Talk:Assassins

No title
I have a great quote of Niccolo Polo's from Oliver Bowden's novel, 'Assassin's Creed: The Secret Crusade.' The quote is from Part One, page 6, paragraph 6, and reads, Assasseen, as you know, represents "guardian" in Arabic - the Assassins are the guardians of the secrets, and the secrets they guard are of knowledge... 77.97.9.135 14:07, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

MentoreOfTheOceanicRite (talk) 05:49, October 31, 2013 (UTC) Can we please fix up grammatical errors?

Partial merge
I propose the merging of the known victims section to be placed on the Assassination targets page.

Yay

 * 1) Yar. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  23:24, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto. nucl3arsnake  (  talk  ) 00:24, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) As nominator. Slate Vesper (talk) 00:28, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Fragment -Animus- 00:30, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --ACsenior (talk) 05:29, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Assuming the Assassination targets article gets padded out so that it actually contains more detail than this section currently does (as opposed to how it is now), I support the move. -- 09:23, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) ^ O'course! -- 09:28, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) ._. 12:25, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) (Arabian411269 (talk) 13:46, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I think it's fair to say that we have reached a consensus. nucl3arsnake (  talk  ) 14:08, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually we leave open a poll for a week to be sure :) In this case, it seems everybody who cares has voted though. 14:12, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

It has been well over a week now, so can we get on with this merger? nucl3arsnake (  talk  ) 23:25, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * The target article is still woefully under-populated with information, so until that is sorted, I would say no. -- 17:38, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

Assassin's Religion
I don't think the Assassin's believe in any kind of religion. Almost all of the game's protagonist's ,like Altair and Ezio, present their belief's throughout the game. To the pages of Altair's codex, The Order is meant to open-minds of people. Although they are spiritual.Lucassassin (talk) 05:53, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I couldn't locate anywhere in the article that specifically refers to the Assassins as religious unless you are referring to the infobox where it denotes their "Religion" as various. If that is indeed what you are referring to, then I would explain that whoever added it likely meant that individual Assassins throughout the ages professed to different religions. I agree, however, that in the infobox, it would be more correct to label the Assassins as irreligious because although individual Assassins did from time to time adopt a religion, the Assassin Order itself is inherently a secular entity. As such, I will change it accordingly now. Thanks for pointing it out. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:12, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm happy to contribute the wiki. 103.14.62.163 11:04, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Members
The page says that Edward Kenway and Adewale had joined the assassins by 1715 for less than traditional purposes. We now know this isnt true.

PS Shouldnt we add the legendary assassins like Darius to the infobox?--188.180.174.234 19:51, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * No. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Victims
The list of victims doesnt have Baltasar de Silva in it.--188.180.174.234 14:30, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of victims who are not on the list. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:11, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Edward Kenways list should be longer. Even though he wasnt really an Assassin before 1720, he was an Assassin in the end, and many of his assassinations served the interests of the Brotherhood.--188.180.174.234 19:08, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because he was not an Assassin, just a murderer. Those deaths served his interests, not the Order's. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:16, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be ONE list of victims? It seems rather odd having seperate lists, especially considering the fact that some of them are very short.--Bovkaffe (talk) 14:43, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

12/13th century 'allies'
"Allies also included various individuals, such as Adha, [18]  Qulan Gal, and even former Templars like Maria Thorpe. [5] [16] Others included Dante Alighieri, Maffeo, Marco and Niccolò Polo, and Domenico Auditore, [5]  the founder of the Auditore Villa."

Most of these are assassins. Qulan Gal, Dante, Maffeo, Marco, Niccolo, Domenico are all assassins. They should be named as such, not as the Brotherhood's allies. 2.220.253.155 22:18, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're reading it incorrectly, though to be fair it's not the clearest bit of grammar. The list of names that includes Dante Alighieri is in a different sentence to those listed as allies, so technically it is correct. That being said, I have tweaked the sentence to make it clearer. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:45, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Known Guilds
I'm thinking we should add a section to this article called known guilds. What do you guys think? -- Raghava  Shah  16:00, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Trivia
You do know that the trivia fact isn't accurate I will check my facts and present why they really are called assassin.Hutchy01 (talk) 16:06, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think if you had any facts to the contrary, you would already present them, rather than dramatically declare the intent and shake fist at us. -- Kainzorus Prime ⚜  Walkie-talkie  16:29, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that anyway ... The assassin are thought by modern scholars to be named for the Arabic word Asasiyun which meant 'those who are faithful' (to the Shi'ite/Nizari) and that name comes from the figure Rashid ad-Din Sinan (who the series referred to as Al Mualim). I hope this was clear and again sorry about my previous lack of fact. Hutchy01 (talk) 18:46, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Era icons
I think there are way too many era icons on this article. Given that the Assassins appear in every entry throughout the entire series, is there really any point in having them? -- 16:30, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Whilst you are correct that the Assassins appear in every single entry, the whole point of the eraicons is to show which media the article subject appears in. Removing them from the article defeats the point of having them in the first place. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:40, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a brilliant idea that nobody but me could possibly think of - make a single universal icon that corresponds to the entire AC series. Unconceivable alternative to keeping n+1 icons on the page, right? -- Kainzorus Prime ⚜  Walkie-talkie  17:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering this is an AC wiki, what would be the point in having a single icon stating that the article subject appears in the AC series? We'd be better off using a method similar to the Fallout Wiki; or even having tiered icons - only the parent icon (e.g. "Colonial era") shows until hovered over, then we see "AC3", "AC4BF", "ACRG". That would take a lot of coding, however. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:17, December 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Not for the purpose of "it appears in the AC series". For the purpose of "it appears in every installment and side media iteration of the series". Get the difference? It's neater to just have one icon signify that it appears throughout the series, than code a glorified tabber just for icons themselves. -- <font color="#7575DB" face="OCR A" size="4">Kainzorus Prime <font color="#7575DB" size="6">⚜  <font color="#4C99A6">Walkie-talkie  18:04, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Sicarii Group older then the Hashashin Possible connection.
I recently came across information that i was studying for a class that Mentioned a group called the Sicarii it is mentioned going back before the formation of Islam. The Sicarii was formed acording to history book in around 30 or 40 CE and lasted well up until 80 or 90 CE. Islam in which the Hashashin is based began in 570 CE. The word Sicarii means "Dagger men" as well them being known as skilled Assassins who would blend in with the crowd and disapear back into them. This got me to thinking if the Assassins in the Assassin's Creed Universe trace there roots back atleast as far as Adam and Eve just like the Templars and they started in through the Romans then could it be possible that before the Assassins were known as the Hashashin they were known as the Sicarii. I would like others opinions on the matter im a huge fan of the franshise and found this highly interesting.

Templar - Romans - Caninites

Assassins - Hashasins - Sicarii

Thoughts?


 * The Story of Masada which was their main base of operations sounds very much like the Masyaf castle as well as the siege of Masyaf from the Templars.  - AndyC89

Pirates
I was wondering if pirates should be added to the related organizations. Or maybe the crew of the jackdaw and the crew of the Experto Crede.Hugues de Payens (talk) 23:49, December 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Pirates were indeed a related organization, in the exact same era-specific sense as the vigilantes of Altair's time (recruitable in the Middle Ages), the thieves of Ezio's time (recruitable in the Renaissance), or the Rooks of the Frye twins' time (recruitable in the Victorian era); i.e. they were a faction whose members could be hired and were recruited by Assassins in a particular era. Seems quite logical to add them as a related organization. klad (talk) 00:18, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Revision
I am about to substitute a few sections with major revisions I have been working on. These revisions are in response to several issues that I brought up in 2013. Most notable is the misinterpretation by many fans that the Assassins' ultimate goal is freedom, and that its conflict with the Templars is little more than freedom vs. order, or that the Assassin maxim of "nothing is true, everything is permitted" meaning is simply to do whatever you want with no moral restraints or discipline on your behavior whatsoever. "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

"To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted. That laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."

- Altaïr ibn-La'Ahad


 * Kidd: "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." This is the world's only certainty.
 * Edward: "Everything is permitted?" I like the sound of that. Thinking what I like, and acting how I please.
 * Kidd: You parrot the words... but you do not understand them.

There are other issues about the article that I mean to address, but for now I will start by making my revision. Initially, I was hesitant to do so, namely because the ideology of the Assassins and Templars are in a way, subject to interpretation. However, I was told previously to feel free to edit it as I wish if I think there are issues to be corrected in the ideology sections. Because of the nature of the ideology sections, there is some risk that I am applying my own personal interpretations. This is by the way, heavily already the case with the "Criticisms" section, which is a major issue I will address later. In any case, I have done my best to shorten my revised description of Assassin philosophy, cutting out any parts I think are "my own" interpretation and only keeping those that were original to characters themselves. Appropriately, I have done my best to be thorough with citations.

I am not entirely finished with the revisions. I took a hiatus from my work, and forgot much of what I wanted to expand upon, especially with the "Liberalism" section, and will likely be adding to it later.

Also: I have no even started Assassin's Creed: Syndicate :( just as a heads-up.

As it is a major revision, I am leaving this message here to introduce it. So anyone that have any questions or wish to discuss it, please ask or do so of course! :) Sol Pacificus (talk) 06:55, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my quote choices perhaps should be shortened, or perhaps better ones could be used. Sol Pacificus (talk) 07:11, January 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, Sol While I think it's great that you want to revise this page (it kinda needs it), Sima had already been working on some kind of revamp for it in one of his sandboxes. Granted, it's been a while I think since he's updated it, but you might want to check in with him anyways. Otherwise, good luck on your revision :) 07:14, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Great so far, however shouldn't it also deal with the corruption and extremist views in it? Same for the Templar page. Cover every use of their ideologies while also explains things like, what separate a Moderate Assassin from and Extremist or Corrupt Assassin? What separate a Moderate Templar from and Extremist Templar? And of course how all use the ideology and the ideology by itself. Like the Assassins is a positive view of humanity while the Templars view is negative, that's standard wether corrupt or not. The core of their ideologies. --ACsenior (talk) 16:00, January 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Great point, I know I had already intended to fit in François Mackandal's example somewhere. He accused all the other Assassins of being too moderate, pretty much went rogue, and instead interpreted that the creed was a call to unrestrained power. One issue though is that honestly, the Assassins' beliefs beyond Altaïr and Ezio aren't always as fleshed out. Ah Tabai and Mary Reed echoed their philosophies, but Connor seemed to have spent much of his own story so focused on liberty and protecting his people that it was never shown at all how much he understood the deeper aspects of Assassin ideology. Achilles Davenport is a weird territory. On one hand, Shay blaming him for the destruction of Lisbon isn't justified. Letters by Mackandal heavily imply that Achilles had never planned to use the Piece of Eden for power and actually even to hide or destroy it before the Templars reached. It's a complicated scenario, since the disaster occurred from sheer ignorance, and I think that we can't say much about Achilles' ideology because not enough was explained about what he believed. However, some of the Assassins' actions in the Rogue if even just Louis-Joseph Gaultier's attitude probably warrants some mention. But in Unity, again too little is given about the Assassin council's beliefs, only that Arno at the very end echoes the words of Altaïr and Ezio. And then I haven't played Syndicate yet >_<. In summary, much of our information from Assassins beliefs come from Altaïr, Ezio, and scattered pieces in other games that echo them, but for Assassins whose actions that deviate from the standard (esp. those in Rogue), it's difficult to understand what exactly was their thinking. The clearest example of Assassin corruption would be François Mackandal, Pierre Bellec, and Louis-Joseph Gaultier. br />


 * But more importantly, I'm not sure where best to fit this information. I'm thinking I might have to expand on the ideology section even more. Should we include a whole section on Assassins whose views are unorthodox, or should we just note at each ideological point where a character acted otherwise? Sol Pacificus (talk) 20:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Mackandal is a great example of both a Fanatic Assassin seeing as we have no evidence of an attempted truce and Extremist Assassin because he intended the poison the Colonists like Achilles and is known for having a brutal brotherhood. Not really an issue seeing as both Altaïr explained what makes Assassins corrupt with his struggle against Abbas as he "corrupted everything we stand for". Abbas method was like Jack The Ripper's, a coup and then oppression once in power. And Ezio is a Fanatic Assassin in Revelations seeing as he said no to an offer of truce by Ahmet who's a Moderate Templar, plus Extremist Assassin since he started a riot and smoked a city with a bang. The best way to look for Corrupt and Extremist Assassinsis by looking at how much of their actions that align. Like Achilles who like Jack used gangs to oppress, like Makandal tried to poison Colonists and more. As said look for similarities and then apply the ideology since Altaïr clearly stated harming innocents is curry tigon and Eseosa called Makandal a disgrace. I could try to write it myself but it would end up more like a summary than an analysis.


 * I'd suggest a corruption and extremist section. What's already there is the ideology used the traditional way. --ACsenior (talk) 11:08, January 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the "Corruption" section at the moment, and I apologize that it's taking longer than I would wish (especially given that it's a short section) due to outside commitments. One concern I have that is slowing my progress is the effort to maintain neutrality. This was an issue that I had with some previous edits on the Assassin and Templar articles. Neutrality can be a touchy subject when dealing with ideology and corruption. I have striven very hard in describing Assassin philosophy to withhold from adding my own extended interpretations, but it's even harder in this section
 * I struggle a little in deciding what to mention and what not to mention. For example, I personally would like to make a mention of Vérendrye's bullying attitude towards Shay, not as a point, but as a side remark. To be exact: "His harassment of Shay aside [...]" I think this adds a little more detail, but I'm not sure if it's necessary or entirely relevant. There are jerks in every group in the world regardless of what their ideology is. I'm not sure if I should mention Vérendrye bombarding the Homestead to kill Shay, risking murdering many Assassin allies because I feel that this is a very forced plot point (and possibly even for gameplay purposes), and it wasn't noted by any other characters, but to me personally, I think it's a significant detail. I'm really wary of adding in "fan interpretations" not "character interpretations" because I know Wikipedia itself is strictly opposed to the former. For example, Wikipedians almost certainly not permit adding in any mention of Ezio causing innocent deaths in Cappadocia with his explosions, because though I think it quite obviously violates Assassin policy, this would still be my own interpretation. I will certainly be adding the Sack of Albany because I think this was meant to be a clear, citable example. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:46, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * I just read, for "misunderstanding" the creed. Well the creed itself says there is no "true" answer and that you should always question. The interpretations of the creed is in line with the creed despite it not being used traditional that's considered the "true" way by the traditional Assassins. Now for this, "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with Templar ideology altogether." Correct for people like Al Mualim who's willing to enslave the world but not Achilles Brotherhood as all their plans revolve around destroying any authority and the way his Brotherhood acts even reflect that. Achilles Brotherhood is Nihilist/Anarchist, they create chaos. And I'd take away the arguing that they are corrupt part as they are corrupt. Plus I'd call the section "Corruption and Extremism"


 * That side remark can work as a point of the lack of respect the corrupt tend shown unlike the traditional Assassins, other than that it's trivial among everything else, his words like following "without question" however are far more important. True there are. Vérendrye bombarding the Homestead to kill Shay is worth mentioning as it shows how far the corrupt Assassins are willing to go and it was mention by Assassins in the mission itself as you run away. Another example is Bellec saying he's willing to burn Paris to find Élise and "save" the brotherhood. So it's an important part, it shows how extreme the corrupt can get. However Vérendrye isn't the only corrupt Colonial Assassin. We'll what gets a pass and what don't, if anything is a problem in can be discussed here. Old Ezio does have a lot of traits related to corrupt Assassins, as an example he refused Ahmet's offer of truce. A Moderate like Connor or Mirabeau would't do that.


 * Corrupt Assassins tend to have a few things in common, power hunger(rear), against unity, are fanatics, slaughter innocents, oppress innocents, following without question. That should be it, I'll update it if I remember anything else.--ACsenior (talk) 12:08, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, your comments are helpful. On the "some would argue corrupt" part, as much as I think we could all agree that they are corrupt, I still worry that at the end of the day, no matter how unanimous the agreement, it is still an opinion, not a fact. Then again, to keep that phrase invites the question "well then who argues that they are corrupt (other than Templars)?" which may pose a problem as well, and to not mention that they are corrupt at all, well that just makes it hard for me to describe them. I suppose I am being unrealistic of the extent of perfect neutrality.


 * By the way, can you elaborate on Ezio's refusal of Ahmet's offer of truce? I totally have no recollection of that whatsoever or when it occurred. Sol Pacificus (talk) 15:34, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, glad to help. Well I could list everything his Brotherhood did and then compare it smaller corrupt Brotherhood and the facts would be there. Unless of course there are people who argue neither the Borgia or Germain is corrupt, same case, it's just that the Assassins have a far more sympathetic view by the fans since we play them most of the time. As for who that argues, fans with colored glasses as they only argue about the accidental earthquake while ignoring everything else his Brotherhood did. The difference is that none defend the Borgia or Germain because none view them with colored glasses.


 * Ahmet says they are grown men looking for a library, they they should be friends instead of enemies. Followed by him saying he will find the library. Ezio responds with ignoring Ahmet's offer of truce and gives him a death threat for looking for the library by saying "Not in this life Ahmet". This happened once Ezio and the Ottoman Assassin had an full scale attack on the Arsenal after the death of Yusuf and the kidnapping of Sofia. --ACsenior (talk) 16:40, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * I think some of the best examples of corruption in Achilles' branch lies in the Assassin Interception missions. The reason is because some of the targets seem like ordinary civilians who indirectly assist the Templars and so are quite arguably innocent or not truly accomplices. I am not certain of any of them though. Information is vague.
 * For example: "Scott Lawson - Contrary to our expectations, this newly-promoted overseer works against the Brotherhood's interests. Take care of him in public. That should shock the population and bring them back in line." In what way was he working against the Broterhood's interests? This could be anything. Overseer means slave owner right? So I suppose he was not freeing the slaves? Of course, I would have to play these missions or watch them to get the most information, and I have not yet. Regardless of whether they're "justified" or not by non-corrupt Assassin standards, such as the target Lewis Johnson who is cited to have killed many Assassins, a few of these sound like mere civilians to me. And the final lines accompanying some of them, like in the example, sounds like blatant terrorism, though the Sack of Albany already was a case. In any case, I will get around to these missions, but if you have the time, feel free to check them out and narrow them down. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:13, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find the dialogue you refer to. I'm assuming it should be found in this mission: "Discovery", set immediately after Ezio discovers Yusuf's corpse.
 * Ahmet: Of course. And when things fall apart, and the lights of civilization dim, Ezio Auditore can stand above the darkness and say proudly, "I stayed true to my Creed." I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. And with the power that is hidden there, I will destroy the superstitions that keep men divided.
 * Ezio: Not in this life, Ahmet.
 * Ahmet: Bring the seals to Galata Tower when you are ready. Do this and Sofia will be spared. My brother's army will be here soon, Ezio. After that, everything changes.

I do not see any instance of a proposed truce at all, only a ransom and an assertion that he will be the one to accomplish his goals. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:39, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * True but hardly the best, the best would be their gang lead by Hope who oppress the Colonies, simply look up anything her gang does. Or the Colonial Assassins attempt at poising the populace and the Colonial Authority with poisonous gasses. The first claim is confirmed by Le Chassure and he said it was an order by Achilles himself. The second claim is by Monroe after having captured and interrogated a gang member who "spoke of an intimidating woman", seeing as Shay never told him about Hope, it has a lot of value. And you have the Native Assassin holding a native village hostage, attacking surrendering soldiers and his attack on Albony. And of course Achilles leading everything, giving missions, ordering them around. So yes, the Assassin Interception missions are just as much part of it, despite some being vague.


 * Conan Brown is a Templar Ally selling them fur, he got targeted by the Assassins but by traditionalist Assassin standards it's okay to kill Templar Allies.


 * Marla Capps has been using political influence and manipulation to undermine the Colonial Assassins war efforts, she has no Templar connection other than being saved by Shay. So despite being a manipulator with influence she seems innocent, a politician fighting corruption. That's President material.


 * Philippe Beaubien was a former supplier of the Assassins. After quitting he's been fishing a lot and the Assassins not wanting him to spill their secrets orders him killed. So he's a former Assassin Ally, so I don't think he can be qualified as innocent as he had worked with them and that makes him part of their war. The Assassins was tying up a loose end, despite him not being the treat they believed as he gave no new intel about them to Shay, who's a Templar. His case is complicated.


 * David Borgen provides support to remote settlements to help them grow. However the only reason they target him is because he also helped the Templars. So he's a Templar Ally and by traditionalist Assassin standards can be killed.


 * Rachel Plourde was an Assassin undercover that had returned, the Assassins are curtain she had become a double-agent(working for who?) and ordered her killed and she knew who Shay was. Seeing as she's an Assassin or rather was one, she can't be qualified as innocent but we know very little.


 * Randall Gordon is a spy(working for who?) inside a French fort and the Assassins ordered him killed. This guy is part of the Seven Years War. So if he's innocent or not depends on if you qualify guards/soldiers innocent.


 * Michael Crawley is another former Assassin but unlike Rachel they tough he was dead and once they found him alive they tried to kill him. Killing traitors is nothing new among the Assassins, corrupt or not but I'd say Micheal went rogue, he didn't join the Templars after all. But seeing as he was an Assassin he can't be qualified as innocent.


 * Maria Gurley is a very charismatic political agitator was gaining too much influence in Albany and they send her several warnings. They say they can't loose more allies so she's been doing a good job against the Colonial Assassins. She says she have gotten dozen of threats and saying that the last woman who stood in their way was burned alive, like a witch. She's an innocent politician who's lucky to still be alive.


 * Franklin Greear is an arms dealer that has been a fraud since the start since he never delivered any weapons but took every payment. By traditionalist Assassin standards it's okay to kill arms dealers but this guy has also been cheating them. So it's nothing wrong here, a typical assassination contracts bad guy.


 * Lewis Johnson is a war veteran that has killed several Assassins and they want to kill him for that. Again okay by traditionalist standards as for example the Caribbean Assassins wanted Edward dead after killing many of their brothers and sisters in Havana. Plus he's a war veteran, a solider, soliders is okay to kill. The Assassins kill more soliders and guards then Templars in their hunt for them, it's standard, corrupt or not.


 * Kelly Snider is a pamphleteer from NY that's been stalking their HQs of our allies and eavesdropping on conversations. An innocent woman who got cough sniffing around.


 * Scott Lawson as said already is an overseer. By his own words, "I just watch over these laborers, trying to keep them safe. I am as fair as I can in deciding whom they hire and when they work." Just some guy hiring people, the reasons for the him being targeted is because some is against the Brotherhood's interest. Thats every mission for ya, do as you please.


 * Ahmet: If you think you are in a position to negotiate, kill me and be done with it! I am sorry it had to come to this. Two men who should be friends, quarreling over the keys to a library. We both strive for the same end, Ezio. Only our methods differ. Do you not see that? Peace. Stability. A world where men live without fear. People desire the truth, yes, but even when they have it, they refuse to look. How do we fight this kind of ignorance?
 * Ezio: Liberty can be messy, Ahmet. But it is priceless.
 * Ahmet: Of course. And when things fall apart, and the lights of civilization dim, Ezio Auditore can stand above the darkness and say proudly, "I stayed true to my Creed." I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. And with the power that is hidden there, I will destroy the superstitions that keep men divided.
 * Ezio: Not in this life, Ahmet.


 * Does't change the point, he ignored it. "Two men who should be friends, quarreling over the keys to a library. We both strive for the same end, Ezio." Ezio could easily said yes there, worked with him from that point and gotten Sofia on a golden plate but don't since he's a fanatic. When Haytham said they had similar aims and was chasing the same guy Connor ask what he propose and Haytham responds with a truce. Ezio didn't or even consider it. --ACsenior (talk) 18:05, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

You've also forgotten Abbas who corrupted the Assassins for decades as he enforced corruption and oppressed Masyaf. All started with a coup to get revenge that developed to power hunger as he wanted the Apple Of Eden. And you have Jack The Ripper who also used a coup to get in power and purged any resisting traditionalist British Assassins sent after him. He used the Rooks to oppress a part of London and was working on reforming the Assassins to his image with his twisted use of the Creed and planned to recruit more people, proven by his offer to Evie. Although some might argue he's an Assassin turncoat but if he is for useing a coup and fighting traditionalist, then so is Abbas who isn't categorized as an Assassin turncoat. --ACsenior (talk) 22:38, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not forgotten Abbas. I have yet listed every example I mean to note although specifically with Abbas I was thinking of saving this for someone else to explain until I have finished reading The Secret Crusade because I am not confident that my knowledge of him is thorough. I did not read the part about Jack the Ripper because I have not played Syndicate and am wary of spoilers.


 * By the way, that quote is not explicit enough in proposing a truce to Ezio. His line suggests that they should (or might've) been friends, but in the context, it can entirely be hypothetical rather than a serious proposal especially since he stops short of explicitly asking for peace in the midst of his monologue. Upon Ezio's response, which is not a threat at all, but only an expression of his perspective, Ahmet's next words only refer to himself: I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. He speaks only of his impending victory, without offering anything, and so Ezio's next remark "Not in this life, Ahmet" is another way of saying "you will not be victorious." I think what points to a lack of serious peace proposal most of all is the fact that Ahmet's next line is to explain the ransom. Note that Sofia was already being held hostage, so even if Ahmet had proposed a truce, without referring to the captive Sofia, I don't see how it's fanatical at all to refuse. Declining an offer of peace is a basic part of diplomacy, where terms have to be weighed. If both parties really are fine settling for peace without any conditions whatsoever, then what was the reason behind their conflict in the first place? Supposing that Ahmet's methods are evil, which is arguable, partially because they weren't very fleshed out, but let's hypothetical say that it is undeniably heinous, would then the very action of refusing a truce be outright immoral? There are nuances. Allying yourself with one that has just killed your friend and kidnapped your lover isn't quite intuitive or immediately reasonable from my perspective. How can you trust him? Or if you do trust him, still do you consider him a good person? And of course all that aside, Ahmet never went ahead and proposed the truce. His words deviate after mentioning how they could have been friends, which makes those lines not an offer of peace, but rather purely rhetorical. Sol Pacificus (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * I was looking forward to citing Kesegowaase's massacre after the Battle of Fort William Henry, his raid on the Oneida, and his assault on Albany as examples. However, I'm hesitating a little because I now remember why I had dismissed them when I first played the game. I had interpreted that Kesegowaase, as much as he was an Assassin, still held allegiance to his own tribe, and that the raid on Oneida, for example, was based on duty or orders from his own tribe rather than the Assassins. And while I personally think that soldiers can be considered innocent, it's possible that Kesegowaase didn't think this. I still think that the attack on Albany definitely applies, even though in that case, I'm also not sure if there were any innocent casualties. By default, I will be mentioning all three since I think they are all noteworthy. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:13, February 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake, just tough I'd mention it since you hadn't written anything about Abbas and true The Secret Crusade does go more in detail about Abbas decades of corruption and the build up to the coup to become Mentor. I know some of it but I havn't gotten the time to read it so I'd rather not write it. Sorry, didn't know. Hopefully I don't spoil anything then.


 * Yeah, proposal might be bad word to use, I should have used hinted or suggested because that quote shows he's open for unity and he even apologized it become the situation it is, finding the fight ridiculous as they could solve it like grown men. It might not be a proposal but he's still serious about what he means. Ad the we he uses in the last question as well and it's even clearer. He didn't want to fight, which is how he allied himself with the Byzantine Templars as well. Because unity is a Templar goal and Moderate Templars like him don't want to fight but talk, even if they farce to act by their counterpart.(Ezio) Now Ezio ignores it and simply preaches liberty. The rest is the goal of both and with Ezio not being open for unity, Ahmet changes the we from the last question to I since it's obvious Ezio isn't as moderate as him. Although him smoking a city, started a riot and destroyed the remaining Byzantines who was defending themselves from the Ottomans and was trying to get their city should have made Ahmet see he's a fanatic. Well Ahmet was serious despite not offering it directly. Yes declining a hinted or suggested offer with a preach of liberty might be diplomacy but as said by Ezio himself, they fight to end the fighting and peace between both orders would allow that. A Moderate wouldn't decline it with a preach of liberty but would have tried to unity the orders. We know why, the Masyaf Keys. As I've said before a Moderate Assassin would, Haytham first hinted/suggested they had the same goals and Connor took the bait instead of preaching freedom, he asked what he'd propose and then Haytham offered the truce. Ezio didn't take the bait. There are more weigh on Ezio side has he smoked a city, started a riot, and killed an Ally(on the assumption that he was Templar, killing people for being a Templar is a fanatical Assassin trait) and was destroying a falling empire that had already lost a city. How can Ahmet trust him? Yet he tried to bait him for a truce.


 * We know that those events was an order from Achilles as well since Kesegowaase says: "Achilles wants you dead" He and Monroe and both targets. Monroe is a Target for simply being a Templar, a trait among fanatics, especially corrupt ones as they heavily oppose unity between both orders since their not open for a truce. The Colonial Assassins where allied with the French and the tribe he held hostage was being forced to be allied with them as well, it is Assassin work, no need to dismiss anything he have done. So mention all those events as planned. And you should mention common traits among the corrupt and goals, their ideology, how they think and act is all important as it ties everything about together. --ACsenior (talk) 15:29, February 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that that particullar interpretation was explicitly supported or verified. It is an interpretation; it an be valid, but we have to be really careful with imposing our own interpretations. It's too much of a stretch. How do we know that he is serious about what he means? Did Ezio really ignore it? His response that "liberty can be messy, but it is priceless," is a fairly neutral expression of one's perspective. Ahmet made a point, Ezio responded with his. Expression of an opposing perspective doesn't necessarily mean fanatical rejection of any possibility of an accord (especially as I said, it wasn't explicitly offered & Sofia was to be ransomed). Honestly, when I first encountered that scene, my interpretation was that Ezio was calmly expressing his position, almost like a person who wanted to share his own personal teaching. That is to say, a more formal way to say "aw come-on man, don't be like, even though freedom can be messy, it's still priceless" rather than "NO! Freedom is absolute!" He was acknowledging Ahmet's position, "that freedom can be messy," and then the next clause explains "even so, it is still worth it." We also must remember that a major plot point in Brotherhood and in Ezio's general development is that he spared Rodrigo Borgia's life, in spite of Rodrigo being the central focus of his vengeance and the Grand Master Temmplar, for so many years. He justified it to Machiavelli that "killing one man won't change everything," which created much tension between them until resolved later in the game. There's too many variable interpretations of that scene.


 * I can analogize it to how for example, in connecting the dots with the prequel, I firmly believe that Altaïr's arrogant attitude in Assassin's Creed stems from disenchantment with the Assassins, especially after he had to kill a Templar spy that was the Assassin second-in-command then leave them because he couldn't trust them to understand (although evidently they did afterwards), and then his lover he meant to leave with was killed. He came back broken, and the bitterness inside expressed itself as arrogance and defiance to the creed at the start of AC1. That's my interpretation, and while the lines connect quite closely, the most I would describe is "Altaïr after the loss of Adha, returned to the Assassins, and the following year was really arrogant" etc. without going into how it was likely because of the bitterness from the previous year, only describing what happened. He was a jerk and disregarded the creed the year after Adha died, but I would stop short of elaborating with my interpretation that it was directly related to the events the year before (and not, say, how he's always been). Similarly, I heavily believe that Shay was irresponsible ("immature") in that he subconsciously directed all blame from himself to the Assassins, in how he blames them repeatedly for the miscommunication and how "he had no choice" but to kill them without thinking about how some of his own mistakes contributed to this turn of events. Even so, I've tried to keep it at "he blamed them for not listening, though he only made one attempt that was a temper tantrum and communication broke down because both sides were incensed" that is, as factual as I can. He really didn't try warn them more than once, and much of it was just burst of accusations, but while I personally judge that a lot, I try to withhold that from my edits. (Although admittedly I think I need to double-check in my draft.) Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:23, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am almost finished with the section. I will try to be done by tonight. I really apologize for the delays. I needed to review Rogue and Assassin's Creed 1. There are actually a number of issues I was uncertain about in my edit, but I maybe Im being too fastidious. I haven't added in Abbas yet because I didn't read The Secret Crusade and wasn't confident in my knowledge of him. If you want, feel free to write it in once I'm done. Jack the Ripper too, although once you do, I will avoid the section entirely until I have finished Syndicate xD.

My main concern is the length of this section. I'm surprised it became this long, and I also fear that since there is a history section, I might even have basically repeated a summary of certain events, especially in regards to Al Mualim. I will be expanding on the other ideology section though probably. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:29, February 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it's all about perspectives. So let's work together on this instead of arguing. As for Shay, he tried to explain it twice, the second time he was calm but eventually they argued again before being attacked. Shay's case is complicated, so much more to consider than simply accusing him of being angry for no reason. But we can review the entire thing once where done with it.


 * Now for the corruption section I can go over the memories of each and leave quotes that explains their ideology that you afterwards can merge with their actions to make it one big article like the for example your Relativism section that go in the traditionalist Assassins use of the Creed. But I think it should be cut it half as we got two kinds of corruption, Totalitarianism(Assassins like Al Mualim that are closer to the Templar ideology) and Anarchism(Assassins like Achilles or Bellec). The article itself is too messy if you get what I mean, sure it mentions corrupt Assassins and a lot of their actions but little of their ideology that align with it. As a small example you have Bellec(who's from the Colonial Brach) that tells Arno to not ask questions. I could go deeper but give some time to collect the quotes so you can clean it better and keep it all under two corruption sections. It's very specific although a lot of them do the same like Makendal and Achilles. The main problem with writing about them is that most corrupt Assassins preach traditionalism as well. So we have scrub the dirt and go after things that isn't traditional wether it's actions or words.


 * I havn't read The Secret Crusade either so I'd recommend the ask the person that have written the most of his page, perhaps that user is qualified or wait until you've finished reading The Secret Crusade. I look at myself more of an assistant now, willing to help from the side but not write, don't think I'm qualified. So I'd rather not. So I'm not writing about Jack either. The length isn't a problem but if you fell it's too similar and might have repeated things from the history section I'd recommend to reword it, something that will be easier once the quotes is collected and can be aligned with their actions to explain and analyze their ideology. Showing what separate the corrupt from the traditionalist. We'll figure it out. --ACsenior (talk) 13:14, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about organizing it as two discrete forms of corruption: totalitarianism and anarchism. The reason is because I'm concerned that there may be nuances to each where such concrete labels may be inadequate. For example, François Mackandal was basically a power-monger. Like the Sith from Star Wars he believed in unrestrained power and free will to do as whatever he personally wishes (like anarchism), and yet probably expected utmost obedience and discipline from his followers. Louis-Joseph certainly argued that an Assassin obeys without question, and yet as we know his branch activities were like terrorism. Moreover, although some of these corrupt Assassins' methods are like terrorism, it doesn't necessarily mean that their political ideology is anarchism per se. Extremist groups from all over the political spectrum engage in terrorism or "purges." I came to the conclusion that the simplest way that does not risk imposing a label that may not be entirely correct is to just organize by people or group. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:09, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

I have moved on to the "Methods" section by the way, though I have yet edited in the Corruptions section. I also seek to expand and refine the previous sections I wrote also. My schedule is generally that I work on this every Saturday. Please let me know if you think progress is too slow. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:09, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

I am considering removing the second paragraph of the section on the Colonial American Branch altogether, the paragraph where you noted that Shay actually attempted to explain twice. By the way, I maintain that factually, he only attempted to explain once, and I can give an analysis of it if you want (I actually already did but I removed it xD), but either way, I fear that that paragraph is far too loaded in my extrapolations, even with the sentences not in dispute. I'm also concerned about length still, but I'm afraid cutting that paragraph out would make the two above and below it transition weirdly. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:19, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Revision (cont.)

 * Hey again, sorry for the late reply. I'll go trough it from the top down all over again and reply to your previous message.


 * 1. "As aforementioned, much of this owed to a basic misunderstanding of the creed in itself, or sheer ignorance." I'd replace misunderstanding with "extremist", while the corrupt views aren't traditional it's still one if many interpretations one could have of it. Rewrite: "As aforementioned, much of this owed to an extremist interpretation of the creed itself, or sheer ignorance." Example: Bellec or Jack.


 * 2. "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with Templar ideology altogether." While true I'd rewrite it to something like this: "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with the corrupt interpretation of the Templar ideology altogether used by key figures like the Borgia and Germain or anarchism, however most corrupt ironically advocate traditionalism." It covers both Assassins similar to the Templars and some of the anarchistic Assassins while explaining what kind of version of the Templar ideology along with the fact that most advocate traditionalism. It's explains how they work and think.


 * 3. Al Mualim, he is never stated to be a Templar despite sharing some of their ideals, although since he didn't want to share power he's closer to the Borgia. He's a Templar Ally that betrayed them at some point before sending Altaïr after the AOE. He was their ally in secret until his betrayal and he betrayed the Assassins in the end of the game. As for Harash, he betrayed the Assassins before Al Mualim, however I'm not sure why he's even there. Sure he betrayed them but he never did anything bad as an Assassin, at least that we know of. I'd remove his part... Unless you want to mention every traitor in the series.


 * 4. Bellec, I'd add the fact that he's originally from the Achilles Colonial Brotherhood and I'll look up some of his quotes that you missed that do cover corruption.

Arno: "What's the mission?" Bellec: "The mission is get your arse in position and don't ask questions, pisspot." Arno: "I live to serve." He wants obedience and control, the fact that he'd be willing to purge the leadership speaks for itself, he like Abbas was planning a coup and was going to enforce corruption once in charge. Him after Arno killed Lafrenière: "The next time you circumvent the Council, I'll rip you a new arsehole!" He's part of the Council so he does have the right to order people around but he's not the Mentor as he wish and Arno acted without talking with the Council. When Arno brings Élise to the Council: "Parlay" my arse. This is a trick to make us lower our guard. I say we kill her and send her head back as a warning." Like the Achilles Brotherhood he's willing to go to extreme just to send a message, like ripping arseholes or send heads. For last: Bellec: "Do it. If you've got an ounce of conviction and you're not just a love-addled milksop, you'll kill me now. Because I won't stop. I will kill her. To save the Brotherhood, I'd see Paris burn." He's willing to destroy a city for just one Templar. It's at the same length of extremism as Makendal and Achilles with their plans to poison cities. As a note he's willing to kill anyone who don't agree with him and like all but Shay from Achilles Brotherhood you can't talk things out. With him you can't solve things peacefully.


 * 5. The Colonial Assassins. This one is really complicated.
 * 5.0 Paragraph 1: "His disenchantment was fostered by a poor understanding of Assassin motivations and goals"(Shay). He wasn't a dedicated Assassin and really laid back person, it's along with doubt, regret and harassment made his choice to take the Manuscript and run away easier. He never planned on joining the Templars.

"the conviction that the Assassins had knowingly sought the devastation of the city in their mad pursuit for power." The reason he tough that was because of the earthquake in Haiti that the Assassins also did by accident, Shay overheard the discussion Achilles and Adéwalé had about Mackandal sending Vendri to a place pointed out by the Box and Manuscript. He says what happened in Lisbon happened in Haiti once he returned. As for the power part, that's because Achilles didn't want to listen to his two warnings.


 * "the heated miscommunication that followed nevertheless exposed some severe defects in the management of this division of Assassins, as well as an element of extremism. Neither side in this dispute proved capable of committing to a calm, civil dialogue on the incident, in spite of perspectivalism being a traditional corollary of the creed. After the initial dramatic quarrel, no further attempt was made by either party to discuss the matter again, as Shay concluded it was futile and that the only way to prevent further earthquakes was to steal the Voynich manuscript from the Assassins altogether. In catching Shay in this act, the Assassins reacted with relentless punitive fury."

It wasn't miscommunication, yes they where shouting but they understood what they where saying. It was disbelief. It starts with Shay being sarcastic asking which city to destroy next, then he connects the dots for them by saying what happened in Haiti also happened in Portugal. Then for the nail in the coffin when he says it is the earthquakes and it's all thanks to the Manuscript. So Shay, despite being traumatized, full of regret and anger was able to lay it out for them. After all that Achilles says it cannot be, followed by Hope saying a person can't start an earthquake. Shay says a person messing around with Precursor tech could, so as an example he mentions the power he and Hope saw the Box had. He said it was "bursting" with that kind of power. Ending with him raising his voice louder and screaming that Achilles made him slaughter innocents. Hope don't like the accusation and as how he dare say that. Liam comes in asking what's going on and demands it to stop. Shay says Achilles sent him in like Mackandal sent his guy. Followed by Achilles attempting to blame Shay for doing something wrong while Shay simply spills it out and says they are shifting the earth itself. So he ask who he is to decide what city to fall next. Achilles orders them to get him out. That's Shay first attempt at explaining it, it's the most heated but also the most detailed explanation he's given to them.


 * After all that Shay is thrown out in the cold while they plan to continue looking for Isu Temples, so his only option -since they didn't believe it- is to take the Manuscript and just run. That was his goal but not joining the Templars, he was was busted by Achilles and he comes in angry while saying he had so much hope for him. Shay uses this moment to warn Achilles again, calmly this this time. He starts my saying he have to do it(they didn't listen after all). Achilles who's as ignorant and as much in denial as before as what Shay is actually doing, he simply ask if he's betraying his brothers and him. Seeing as they didn't listen Shay reply with that someone has to make amends, that someone is him. Achilles puts a question mark on him making amends while going as far as to say Shay has no idea of what he's doing(how ironic). He says the future of the continent and maybe the world depend on the Manuscript. Shay having seen what it leads to say they don't have the right to decide that future. Then Achilles starts screaming that they have the responsibility. Shay nails it again by screaming back that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities. Smoothing it out by saying Achilles mad grab for power ends now. Followed by Achilles saying he won't let him destroy everything they have build and attacks him. Shay escape but is chased to the end of a cliff while surviving several assassination attempts by every member along with the gang the Assassins use. Once at the end Liam says it's enough while having him at gun point, Hope despite their attempts at killing him try to say that he should give the Manuscript back and and that Achilles might... (Interrupted by by Shay) and Shay replies with saying he won't let it happen again and saying one list soul won't matter as he jumps of the cliff with intentions of killing himself while getting shot in the shoulder by Chevalier. There you go, I've covered the first paragraph and based in this you can rewrite it instead of taking it away because as pouted out by you, diplomacy is a key factor separating corrupt Assassins from traditionalist Assassins.


 * 75.1: Paragraph 2:

"Even Shay, himself, in assuming that Assassins sought to obliterate cities, rather than more mild interpretations such as that poor intel was to blame, displayed a single-minded mentality. He presumed, after merely a single failed heated exchange, that the Assassins were utterly beyond persuasion, leading to his sudden defection. He did not seem to take into account how his enraged approach factored into the miscommunication of his attempt to convince the Assassins of the peril of tampering with the sites." The reason he tough that was because he overheard the discussion between Achilles and Adéwalé regarding Mackandal sending Vendri to after a location pouted out in Haiti pointed out by the Box. It's not an assumption he pulled out of his ass. I've dealt with how many attempts he made, how he approached each along with how he explained it. I'd recommend you rewrite that part as well.


 * 6. Old Ezio. What you should add is the riot he started at the market outside the Arsenal, yes he protected them but he also got a lot of innocents killed just to eavesdrop on a discussion in there.

7. Have you played ACC: Russia. Considering the things the Russian Assassins already have done and how much further ACCR pushed it they can't be qualified as traditionalists either. I won't mention examples since it might spoil things for you if you havn't played it. 8. Finished the The Secret Crusade yet? Or the Jack The Ripper DLC? There you go, I've gone trough the entire thing and each point in your reply. --ACsenior (talk) 21:34, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

1) Extremism and misunderstanding the creed is essentially the same thing. Extremism is strictly prohibited by the creed. It's one of the most fundamental precepts of it.

3) I think I mentioned not including him or removing him earlier when I said it may be too long. I wasn't sure if he's the best choice, but he's a prominent example. I think this goes back to #2 as well, where I wasn't necessarily meaning to write "dark-side" "evil" Assassin per se (as that would be taking a position and violating policy), but rather that these Assassins went against Assassin beliefs and codes, which is why earlier I said I was hesitant to title it "Corruption."

4) I'm rather confused as to your point here about Bellec. Did I not already cover all this?

5) "The reason he tough that was because of the earthquake in Haiti that the Assassins also did by accident, Shay overheard the discussion Achilles and Adéwalé had about Mackandal sending Vendri to a place pointed out by the Box and Manuscript. He says what happened in Lisbon happened in Haiti once he returned." Yes, that is a factor to his analysis on how tampering with the sites is what caused the earthquake, and his analysis was correct. This is aside from the point and there's nothing in disagreement in regards to this.

His first attempt to explain it is most detailed explanation, but it wasn't an optimal explanation. I think you might be misunderstanding that I'm saying that Achilles and Hope were not at fault (as many do when I explain that Shay was also at fault). They are. They should've considered it then and there, but at the end of the day, such an argument is typical of many common arguments you can find between teachers and students, bosses and subordinates, and parents and children. And in each of these arguments, I blame those in authority for shutting off their ears more than I blame the minors for being impassioned. But this is all aside from the point.

The point is that he made only 1 attempt. Although I do believe it was a poor attempt, note that I didn't call it a poor attempt, only described it as a "dramatic quarrel" and that it was not a "civil, calm" dialogue. I did not say who was at fault, who was in the right, only described it as what it was: drama, and that neither party in that drama was capable of being calm. Whether or not their inability to be calm in that exchange is excusable, is aside from the point. One may argue that given Achilles' traumatic loss of his wife and his child, the suddenness of Shay bursting in the room, and Shay's trauma from destroying a city, that they were all excusable for not being calm in that argument. One can argue, as you do, that one party is excusable, the others not. But that would be leaning too close to siding with one side over another (violating neutral point-of-view policy), and so I worded it specifically as it was drama, and neither side was capable of calming down in that drama, as that is what happened, period. I did not explain whether they had understandable reasons or not because that can be debated. Sol Pacificus Telepathy 22:12, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

I think in general when a quote can be disputed or it is quite obvious that different interpretations can be had of it, we should simplify the wording such that it becomes more ambiguous as to which interpretation is favored. I'm not sure if this is official Wikipedian or Wookieepedian policy, and I inherited it from them, or it is my personal policy, but that is what I suggest. This is partially why I'm against the inclusion of any interpretation unless it is explicitly undeniable. Obviously, we should always strive as much as possible to be state purely the facts. (e.g. Ezio did set off a firestorm in Derinkuyu) Was Shay being irresponsible and played the blame game throughout the game? Honestly, from my perspective, yes. Would I mention it? Certainly no. However, that he did not try to explain it the second time is factual. The complexity behind the situation is very much why I intend to also write my review of Rogue and the various interpretations that can be had of it soon (hopefully soon). But here is the exact dialogue: Achilles: I had such hopes for you, Shay.

Shay: Achilles. I have to do this.

Achilles: And what is it you're doing exactly? Stealing from your Brothers? Betraying me?

Shay: Someone must make amends.

Achilles: Make amends? You have no idea what you're doing. The future of the whole continent, maybe the whole word, is tied up in that Manuscript.

Shay: Perhaps. But we don't have the right to decide that future.

Achilles: The right? We have the responsibility!

Shay: WE are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities! This... mad grab for power. It ends now.

Achilles: I will not let you destroy everything we have built!

Compare that to this:

"Well, I know both the Assassins and Templars are looking for Pieces of Eden. Powerful weapons, mind-controlling Apples, but this time it's different. We haven't found an apple, but... a tree. These Temples hold the earth together like roots. Disturb them, and Haiti falls or... Lisbon. Or any other place the Manuscript shows."

His second confrontation with Achilles was an argument from the start, filled entirely with words that can be interpreted by either side in multiple ways, hence the miscommunication, particularly when it went over to "responsibility." Shay's contention that the Assassins are recklessly destroying cities because they will not listen is the reason why this second confrontation even happened, because he has already made up his mind that they are beyond persuasion, and he has to steal the manuscript. Their responses to one another are vague, set-up for miscommunication, like heated exchanges between my friends and I back in elementary school. In those days, I had plenty of experience of how words such as these leads to massive miscommunication.

Now, I can go into variant interpretations of this exchange (and I accidentally did before deleting it :P), but interpretation is inconsequential. The point being that nothing that Shay said in the second confrontation explicitly explains his analysis of the nature of the sites and the danger of tampering with them. He only mentions that he has to steal the manuscript. He says someone has to make amends, but he does not give Achilles an explanation of why he believes that, what he means by that, what he intends, why he felt that the Assassins are responsible for the Lisbon earthquake, etc. He argues that we "don't have the right to decide that future" without understanding nor questioning Achilles' intentions for searching for the artifacts, when "responsibility to decide that future" can in general even just mean "saving the world," which heck, Assassins, Templars, Shay, everyone believes, hence the miscommunication. He affirms that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities, which is true (unintentionally), but there still isn't any technical explanation regarding the site or an attempt to convince Achilles the logic behind his conclusion that they were more responsible than it being just a mere accident or coincidence. You may argue that Achilles should have asked, and he should have tried to discuss it as well. It was on both of them to do so, but the point here is that on Shay's end, there was never the kind of explanation he gave to the Templars. He ends with "This...mad grab for power," another accusation and assumptions of power-mongering. Therefore, he only gave one explanation during his first tantrum, and even had he given a second, I still do not believe it is enough to play the blame game, but again my interpretation is beside the point. Factually, his words did not express a technical explanation in this second encounter the like he gave to the Templars. Sol Pacificus Telepathy 22:16, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

On how it was a miscommunication. In the first heated exchange when he bursts in the room, while Shay did mention his belief that tampering with the sites caused the earthquake, and Hope expresses her disbelief, I think in this case, we have to remember that miscommunication can go beyond just mere comprehension of each other's words. Miscommunication I think can also describe an inability to negotiate meaningfully and failure to weigh in each other's words even in spite of comprehending them. Their tempers contributed to that, but the Assassins failed to weigh in Shay's words, and Shay, as revealed in the next argument where he accuses them of intentionally destroying cities for power, fails to weigh in that the Assassins were just ignorant and in disbelief.

The second is more clearly miscommunication. We do not know Achilles' real intentions in the game as they were never explained. But let's hypothetically pretend that Achilles' motives were in line with the motives of Connor and Ezio.

Achilles: I had such hopes for you, Shay.

Shay: Achilles. I have to do this.

Achilles: And what is it you're doing exactly? Stealing from your Brothers? Betraying me?
 * Shay believes that he has to steal the manuscript to ensure the Assassins never destroy a city again because he feels that they are beyond persuasion.

Shay: Someone must make amends.
 * Achilles failed to understand Shay's intentions. He might possibly even think that Shay is stealing it for the Templars, which is just as presumptuous as Shay's belief that the Assassins are after power. Achilles is too focused on the act, rather than considering the reasons behind it or trying to negotiate.

Achilles: Make amends? You have no idea what you're doing. The future of the whole continent, maybe the whole word, is tied up in that Manuscript.
 * Shay means he has to ensure that no more cities are endangered, as a way to redeem themselves for the tragedy.

Shay: Perhaps. But we don't have the right to decide that future.
 * Achilles, if we go by Connor and Ezio's motives and beliefs, means that the entire world can be endangered if the manuscript falls into the wrong hands. He does not believe that visiting the sites causes earthquakes (even though he should that is aside from the point, the point is that he doesn't). Because he does not, from his perspective, he is doing his duty to humanity and the Assassins by following by the policy that Ezio and Connor and Anko and Edward all did: to try to prevent the sites from being abused, but this from his perspective, would necessitate going to the sites to seal or to investigate or retrieve the artifact and hide it elsewhere or else to destroy. We do not know that this is what Achilles' intentions were, but it was the intentions of the Assassins for many generations. The point is that this is a probable perspective of Achilles and his words can mean exactly just that.
 * Shay, however, interprets that Achilles wants to retrieve the artifacts to acquire the power to control the world. He interprets Achilles' words as an attempt to justify this by explaining that if the Assassins are in that position, they can help guide the world to a better tomorrow.

Achilles: The right? We have the responsibility!
 * Hence, Shay's response that "we don't have the right to decide that future." He believes that even if our intentions is to better the world, we don't have the right to dictate the lives and future of the world (that is, control the will of all).
 * Achilles thinks that Shay means that "we don't have the right to [fight the Templars' attempt to abuse the Pieces of Eden and control the world].

Shay: WE are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities! This... mad grab for power. It ends now.
 * So, Achilles replies that "we have the responsibility!" He means that each human being has a responsibility beyond themselves, for humanity at large, to not be a bystander, and save it. He therefore means that we have the responsibility to, again, fight against the Templars' attempt at world domination, by going to these sites, retrieving the artifacts to hide or destroy before the Templar reaches them.
 * The idea that we are responsible for society and humanity, not just ourselves is also a Templar belief. This belief isn't what makes Assassin and Templars. This belief is shared by most activists. When we protest against human rights violations or for awareness of environmental issues, we are exercising this belief. It merely describes altruism. But here, in this context, in the context of Shay's presumption that Achilles wants to use the Pieces of Eden to acquire the power to use Assassins to control the world, he thinks that Achilles means what the Templars' traditionally mean: that we have the "responsibility" to control the world for the "betterment of humanity" even though Achilles' words here can refer to anything, any method to achieve the idea that we have the responsibility to help more than just ourselves.

Achilles: I will not let you destroy everything we have built!
 * As a result, Shay lashes back that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents. He believes that the Assassins' reckless pursuit of the artifacts led to this catastrophe. He believes that it is the Assassins' intentions that led to it, not that the particular errors in the mission is what led to it. This isn't too bad of an analysis, but at the end of the day, his interpretation of the Assassins' motives are probably misplaced, if we go by the motives of other Assassins we know of. He accuses them of a mad grab for power because this is his conclusion of the Assassins: they want to grab the Pieces of Eden to obtain the power to dominate the world and guide it in their vision (ironically the Templars' traditional methods).


 * Achilles' at this point just breaks, exhausted by the exchange, and attacks Shay. He does not continue the argument further, he only accuses Shay of destroying everything the Assassins have built. This is not a corrupt line at all. Anyone can say this to anyone that threatens to dismantle a group's progress. (A Wikipedian could say this to a vandal, lol though vandalism would never be so out of control to warrant it).
 * Shay just thinks that this is line with Achilles wanting to preserve the Assassins' power.
 * I do want to point out that the real OOU reason behind this is sloppy writing. In all previous games (except II and Brotherhood maybe), Templar targets are given dying words in their own defense, to grey the otherwise black-and-white games, to balance out our playing the Assassins as heroes. In Rogue the developers were so focused on trying to make it "grey-and-gray" that they instead switched the labels around to make it white-and-black, then the Assassin targets do not have any dying words in their defense, rather saying trite taunts like "you are a monster! "soo do you still think that the Templars are right?" "you will fail. Achilles will see you dead. Monro is already dead..." often words that completely ignore what Shay just said, that does not even flow in a natural conversation that well.

The Assassins' motives are never explained, but none of what Achilles says contradicts the scenario where the Assassins actually meant to pursue the artifacts to destroy or hide. Shay misplaces the very action of visiting the sites as the crime, rather than the ignorance that leads to tampering with the sites (these 2 conclusions can blur, and it's possible that Shay did wisen up to the latter later on by the time he's hunting them). The very action of sending an agent to the sites is not in itself a wrongdoing. If it were, no real-life archaeologist should send a worker to visit an ancient tomb or site lest that worker accidentally triggers an earthquake. What was wrong is that the Assassins failed to wisen up to the nature of these sites, but it was miscommunication (and stupidity) that led to this. It usually takes two to miscommunicate, not always, but usually. Achilles and Shay were speaking about two different things the entire time, if we presume that Achilles' motives were the same as other Assassins we know of in past games. They incorrectly assumed that each other understood their position.

'''Actually I'm not quite sure what specific issues you were pointing at, and what you thought needed revision, and I may have misunderstood. From what you want revised, it sounds identical to what I've already written, with the exception that I called it a miscommunication and said that Shay only made one attempt. I tried to word my writing very precisely so as to be as descriptive and objective as possible without actually endorsing a particular position. As a result, I had actually all along been thinking of removing the second paragraph or half of it. Although, of course we favor revision, I just don't think that can be revised. It is an extrapolation, an extended analysis, either way. It is by virtue that it is an extended analysis that I fear that it is too subjective in nature. I'm really not sure what you meant needs to be revised in that first Colonial Assassins paragraph, and the Bellec one. Sol Pacificus''' Telepathy 23:27, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Assassin Religion (revisited): Atheism?
If you refer to above, I had changed the Assassin religion to irreligious because they are a secular entity, but it has long since reverted back to "various" (ironically by the same user above that first brought up the issue). I don't think this is necessarily correct as the Assassins are a secular entity, that its members at times professed to various faiths does not describe the organization's religion as a whole. It is like how Christianity is by far the dominant religion of the United States, but it has no official religion.

However, two quotes have since made me wonder whether the Assassins were decidedly atheistic. "To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted. That laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."

- Altaïr ibn-La'Ahad

"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

What do you guys think? They seem to suggest that the Assassins explicitly reject the notion of divinity or the existence of a deity altogether, rather than just being agnostic. I'm actually quite hesitant to pronounce them as atheists outright, especially since if I remember correctly, Luis de Santángel was Jewish. Given the skepticism fundamental to their creed, they are almost certainly agnostic. Agnosticism is compatible with and, so for the timebeing, I will change it to agnosticism. Sol Pacificus Telepathy 00:15, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Perspectivism vs. Perspectivalism?
Throughout the edited page, the text mentions something called "perspectivalism". Does it mean to say perspectivism? Or am I just missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism  Aclarke9913 (talk) 02:20, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting it! :) It was my bad, for some reason my mind kept forgetting whether it was "perspectivism" or "perspectivalism", and every time I double-checked, it seemed as though I was getting different results even though the only explanation for that would be the clumsiness of my mind. Sol Pacificus Telepathy 03:52, September 21, 2016 (UTC)