sake, but that one should be wary of being lost in one's convictions.

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgment of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll."

- Arno Dorian

Hence, it is erroneous to even say that the Assassins always support freedom. Unlike Americans, Assassins support free will and freedom of speech, expression, and beliefs not just because freedom is taken as an automatic good but because these are rights which contribute to fulfillment of human welfare and the preservation of human dignity. Freedom for the Assassins is a means to an ends, and that is peace. It is not for them an ends in itself as the Templars so often believe which would just be anarchy; the Assassins are not anarchists.

Finally, it should even be noted that in the lore, the Assassins began to abandon violence after World War II, instead leading non-violent, peaceful movements of change, as explained in The Fall and several reference books such as The Essential Guide and Infographics. They were behind several civil rights movements throughout modern history, and it was partially because they believed that the Templars had tacitly agreed to also minimize violence in their conflict that they fell victim to the Great Purge. Only with the Great Purge did the Assassins return wholly to their former ways of assassinations because their war became "hot" again resulting in their need to retaliate in self-defence.