I’m in the middle of an AC III replay so I’ll try to keep an out for this framing. As for Origins both Phanos and I think one of the Isu messages refer to chaos as being an ideal. And since Origins fell flat on actually establishing the origins of the Creed that’s all we’ve really got to go on from that game.

Unlike Origins and Odyssey, AC3 understood the lore around the philosophical conflict very well, and the Templars all had compelling and thought-provoking arguments. Ironically, it is partly because they spotlighted the Templars' perspective so powerfully while portraying Connor as a naïve young man that it actually marginalized the Assassins' narrative of the eternal war compared to that of the Templars. Connor spends the game uncritically talking about freedom most of the time although it is something I do not begrudge because I appreciate his story arc of discovery and growth in learning the dark side and shortcomings of the Americans. So I think the writers of AC3 did a great job with the philosophical commentary and the disproportionate weight given to the Templars' voice (although with Assassins as the heroes of course) was an unintended side-effect.

Well the choice is obvious the Assassins

They may be "Assassins" but at least they aren't like the Templars who want to take over the world.

The Assassins may not always be the good guys (As I am finding out by playing Rogue and another example is when they supported the communist takeover of Russia) but from what I've read most of the time they are and again they fight to ensure people have free will and the Templars with their insane philosophies are in no way the Good Guys.

Sometimes the Assassins piggyback off of movements to fight the Templars, but those same movements and organizations can become too powerful and just as bad or worse than the order they fought. Some examples are: The Rooks kicking out the Blighters, but becoming uncontested and, due to the aggressive nature of most gangs, Jack was able to assume leadership by giving them something to do. The French Revolution against the nobles that rigged the system in their favour, but allowing Robespierre to direct the radical anger and eventually giving rise to Napoleon's Dictatorship. The Russian Revolution against similar authorities which was even more disastrous than France. And of course, there are examples in modern day that certain mods wouldn't appreciate my criticism of.

I do agree with your examples here even if perhaps not other examples you had in mind. Not every group of allies which worked with or under the Assassins are necessarily good people who share their principles. This is true to reality because many activist groups are united by common causes but have their own substantial differences in other areas that can rupture their cohesion later. We see this again and again throughout history.

Personally, I hate the idea of ever working with petty criminals, crime syndicates, pirates, the Triad/Mafia/Yakuza, etc., which the Assassins (and the Templars) has a tendency to do in the lore. I think there are probably pragmatic arguments about why the Assassins would do this. If the Templars are already controlling the gangs, the argument might be that the Assassins have no choice but to contest them there. But I still find the idea very unsavory, and their corruption by Jack the Ripper is a great example of why this isn't tenable in the long term.

I also think the Assassins' support of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution is in very poor taste. In actual history, there were many factions of socialists in the late 19th to early 20th century—some of whom rightfully opposed the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"—but the Bolsheviks were literally the most extreme ones. They were terrorists who continued to rule through state terrorism upon gaining power. It makes me think that some at Ubisoft writers were a bit too attracted to Marxism...

I only have one correction to make because I'm a bit confused what you meant in regards to the French Revolution. The Assassins had allies across the political spectrum including constitutional monarchists, Girondists, and the Jacobin George Danton. Their main concern in the revolution seemed to be just preventing the excesses of it, which is why they tried to save people from across the spectrum and opposed the Reign of Terror. But you're right that at the end of the day, they seemed to have made a controversial truce with Napoleon Bonaparte, even saving him when he was about to be assassinated by royalists. It's really curious what the full story about this was since they did support the Haitian Revolution at the same time and Arno was evidently disappointed in Napoleon at the time of Dead Kings.

But apparently still fought for him at the battle of Ulm

So @Sol Pacificus you said you don't agree with my examples, but you just made an essay about why you do agree. On the Bolshevik revolution it does seem that Ubisoft hires Marxists as no minority, which is also evident by their modern day political endorsements, but even if the Assassins sought to simply end the current Tsardom in Russia, they still strangely supported Lenin's turbulent reign as head of state. Of course the lore designated Stalin as a Templar since everybody with an inkling of historical knowledge hates him.

@LePhantomChick N I literally said I agree with your examples.

My mistake

Neither are right or wrong. You can’t have Order without Freedom because then everything is bland and boring, but you can’t have Freedom without Order because then everything is anarchy and chaos. There has to be a balance between the two