FANDOM

 
16,107 Pages

  • So, due to Aymar's latest remarks (which you can find here: https://twitter.com/AymarMtl/status/918486330937573376) about the canonicity of the French comics, I propose we make some adjustments to how we approach this kind of context on the wiki.

    What it comes down to is that while the modern day parts of the comics are completely non-canon (obviously), the historical characters definitely exist within canon but the events that happen with them are not necessarily canon. I'm not entirely sure, but I assume it's because the stories... aren't very good.

    What I propose we do, therefore, is create a new template notifying of the respective article's semi-canonicity, but leave the content up. I also propose that we do not refer to the events that take place from the French comics on other articles like the Assassins and Templars pages, to avoid any confusion that might arise.

    Everyone in agreement?

      Loading editor
    • While I don't object to using a template about information from the French comics, I don't think we should remove the information itself. As I stated on my own thread about this topic, Aymar's statement is to vagua and did not directly address whether Ubisoft has changed their official stance on this matter. Also, Aquilus has an entry in the Encyclopedia. I don't have it myself, but it apparently directly talks about the events of the French comics.

        Loading editor
    • The Encyclopedia also says Qulan Gal shot Genghis Khan. The Encyclopedias and the Essential Guide are riddled with errors and not leading authorities on AC lore. Aquilus' entry was added in the first edition of the Encyclopedia and never updated to include content from the third volume. The Encyclopedia also dates from a time where the brand team did not hold this current stance.

      I'm not saying we should remove the information from the corresponding pages for Aquilus, Accipiter, etc. but I do suggest we remove it from pages like Assassins and Templars considering the brand team is distancing itself from these events and the future lore will reflect that.

      I had already emailed Aymar on the matter and his explanation is that the characters in these comics definitely are canon, but the events that transpire in them are not. When their stories are picked up on, they will not necessarily pick up on what the French comics establish.

      Another suggestion is to make a template that we can use between paragraphs to note that the following information is semi-canon and may be subject to future changes, and another similar template to note that the semi-canon information has ended. We can include the basic information about the characters outside of these templates, and the actual events of the comic within these templates.

      Wookieepedia uses such templates. Look here and here.

        Loading editor
    • I have been asking for those templates for a long time. :D I also think we should have ambiguously canon templates for cases where we should be honest that it's ambiguously canon, not non-canon.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote:
      The Encyclopedia also says Qulan Gal shot Genghis Khan. The Encyclopedias and the Essential Guide are riddled with errors and not leading authorities on AC lore. Aquilus' entry was added in the first edition of the Encyclopedia and never updated to include content from the third volume. The Encyclopedia also dates from a time where the brand team did not hold this current stance.

      I'm not saying we should remove the information from the corresponding pages for Aquilus, Accipiter, etc. but I do suggest we remove it from pages like Assassins and Templars considering the brand team is distancing itself from these events and the future lore will reflect that.

      I had already emailed Aymar on the matter and his explanation is that the characters in these comics definitely are canon, but the events that transpire in them are not. When their stories are picked up on, they will not necessarily pick up on what the French comics establish.

      Another suggestion is to make a template that we can use between paragraphs to note that the following information is semi-canon and may be subject to future changes, and another similar template to note that the semi-canon information has ended. We can include the basic information about the characters outside of these templates, and the actual events of the comic within these templates.

      Wookieepedia uses such templates. Look here and here.

      Ah, thank you for the explanation. I was not aware that Aymar had elaborated on his current stance on the matter.

      As for the Encyclopedia and Essential Guide, I agree that the errors within them should be ignored. However, I believe that information which does not directly contradict anything that has currently been established should be retained.

      Case in point, the Essential Guide, from what I've heard, describes Darius and Wei Yu as belonging to the Persian and Chinese Brotherhoods respectively. We already knew this could not really be the case, since the name of their group was established much later.

      The easiest compromise is to just say that they both belonged to pre-Bayek Assassin-esque groups that were retroactively regarded by later Assassins as their predecessors.

        Loading editor
    • The Wikia Editor wrote: Ah, thank you for the explanation. I was not aware that Aymar had elaborated on his current stance on the matter.

      As for the Encyclopedia and Essential Guide, I agree that the errors within them should be ignored. However, I believe that information which does not directly contradict anything that has currently been established should be retained.

      Case in point, the Essential Guide, from what I've heard, describes Darius and Wei Yu as belonging to the Persian and Chinese Brotherhoods respectively. We already knew this could not really be the case, since the name of their group was established much later.

      The easiest compromise is to just say that they both belonged to pre-Bayek Assassin-esque groups that were retroactively regarded by later Assassins as their predecessors.

      Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference books, I can say especially with The Essential Guide that technically it doesn't really contradict much or anything. The names of the Persian, Babylonian, Levantine, and Egyptian Brotherhoods may be the one of the few things, but I think that the contradiction isn't a stark one. It is entirely valid to interpret them as retroactive names especially since we know that "Levantine Brotherhood" certainly is one already, and therefore there is no real contradiction. We know that even though Iltani, Wei Yu, and Darius were not truly Assassins, later Assassins posthumously see them as such.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference books, I can say especially with The Essential Guide that technically it doesn't really contradict much or anything. The names of the Persian, Babylonian, Levantine, and Egyptian Brotherhoods may be the one of the few things, but I think that the contradiction isn't a stark one. It is entirely valid to interpret them as retroactive names especially since we know that "Levantine Brotherhood" certainly is one already, and therefore there is no real contradiction. We know that even though Iltani, Wei Yu, and Darius were not truly Assassins, later Assassins posthumously see them as such.

      To indulge this side-track, while that may certainly be the case I think it best to acknowledge this on Darius' and Iltani's respective articles, since the Persian and Babylonian Brotherhoods do not have any further information and could only cause the confusion that there were Assassins in the official sense before Origins. I propose we delete those articles, and keep the information on the characters' pages, to avoid any confusion in other articles and in categories. In the case of the Chinese Brotherhood it's fine, because the article already exists and we could make note of a precursor group exisiting there.

      To get back on-topic, I take it there is no opposition to doing what I propose regarding the French comics from you two then?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Sima's proposal

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote: Yes, this is exactly what I think. To be honest, as much as we may be annoyed with the lack of professionalism both reference To indulge this side-track, while that may certainly be the case I think it best to acknowledge this on Darius' and Iltani's respective articles, since the Persian and Babylonian Brotherhoods do not have any further information and could only cause the confusion that there were Assassins in the official sense before Origins. I propose we delete those articles, and keep the information on the characters' pages, to avoid any confusion in other articles and in categories. In the case of the Chinese Brotherhood it's fine, because the article already exists and we could make note of a precursor group exisiting there.

      To get back on-topic, I take it there is no opposition to doing what I propose regarding the French comics from you two then?

      I don't agree with deleting the Persian Brotherhood article because Salah Bey is mentioned in Rogue. Although one user did dispute that it's never confirmed he was an Assassin, this user was appealing to ignorance when he said that this proves he wasn't one, and the fact Salah calls his comrades Brothers, conducted an assassination of such a critical figure as Nader Shah, were on a mission to recover such a critical artifact as the Koh-i-Noor, and were in contact with an Assassin such as Achilles makes it more likely that he was an Assassin than not.

      I'm on the fence about deleting the article on the Babylonian Brotherhood just because I think if we're strict with sourcing, "Babylonian Brotherhood" would be the stand-in name for the "Order" that Iltani belonged to (albeit we would be free to remove "of Assassins" because that isn't part of the sourced name) even if it wasn't called that at the time. That is, we know Iltani belonged to an "Order", and the sourced name we have for that is "Babylonian Brotherhood" even if it is most likely retroactively applied by later Assassins. The only trouble for that is potential confusion.

      EDIT: Actually on second thought, I think I disagree with deleting the Babylonian Brotherhood article as well. While it may cause a little confusion, it would go against how sourcing policy should work to delete it for the reason already stated. Non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisoft are supposed to still have articles anyways, albeit with a non-canon header to clarify it. Ambiguously canonical subjects should also have articles, albeit with ambiguously-canon headers, and canonical subjects with non-canonical names are should have headers clarifying the name is non-canonical while the subject is canonical. In this case, the subject is canonical, and the name isn't even outright non-canonical but ambiguously so, and only ambiguous because we suspect the names may have been overridden by the retcon. However, this remains just an assumption. Given that utterly non-canonical subjects licensed by Ubisofted are supposed to have articles and be documented, and this is a less severe than being outright non-canonical, I don't see the logical justification to delete it if we're being honest with ourselves.

        Loading editor
    • I've edited the Persian, Babylonian and Chinese Brotherhood articles to make it clear that Darius, Iltani and Wei Yu belonged to predecessor groups instead of the actual Assassin Brotherhood. I personally hope that these pre-Bayek groups will be more explicitly aknowledged in the future and that even more will be introduced.

      Lore-wise, it allows future writers to explore pre-1st century BCE settings using "Assassin" characters and even gives them more freedom in deciding how these "Assassins" behaved, dressed and operated as well as what they called themselves.

      Relating back to the actual topic of this thread, I support the decision to add a template to the information from the French comics. However, since the information itself has not yet been contradicted within the series, I strongly suggest that we don't seperate it until such a time that it's retconned away, if it ends up being retconned of course.

        Loading editor
    • All fair points that I can compromise with. Then it's settled, we'll make this template and use that henceforth for events detailing the events of the French comics.

      To that extent, I will note that "Liberalis Circulum" will stay removed from the introductions of the Assassins and Hidden Ones articles. Not only would it necessitate usage of the template in our introductions which we will want to avoid, I have been against using it in the introductions from the start because it was never clear to me what exactly it referred to. Considering it was founded by a Roman named Lugos I always assumed it to be more of an inner circle rather than being the name for the entire Brotherhood. Considering it's ambiguous, I think we'll strike two birds with one stone here.

        Loading editor
    • Master Sima Yi wrote:
      All fair points that I can compromise with. Then it's settled, we'll make this template and use that henceforth for events detailing the events of the French comics.

      To that extent, I will note that "Liberalis Circulum" will stay removed from the introductions of the Assassins and Hidden Ones articles. Not only would it necessitate usage of the template in our introductions which we will want to avoid, I have been against using it in the introductions from the start because it was never clear to me what exactly it referred to. Considering it was founded by a Roman named Lugos I always assumed it to be more of an inner circle rather than being the name for the entire Brotherhood. Considering it's ambiguous, I think we'll strike two birds with one stone here.

      Agreed, I personally interpret that "Liberalis Circulum" was the name of the entire Roman Brotherhood at the time. They had members in Gaul, Germania and Iberia, and no distinction was made to suggest that they were some kind of inner circle. Aquilus' father Lucius referred to them as a faction and stated that his family had been a part of it for generations.

      It should also be noted that Lugos was consistently referred to as "one of the founders", obviously indicating that there were others that he founded the group with. Factoring in what we learned in Origins, it's not much of a stretch to suggest that he had been one of Aya's earliest recruits in Rome.

      We're never explicitly told when Lugos died, but we're told that it happened "more than 200 years ago" as of 259. This doesn't necessarily contradict him being a one of the founders of the Roman Brotherhood, since he appeared to be rather old around the time that he died.

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention that "Liberalis Circulum" is grammatically incorrect anyways.

        Loading editor
    • If they're going to make the present day non-canon, and the historical parts now non-canon, what merit is there at all in keeping the characters in the historical parts as some form of canon reference? I doubt Ubisoft are actually going to make it their mission to root out these characters and craft another story around them because right now, they're worth nothing.

      They may as well just make the french comics as a whole non-canon and stop messing about. Even I'm doubtful they're going to carry on calling the new Conspiracies comic canon because of Nikola Tesla being in them, since his inclusion is wholly counterproductive to his motivations in the series prior to this, and I'd much rather Ubisoft not even endorse those comics than announce them and have to go back on it.

        Loading editor
    • Slate Vesper wrote: If they're going to make the present day non-canon, and the historical parts now non-canon, what merit is there at all in keeping the characters in the historical parts as some form of canon reference? I doubt Ubisoft are actually going to make it their mission to root out these characters and craft another story around them because right now, they're worth nothing.

      They may as well just make the french comics as a whole non-canon and stop messing about. Even I'm doubtful they're going to carry on calling the new Conspiracies comic canon because of Nikola Tesla being in them, since his inclusion is wholly counterproductive to his motivations in the series prior to this, and I'd much rather Ubisoft not even endorse those comics than announce them and have to go back on it.

      The issue is that Aquilus is acknowledged as an ancestor of Desmond's in various media. I'm very doubtful they'll ever pick up on these characters too.

      As for Conspiracies, having read it myself I can say it fits into the canon perfectly without any inconsistencies. It even acknowledges the French Revolution as a Templar conspiracy in reference to Unity. Tesla working for the Templars is surely a red herring that'll have further elobaration later on.

        Loading editor
    • The authors had already confirmed that Conspiracies was canon before release. Aymar has also confirmed it last I heard. So it's pretty safe to say that it's not going to be retconned away.

        Loading editor
    • One more thing to add about the Liberalis Circulum. When the name is first mentioned in Issue 3, it's given an annotation that states this:

      An old Latin word that the Assassins applied to those who were part of their Order. 'Ciculum' means circle. 'Liberalis' is a notion which pertains to free, honorable, and liberal men.

      So it appears that we do, in fact, have explicit confirmation of Liberalis Circulum being the name that was applied to the Roman Brotherhood as a whole, rather than being an inner circle.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, almost three years later, i'm now wondering, if the characters do exist in the AC-Universe or not - like mentioned in the 3rd comment of this thread. Because they were not even mentioned in the Essential Guide at any point.

      I didnt found an actual answer of Azaïzia Aymar and he did not reply, when i asked him on Twitter personaly. So i'm trying it here, to get an answer for this question. Do the historical characters of the first two trilogies exist or not? :o



      Thanks for any replies! (And sorry, if my english sucks on some points.)

        Loading editor
    • We technically don’t have any more information on the topic than you. But for our purposes we treat all historical characters as canon but the events surrounding them as possibly not.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+