FANDOM

 
16,501 Pages

  • I think it is important for us to have a thorough discussion regarding this because I have noticed inconsistent application of the names words proto-Assassin and proto-Templar ever since the release of Origins. This issue is especially relevant in this period before the release of Valhalla, and perhaps even after it has been released. My proposal is that Hidden Ones and the Order of the Ancients be referred to as Assassins and Templars respectively, not proto-Assassins and proto-Templars.

    I understand that a lot of fans assume that the prefix proto- should simply refer to any organization before the names Assassin and Templar came into being, but I believe that this is incorrect. Proto-, from the way I have seen it used in other contexts, does not merely mean "before the name", it means before the group's very existence. Two organizations bearing two different names but having clear continuity with one another can still be the exact same organization.

    Where do we draw the line?

    Of course, we have to recognize that the beginning of an organization can be highly subjective. Take, for instance, the founding of a state. There are people who argue that a present-day country wasn't founded until its current constitution or form of government. By this reasoning, the current France was not founded until 1958, when the French Fifth Republic was established. Such a strict definition would be unacceptable to most people (as it should be) because it's inconvenient and any French person would find it perplexing to think their country didn't exist before 1958 even if it wasn't the same government. Others reel the date further back to the founding of the Kingdom of France. Wikipedia treats this as occurring with the crowning of Hugh Capet in 987, thereby establishing the Capetian dynasty. Still, people can debate that France already came into being with the Treaty of Verdun (843) that partitioned it from the division of the Carolingian Empire. This was when the countries that would become France and Germany first became distinct. But then why can't we say that France and Germany were founded together as the Carolingian Empire in 800 or as Francia, the Kingdom of the Franks, in 481?

    I felt that this example was absolutely necessary to demonstrate that I understand how arbitrary the founding of a state or political organization can be. I also wish to make it very clear how arbitrary this truly is, and so it comes down to this question: where do we draw the line?

    In-universe & mdern day Assassins' line

    This question I believe can also be a way to reconcile the lore conflicts regarding when the Assassins and Templars were founded. Rather than it being a hard retcon, we can assume that modern day Assassins see their conflict as extending all the way back to Cain and Abel. That is where they draw the line: Templars began with the Cainists and Assassins began with either Abel or Adam and Eve. For this reason, I don't think that we need to treat the designation of Darius, Iltani, Wei Yu, etc. as Assassins prior to Origins as non-canonical. It's not a hard retcon, and unless Ubisoft explicitly tells us it is, it goes against sourcing policy to assume that it is a hard retcon. These forebearers themselves might not have identified themselves as Assassins, but apparently later Assassins retrospectively saw them as such. My proposal, however, is not to start calling these figures Assassins again. It is more convenient and factual to call them proto-Assassins, but we should also be mindful that it would not be entirely invalid to treat them as Assassins retrospectively.
    (For example, the Babylonian Brotherhood, a canonically verified name, should not have been renamed as Iltani's Order, a conjectural name of our own invention, simply because of our assumptions based on implied retcon. Sourcing policy dictates that the canonical name, even if inaccurate, overrides the conjectural name, and it can be explained as the way the Assassins retrospectively calling it as such.)

    Where we might draw the line

    Back on topic, we can choose to draw the line at the two groups' reorganization into public forms in the Middle Ages, the Assassin state and the Crusading faction the Knights Templar. So all Assassins and Templars before them are "proto-". I disagree with this because I think the prefix proto- goes beyond a name change; it means before the group existed. But like with my France example, this also isn't necessarily wrong because it is all subjective. Maybe these reorganizations are significant enough that they basically became brand new organizations.

    Ubisoft's line

    Ultimately, it is not on us to decide where we draw the line but on Ubisoft. So where does Ubisoft draw the line? As far as I know, Ubisoft has never called Assassins between the founding of the Hidden Ones under Aya & Bayek and the reorganization under Hassan-i Sabbah "proto-Assassins". This includes the Scandinavian Assassins in Last Descendants. I have asked about this on the talk page of "Thorvald Hjaltason", and Maxattac told me that "proto-Assassin" and "proto-Templars" do not appear in the book (but neither do "Assassin" and "Templar" by the sound of it). So are the Hidden Ones Assassins?

    I think the answer to this question is actually so simple. Ubisoft heavily marketed Origins as telling the story of the origins of the Assassins. This means that they have drawn the line there. As fans, we had made such a big deal about how this retcon dramatically reduced the Assassin–Templar conflict from time immemorial to just two thousand years. We were dismayed and confused that suddenly the Assassins were only founded in 47 BCE. When this retcon had settled, however, we started applying the proto- prefix to any Assassin or Templar before the High Middle Ages. By doing this carelessly, we have ironically scaled back the founding of the Assassins even further, all the way to the 11th century. Our use of the proto- prefix for Hidden Ones is incorrect because if the Hidden Ones are proto-Assassins, then this directly contradicts the very premise of Origins that Bayek founded the Assassins. I think by sourcing policy, the Hidden Ones are Assassins.

    The danger

    There's one other reason why throwing around the term proto-Assassin can be problematic. Long-time wiki editors understand the influence that our wiki can have on lore and canon. The Essential Guide has at times copied from our wiki (without citing our work). While there may be some among you who see this influence enthusiastically, it means that we have to be especially safe with our statements on lore. Our role as wiki editors is to document, not to determine canon unless we have no other choice but to favor one interpretation over another in the process of documentation. If we start throwing around the label "proto-Assassin" carelessly, we really could end up popularizing the idea the Assassins were not founded until the 11th century in contradiction to Origins, creating a double retcon. By the principle of safeness, I highly recommend using "Assassin" when in doubt. "Proto-Assassin" is inherently a firmer statement on the status of the group because it is more specific whereas "Assassin" has been used vaguely and retrospectively by modern day Assassins for their antecedents. Calling Wei Yu or Iltani an Assassin could be interpreted by our readers as an outdated or inaccurate description. Calling any Assassin before the 11th century a proto-Assassin signals that a definite interpretation has been made.

    What about the Templars?

    The Templars are more complicated. For organizational purposes, I would recommend that the Order of the Ancients, as parallels of the Hidden Ones, be treated as Templars not proto-Templars in the absence of any word from Ubisoft clarifying this. However, Cris seemed to have said many months back that the second edition of The Essential Guide calls the Order of the Ancients proto-Templars. We would need to verify if this is true.

    tl;dr

    In summary, my proposal includes all of the following points:
    (a) we treat the Hidden Ones as Assassins not proto-Assassins
    (b) we call any Assassin-group between the 1st century BCE founding of the Hidden Ones and the 11th century establishment of the Assassin state "Assassins" not proto-Assassins if we are not sure
    (c) we verify if the Order of the Ancients are explicitly called "proto-Templars" in any source; if it is ambiguous, we will treat them as Templars, not proto-Templars, as a temporary solution

    My reasons are as follows:
    (a) Sourcing policy: Ubisoft has called Origins the game which tells the founding of the Assassins; ∴ Hidden Ones are Assassins
    (b) Sourcing policy: Assassins in the period from the Hidden Ones to the Assassin state have never been called "proto-Assassin" in any source so far; Templars in the period from the OotA to the Crusades have never been called "proto-Templar" in any source so far AFAIK
    (c) Sourcing policy: we know that the terms "Assassins" and "Templars" have been used retrospectively by modern-day Assassins & Templars for their antecedents even when they may not have identified themselves as such. This has not been hard retconned; ∴ we have leeway to do the same when we are uncertain if an individual is "proto-" or not.
    (d) Definition: In my experience with the prefix proto-, it doesn't simply refer to the organization as a different name, but a different group or individual before the organization or the ideology even existed, often unrelated and if related, distinctly a predecessor without clear continuity (e.g. "proto-feminist" for an ancient person like Euripides, "proto-socialist" for the Sassanian reformer Mazdak, "proto-liberal" for Han dynasty Taoists, "proto-Mongol" for the Xianbei). It is implied that there is clear continuity between the Hidden Ones and the Assassins as one organization.
    (e) The danger: Using "proto-Assassin" and "proto-Templar" is the less safe option and can lead to us popularizing the idea that the Assassins were not founded until the 11th century, effectively retconning even Origins, because we are violating sourcing policy.

      Loading editor
    • Very good points. I am 100% in agreement with calling the Hidden Ones and all subsequent groups as assassins as well as calling the Order of the Ancients Templars, if they aren't called proto-templars canonically. But I must ask, where does this place the Cult of Kosmos? From what I could understand in Odyssey's messy timeline is they are concurrent. But that's my only doubt here, otherwise I'm with you.

        Loading editor
    • Oh you will have to ask Cris, Odey, Lacrosse, and/or Zero regarding the Cult of Kosmos. I have heard from them that the Odyssey DLC confirm that the Cult aren't a Templar predecessor, but I still haven't gotten around to finishing them. :(

        Loading editor
    • For note I do think some of the reference material like the Guide do use proto-Assassin but this might only be for Darius. I’m not sure Leonius has been mentioned post Origins in any official media. Further more while proto-Assassin might not be correct, default to Hidden One for those in the interim period is also unsubstantiated as we know the Roman Hidden Ones guild change their name to "Circle of Liberals" which was reconfirmed in Last Descendants. As it is I think we should treat Hidden Ones as the name for the Egyptian and Roman (temporarily) branches but not for all branches that predate the formal establishment of the Assassins. Valhalla should shed more light on this issue and maybe we should table this until then?

        Loading editor
    • Lacrossedeamon wrote:
      As it is I think we should treat Hidden Ones as the name for the Egyptian and Roman (temporarily) branches but not for all branches that predate the formal establishment of the Assassins.

      I think you might've misunderstood. The idea was to call all groups after the foundation of the Hidden Ones as "assassins" rather than "proto-assassins", not hidden ones. But that is a good point, that HO might just be the name of those branches.

        Loading editor
    • How about we just re-, un-, or de- retcon Origins? It’s not like Ubisoft would notice, right? They'd just copy whatever we put.

        Loading editor
    • Lacrossedeamon wrote:
      For note I do think some of the reference material like the Guide do use proto-Assassin but this might only be for Darius. I’m not sure Leonius has been mentioned post Origins in any official media. Further more while proto-Assassin might not be correct, default to Hidden One for those in the interim period is also unsubstantiated as we know the Roman Hidden Ones guild change their name to "Circle of Liberals" which was reconfirmed in Last Descendants. As it is I think we should treat Hidden Ones as the name for the Egyptian and Roman (temporarily) branches but not for all branches that predate the formal establishment of the Assassins. Valhalla should shed more light on this issue and maybe we should table this until then?

      You raise an important point about being careful about the usage of Hidden Ones for branches aside from the Egyptians, but I can't tell what is your position on avoiding the usage of "proto-Assassin" in the period from the Hidden Ones to the Assassin state. We can table the matter of using "Hidden Ones" until the release of Valhalla, but I want to be clear what we are going to do about the term "proto-Assassin" now because I keep seeing tweets online and messages on Discord throwing this around haphazardly.

        Loading editor
    • A few thoughts, apologies for a long post, I've been typing this out while everyone else was making much more succinct points:

      1. If They—capital T—the official lore documentarians of Ubisoft copy and paste from our wiki instead of doing their own due diligence on their own lore, that's their problem. We didn't ask for it, nor do we deserve any kind of blame for "causing" their own inconsistencies, if such blame has already been levied at us. Just a hot take I want to get off my chest, I've since had time to fully absorb Sol's initial post.
      2. As to the matter of dating the beginnings of the organizations, with Sol's analogy regarding the French Fifth Republic, that's what nations boil down to—people (or simply well-placed power brokers) organizing lands into a country with borders and handing down laws for the citizenry based on which side of the line they live on. France is currently the Fifth French Republic because the previous four were constructed and dissolved for various reasons. I don't understand how it's "perplexing" for a French citizen to think of themselves as the Fifth French Republic rather than France, but that is the technical line in the sand for the sake of creating an objective historical record. It is all relative, and "France" as a concept can easily coexist with the more technical "Fifth French Republic". World War I was called the "Great War" until World War II happened. Only a true cynic would call it "World War I" in the time prior to II breaking out, like it was a certainty that II would happen. But II is named as such in historical records because a war of similar scale involving multiple nations occurred 20 years prior, and the Great War was re-named World War I. Similarly, the Hidden Ones were re-named the Assassins, the Order of Ancients was renamed the Templar Order, and those labels endured for longer than any name to date.

      Moving on to the important stuff:

      As for the Assassins and Templars as organizations, while labels are relative and often retroactive, a few things stand out to me in the lore that we can use to make more concrete assessments. The first is Values: I refer to a quote from the First Blade DLC, paraphrased: "There will always be tyrants, and there will always be those like us to stop them." Men like Darius, women like Iltani, upheld the values of Assassins before Assassins were even an organized force. We who have access to the entirety of their stories do not call them Assassins in the context of their "present" because they predate the Assassin Brotherhood, either in their time or the formal Brotherhood's expansion into the kingdom/nation/region of Earth they lived in. We call them Assassins because Assassins that came after acknowledged and characterized them as such, because they believed these men and women practiced the beliefs at the core of their Brotherhood, whether they played a major role or no role at all in its formal establishment. Through applying Assassin values retroactively, we might yet consider Eivor a proper Assassin, even if they weren't literally calling themselves "Assassins" at that point in time. However, I wouldn't consider Kassandra an Assassin, proto- or otherwise. To make a long tangent short, she seemed to disappear out of history entirely, only to reveal herself to Layla as a nigh-immortal NPC making the case for "balance" between Assassin chaos and Templar order. Novelization and in-game empty vessel for players' values aside, she didn't seem to uphold the tenets of the Creed, so calling her an Assassin just because she had a means of discreetly shivving enemies... well, we know how that worked out with Haytham. It would ultimately be up to the lore masters to decide if she qualifies.

      The second point that stands out to me is Symbols: If we accept that the "Templars-as-an-organization" exist by the label of "Order", as we accept that "Assassin-as-an-organization" exist by the label of "Brotherhood, est. 47 BCE" we can then count the Order of Ancients as Templars. I would also argue that the usage of Cain's Cross as their sigil constitutes the Order's establishment, as Khemu's eagle skull became the sigil for the Brotherhood. A nation creates a flag and plants it within its borders to say "Let the record show that this land, named such-and-such in the native language of this point in time, begins and ends at this point." Of course, they're not literally saying it as such, but we take it with the context of succeeding events and changes to the symbol. I recall Cain's Cross being associated with the Roman Senate, so at the very least we could consider Caesar's Order of Ancients to be the Templar Order, under this logic, along with the first recorded use of the Father of Understanding, another Templar symbol. Although, was the Cross actually used in the Senate during Caesar's time, or was that just a matter of convenience in the Animus puzzles?

      Lastly, we don't yet know enough about how AC: Valhalla will play out in establishing the lore of the two organizations. We've explored the Assassins at length, the progression from proto-Assassins to Brotherhood of the Hidden Ones to the Assassin Brotherhood, but haven't spent a lot of time on the transition between the Order of the Ancients and the Templars. If we see some definitive moment in Valhalla that establishes "English knights = Order", we can consider the Templars, in the context of values and symbols that endured to the modern day, to exist at that point. We can consider that to be the equivalent line in the sand that Origins drew for the Assassins.

        Loading editor
    • RShepard227 wrote:

      As to the matter of dating the beginnings of the organizations, with Sol's analogy regarding the French Fifth Republic, that's what nations boil down to—people (or simply well-placed power brokers) organizing lands into a country with borders and handing down laws for the citizenry based on which side of the line they live on. France is currently the Fifth French Republic because the previous four were constructed and dissolved for various reasons. I don't understand how it's "perplexing" for a French citizen to think of themselves as the Fifth French Republic rather than France, but that is the technical line in the sand for the sake of creating an objective historical record. It is all relative, and "France" as a concept can easily coexist with the more technical "Fifth French Republic". World War I was called the "Great War" until World War II happened. Only a true cynic would call it "World War I" in the time prior to II breaking out, like it was a certainty that II would happen. But II is named as such in historical records because a war of similar scale involving multiple nations occurred 20 years prior, and the Great War was re-named World War I. Similarly, the Hidden Ones were re-named the Assassins, the Order of Ancients was renamed the Templar Order, and those labels endured for longer than any name to date.

      It looks like you misread this part. I didn't say that "it would be perplexing for a French citizen to think of themselves as the French Fifth Republic rather than France" at all. I said—rhetorically by the way—that it would be perplexing if a French person were to think that France as a country didn't exist prior to the French Fifth Republic. I've seen theoretical arguments like that before, including one video on YouTube about which is the oldest country, which argues that technically France ceased to exist (but was recreated) when a new government was formed, such that the French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic are two entirely different countries. But most everyday people would instead think of it as the same country with two different organizations of government.

      Apart from that, I think you made great points, especially in regards to Kassandra not being a proto-Assassin. Cris, who should be responding to this thread soon, has told me before that the second edition of The Essential Guide calls her a proto-Assassin. I don't have my copy of that book with me at the moment, so I cannot verify this. Based on your argument, I agree that she doesn't seem to be a proto-Assassin (but keep in mind I haven't played through all of the DLC so I don't know her full story).

      Even so, I am a bit unclear what your position on my proposal is. It sounds like you agree with me that the Hidden Ones should be called Assassins?

        Loading editor
    • As always, sorry for my english.

      First Point

      "Two organizations bearing two different names but having clear continuity with one another can still be the exact same organization."

      Such continuity has been confirmed in the E.G. 2.0. It says that the Order of Ancients and the Templar Order are the same group (the organization existed through time and, due to changes across the years, it ended up becoming the Templar Order. In my headcanon, this happened when the Order of Ancients found out about the Children of Cain) The same goes with the Hidden Ones and the Assassin, they are the same.

      Where must we draw the line?

      I think the line was very clear in Origins, that was the purpose of that game after all. (In my headcanon, the Assassins made a posthumous ceremony where they inducted the figures of Darius, Iltani and Wey Yu as their own as an act of tribute). With the Templars was a little different (we knew about their origins throught a slab), but we ended up knowing anyway...
      "My proposal, however, is not to start calling these figures Assassins again."
      With this, I agree as well. Specially since they were never Assassins in the first place (thanks to the retcon Origins gave us). These are the figures that, one way or another, ended up inspiring the first Assassins (the Hidden Ones), but weren't Assassins. The same goes with the Children of Cain. If no relation is shown between them and the Order of Ancients, then we should consider the Children of Cain as proto-templars.

      What about the Templars?

      "However, Cris seemed to have said many months back that the second edition of The Essential Guide calls the Order of the Ancients proto-Templars. We would need to verify if this is true."
      Translated from Spanish to English: "The Templar Order began as a secret society known as the Order of Ancients." I read the E.G. 2.0 again and it doens't call them as proto-templars, the connection is confirmed inmediately. They ARE the Templars. My apologies, it seems I was high while reading the guide. I don't see any "proto-templar" mention regarding the Order of Ancients. 

      Is Kass considered a proto-assassin?

      In the E.G. 2.0, yes, she is. Primarly because her deeds happened long before the birth of the Brotherhood.

      What does it say about darius?

      He's considered as the origins of the Assassin's values, but not an assassin.

      Who are considered to be proto-assassins?

      This are my thought about the subject:

      1. Every group that came before the "Assassins".
      2. Every group that ended up fighting against the Order of Ancients
      3. Every group that ended up inspiring/influencing the Assassin Brotherhood in one way or another (I think we shouldn't label a group that fought for liberty and never gave something to the Assassins in that regard. For me, it doesn't make sense to call every group, that fought for freedom, peace and stuff, proto-assassins).

      But I must ask, where does this place the Cult of Kosmos?

      In the E.G. 2.0, they aren't mentioned as proto-templars.

      Personally, I don't consider them as such. These are my reasons.

      1. The Templars already existed (as the Order of Ancients).
      2. They were allies but certain decisions made by the Cult caused the Ancients' rejection and ultimately ended up being enemies.
      3. The Cult of Kosmos believed in many things, control among other things, but ultimately this was not their ultimate goal: it was power. But that's the Templars' goal as well? It´s debatable. According to Germain: it was never about power, it was all about control. Power corrupts, and when the Templars are drunk in it they start to fulfill their own wishes instead of the Order's for the betterment of humanity. The Cult of Kosmos was a chaotic order, having a group wanting order, another one wanting chaos, some people worshipped Alexios as a demigod, etc. This group doesn't share all of the features the Templar Order has.
      4. Kass dismantled the Cult.

      But the possibility for them to be considered as a group that influenced the Templars still remains possible. How? Aspasia.
      Canonically, Kass let her live. In her search for the "philosopher-king", she could have joined the Order of Ancients and shared her secrets with them.

      Also, it's important to mention this: E.G. 2.0 says that Aspasia believed in the Father of Understanding, but doesn't tell since when. Do I consider this proof enough to tell that the Cult was a proto-templar organization? No, because such beliefs could have been influenced by the Cult's alliance with the Order of Ancients.

      I'd like to finish with a question.

      And what about the groups that ended up merging with the Hidden Ones/Order of Ancients after their fundation? Are they still considered as a proto-group?

      By definition, no. But how can we categorize them?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the sentiment. We call them "Assassins" because it's appropriate given the context we have so far. But for the sake of maintaining objectivity and consistency in our writing, we ought to have official arbiters of canon—i.e. members of the Ubisoft writer's room—weigh in and provide guidance on what constitutes an Assassin or Templar. That way, if they choose to refer to this wiki in the future for developing their expanded materials—as they have in the past—there won't be any miscommunications. The current impression I'm getting is that they're simply deferring to the fanbase to sort out their canon for them, when it should be the other way around.

      To add to that, I'm also not 100% on how we should characterize the Hidden Ones as "proper-organized-Assassins-by-an-earlier-name" if not with the proto- prefix. To my knowledge, no Hidden One ever referred to themselves as "Assassin," so where would the word come from to make a logical application in that time period? 1000 years later, during the events of Valhalla, did Eivor call themself an Assassin, a Hidden One, or something else? Were they even affiliated with the organization, or did they just pick up a Hidden Blade and start shivving, like Edward at first? From our future-looking-back perspective, calling them Assassins makes sense, but there may be more appropriate terms to use for that interim period, terms that can be introduced at any point during any future game at the writers' discretions. So, we ought to have the writing team clarify pre-Hidden One, post-Hidden One/pre-Assassin, and post-Assassin labeling, if they're inclined to provide clarification. Ditto the Order labeling.

      As to the first point, it seems I did misread it, my apologies.

      EDIT: It seems Cris replied while I was typing. I'll look through it now.

        Loading editor
    • Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. Hidden Ones *are* Assassins. Assassins as an organisation, we knew even before Origins, were formed long before the "Order of Assassins" was formed in Persia and Syria in the early XI century. Same for the Templar organisation and the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon". We always *knew* they took different names before these formalisations, we just had limited knowledge of the Brotherhood and Order before that time. If this is the end of the conversation I am content. The Order of the Ancients are Templars, as the Hidden Ones are Assassins. This means Bayek and Amunet and Brutus and all those others, should be that and only that. Different names for different eras, but a continuity of organisation. Before Origins there was no doubt that the people before they were named these titles were Assassins and Templars, and there really shouldn't be any doubt afterwards either.

      However this leads me to my second point, which might be a tad more controversial: I also believe that Iltani's Order (which officially we know only as the Babylonian Brotherhood of Assassins) and Artabanus' group (which official we know only as the Persian Brotherhood of Assassins) should be referred to as "Assassins". We do not know them as anything else, our current names are currently conjectural despite them having actual, canon names. Similarly the Children of Cain should be referred to as Templars. It is simply what they are known as in present day and, by all accounts, are Assassins/Templars in all but name. These were simply them before they became fully organised as they are in the modern day.

      We should also not refer to Iltani, Darius and Wei Yu as anything other than Assassins, given those are the titles given to them in-universe over multiple entries and media. We should note they might have been given these titles posthumously, but are nonetheless that as far as Modern Day Assassins' beliefs, as evidenced by MD files presented in the Unity-Syndicate games. (I honestly forget which had that, I think it was Syndicate?) Besides, their Orders and groups were, by all accounts Assassins, sometimes even referred to as such in-game. They even had variations of the Assassin insignia in various materials.

      That is, of course, unless Ubisoft actively calls them "proto-x", in which case the point is moot and we should be deferring to them. But to the best of my knowledge, Ubisoft.... hasn't done so?

      Either way, the initial proposal I am completely behind.

        Loading editor
    • Fwiw, I always thought Origins was rather about the origins of The Creed, not of Assassins as such. Because that what I got from ACO and The Hidden Ones. Sure, there’s also the sense of semi-unified organization, as per the insignia and all, but... Assassins have existed before, Assassins exist way later.

      (I’m bloody old school. Assassins are as old as Adam and Eve, goshdammit. :p )

      Tl;dr: I agree with Sol’s proposition to call Hidden Ones et al. Assassins.

        Loading editor
    • At the end of the day (it’s 8:20 am) I feel Artabanus's group embodies the Creed more than Bayek's; they even espouse the maxim unlike what we see of the Hidden Ones and as far as philosophy goes that is more important than the nascent tenets we see from Bayek. Furthermore the only real in universe source saying the Hidden Ones is the beginning of the Assassins is Layla who isn’t operating with full knowledge at this point and I’m loath to take anything from reference material or marketing at face value. So on that end I agree with Zero and Sal. However until we know the exact specifics behind the rebranding of the organizations I am also against the usage of the terms Assassins and Templars before those dates but I seem to be the only one of that mind.

        Loading editor
    • I'm a little later to the party so what I'd like to contribute has already been said earlier, but right now I can't think of any reason to oppose this. The only argument in opposition is that the Essential Guide no longer refers to Darius and Iltani as Assassins, as was mentioned before. Provided we make it clear in the articles that these Assassins living before the foundation of the Hidden Ones were not actual Assassins but retroactively treated as such, as per older media, I don't think this proposition should conflict with that.

      Regarding the terminology "Persian Brotherhood" and "Babylonian Brotherhood" for Darius' and Iltani's groups, considering the Essential Guide has been 'updated' with the second version to not make mention of this and these terms arise from the now 'outdated' first version, this I am unsure about if we should use on the wiki. I am inclined to say no and keep it as it is currently (with mention of Darius and co.'s activities on the Persian Brotherhood page while maintaining the separate article with conjectural title), with maybe a mention in a Trivia section of the terminology having been previously used in the first Essential Guide.

      Another point of discussion I'd like to throw in there is this line from the Codex in AC2: "Even if you kill all of its adherents, destroy all of its writings – these are a reprieve at best. Some one, some day, will rediscover it. Reinvent it. I believe that even we, the Assassins, have simply re-discovered an Order that predates the Old Man himself..." We've known since AC2 that there were Assassins across the Old World over a millennium before AC1, so this always made it sound like at some point prior to the late 11th century the Assassins somehow vanished from at least the Middle East before their philosophy was rediscovered and the group refounded with the name Assassins. Now that we have Assassins active well into the 10th century in Scandinavia, this seems unlikely.

      Reading Zero-ELEC's comment that Children of Cain should just be called Templars makes me curious whether people think if merging Assassins with Hidden Ones and Templars with Order of the Ancients might be ideas worth pursuing, or that we should keep them separate.

        Loading editor
    • Wow I'm really amazed at how fruitful and extensive this discussion was. Everyone provided some insightful thoughts on this matter. Zero's idea to continue referring to Iltani, Darius, etc. as Assassins is a more radical one, but one that I actually support as well. I lacked the boldness to consider that. It was really perceptive of you when you brought up some examples on Discord about how our citations to Assassin's Creed: Origins and other recent sources for information about the proto-Assassins are all wrong. I myself was behind some of those citations, but only because I was trying to work with that implied retcon. These examples of incorrect citations that Zero presented makes me wonder how well the terms proto-Assassin and proto-Templar can be substantiated or were they our own invention which The Essential Guide sort of copied. If so, this is something we also really need to consider.

      Sima also brought up some good points to keep in mind that I had missed, and Sadel is right that there is that slight possibility that Bayek didn't necessarily found the Assassins but just the Creed. I was kind of weighing that too, but I suppose I just think that it is mostly clear what Ubisoft had intended.

      I personally have my doubts that Kassandra is a proto-Assassin, but her designation as such in The Essential Guide alongside some of the points RShepherd brought up might indicate that the proto- in proto-Assassin can be used in the same sense as those examples I brought up which I've encountered in my studies: proto-feminist, proto-socialist, proto-liberal, etc. for individuals and groups who had similar ideas but did not directly influence the modern ideology. On the other hand, I am also inclined to agree with Cris that not every group who has fought for liberty or free will is a proto-Assassin. I think the Assassins' beliefs are more particular than that, and certainly, not every freedom fighter would agree with them. It does not help that I still have difficulty understanding what kind of person Kassandra truly is or what her philosophy is. She fought for her family, but did she really share in convictions alikes the Assassins? I only wish that Ubisoft was more clear on these things.

      If you guys don't mind continuing this discussion further, I would like to say that I would endorse both my proposal and Zero's bolder one. If there isn't enough vocal support for Zero's (to be honest, I find that most editors usually leave the discussion after one post :P), then we should default to my proposal to draw the line of using "Assassins" with the Hidden Ones.

      It looks like the consensus is, at the very least:

      1. to treat Hidden Ones as Assassins
      2. to treat the Order of the Ancients as Templars

      Some leftover questions:

      1. Should we merge Hidden Ones with the Assassins article and OotA with the Templars article? (brought up by Sima) I'm not sure but we do currently have three pages covering the Hidden Ones: Hidden Ones, Egyptian Brotherhood of Assassins, and Assassins.
      2. Related: Is the name "Hidden Ones" limited only to the Egyptian and Roman branches? (brought up by Lacrosse) I don't think we can know this until the release of Valhalla, but what would we do until then?
      3. Should the pages Artabanus' group and Iltani's Order be renamed to Persian Brotherhood and Babylonian Brotherhood respectively? Sima brought up good counter-point that those two names have disappeared from tEG 2.0. Even so, the names we have are still conjectural compared to ones which have been canonical. We can take this question to those pages' talk pages if that would be better organization for this discussion.
      4. So we should be categorizing Kassandra as a proto-Assassin?
      5. Is Zero's proposal preferable to anyone? (As I said I would support it as well as an alternative)
        Loading editor
    • My only issue with leftover question #1 is how big and overwhelming would the resulting pages be. I feel like it's easier to find specific information if they remain separate.

      On question #3, i don't know about Artabanus, but yes on Iltani.

      On #4, probably? It was in their marketing, as far as i recall.

        Loading editor
    • Well I am a terrible person of conflicting extreme opinions in that I’m okay with considering Artabanus and even further back as part of the same organization but I don’t like the blanket terminology used but then I’m not sure how to categorize pre-Hidden Ones members. I do think that we should keep the pages separate as the wording from tEG 2.0 makes the transition sound more than a rebranding. The issue behind #3 at least regarding Artabanus's group is that it seems to be defunct by the end of LotFB with out an actual connection to the later Persian Brotherhood, similar to the Roman and Italian branches being separate. We could say it was revived but to me that implies prior knowledge of the previous group which would be speculation. Iltani's group on the other hand doesn’t have this issue as far as I know because it’s the only iteration of the Babylonian Brotherhood. #4 I’m ambivalent on because there is so much weird lore surrounding her like she can control the weather and what not but if we do categorize her as proto instead of just an ally then that should reflect with the Periklean Circle, right? But yeah when all's said and done I guess I support Zero's proposal; although I’d like to see how we are going to word things before going all in.

        Loading editor
    • About the questions:

      1. Well, their history should certainly be present in the history of the Assassins and Templars. We *know* the Templars stole the Shroud from Jesus, for example; its explicitly the Templars that do this (source), despite them... not "existing" at this point as 'Templars'. Similarly, Alexander the Great is "Templar-suported" and taken out by the "Assassin Brotherhood"'s "Babylonian Assassin" Iltani (source), despite this being long before even the Hidden Ones were formed. These are historical events that the "Templars" and "Assassins" participated in. I am ambivalent on the merging of what would be the "pre-reformation" versions of these orgs and the "post-reformation" version. Perhaps the main article should be the post- version and about the pre- versions it'd have a "see main article" notice?
      2. There's been confirmation in interviews about Valhalla that there are "Hidden Ones" in the time period. Though one thing to note is that Fate of the Gods's historical section, which happens ~100 years after the time period in Valhalla, has the local Assassins and Templars as the "Brotherhood" and the "Order" respectively, which appears to be the non-denominational names Ubisoft has adopted for the organisations.
      3. Iltani's definitely should, as its the only canon name we have for it currently, though moving it to the individual article's talk pages might work if no consensus is reached. I would argue that at the very least, Artabantus' group's exploits should be included in the Persian Brotherhood of Assassins article. But yes, I'd argue for the merge, in general, even if there's no direct continuity of organisation. The Brotherhood of Assassins located in the 13 Colonies and surrounding areas were basically wiped out and eventually restarted by Ratonhnhaké:ton, with little to no continuity between the organisations.
      4. Though normally I'd be opposed, as her conflicts seemed mostly aimed against the Cult of Kosmos which is really a Hermeticist off-shoot, apparently the newest tEG actively refers to her as one, which is definitely a source.
      5. Well, it's preferable to me :P
        Loading editor
    • Going to counter your example in point 3 because Achilles (and Faulkner) provide the continuity that is currently lacking between Artabanus's group and the later Persian Brotherhood.

        Loading editor
    • Gotta agree with Lacrossedeamon on that one

        Loading editor
    • That's fair. I still believe that they should be incorporated together, despite the lack of continuity.

        Loading editor
    • Personally, I think Cyfiero's and Zero's proposal are correct from a certain point of view. You see, every document from the database have been treated as an IU source (written by characters from the AC universe). And this, along with the Monterigionni's Sanctuary, are still treated as canon. Those this mean we have to endure this terrible retcon made thanks to Origins. No. Before the creation of the Brotherhood there were Darius, Iltani, Wei Yu, etc. that fought for ideals that would influence the Brotherhood in the future. This CANNOT be forgotten. Every bit of history regarding those characters happend way before the creation of the Assassin's Brotherhood, so they were NOT Assassins. But since, again, all the info about the Sanctuary is canon, it seems a posthumous ceremony of induction is pretty obvious (at least, to me) at this point. From this moment, the figures of Darius, Iltani and Wei Yu were honored with the title of Assassin by the Assassins themselves and every Assassin member (until today) call them as such. In this way, every document regarding them being called Assassins would still be correct, because they ARE Assassins now (from possibly Villa Auditore's foundation to this very day in the AC universe) and those documents are being written by Modern Day Assassins. So, the logic here would be coherent, continual and cohesive without jeopardizing the lore.

      Of course, we CANNOT assumed that such a ceremony happened and canonice it ourselves. But this is my way of saying that we must have in mind this two facts and mention them in their respective pages. For example, how would thes be reflected in Darius' page? I'd do something like this:

      Darius, born Artabanus, was a Persian elite and the assassin of King Xerxes I of Persia.

      Considered to be the person whom the origins of the values and actions that would lead to the creation of (this replace the "one of the very first Assassins" because it's confusing. 'But how Darius is considered to be the first Assassin if they were founded by Bayek and Aya centuries later?' we could argue that the Assassin values were present in Darius long before the Assassins themselves, but this doesn't explain it 100% despite being true. Objectively, if this man happened to exist before the existance of the Brotherhood that mean that he's not an Assassin, but just an assassin. You understand my point?),  the Hidden Ones. Active during the 5th century BCE, Darius fought to ensure Persia would forever remain free of tyranny. His assassination of Xerxes I was the first recorded usage of the Hidden Blade, which would later on become the iconic weapon of the Assassin Brotherhood.

      After the defeat of the Tempest in Achaia, Darius decided to settle down in the region with his son Natakas, who developed a relationship with the Spartan misthios Kassandra. Darius became a grandfather to Natakas and Kassandra's son, Elpidios, and later the ancestor of one of the Hidden Ones' founders, Aya.

      I propose to re-write the paragraphs of these three proto-Assassins making clear that before the Hidden Ones they were not Assassins but eventually they are declared as such by the Assassins themselves in the future. (And maybe adding that such event happened in Domenico's time, because we haven't seen another moment in the AC universe were this is regarded).

      Now, about the questions: 

      1. Q: Should we merge Hidden Ones with the Assassins article and OotA with the Templars article?
        1. R: Yes. We might end up having a large article in our hands, but we have more of those. (Also I understand this work is not easy so kudos to everyone who made these large articles possible!)
      2. Q: Related: Is the name "Hidden Ones" limited only to the Egyptian and Roman branches?
        1. R: Possibly. Valhalla will confirm that.
      3. Q: Should the pages Artabanus' group and Iltani's Order be renamed to Persian Brotherhood and Babylonian Brotherhood respectively?
        1. R: No. Artabanus' group ended up being disbanded/destroy, because most of its member were killed and some others switched sides and went full Order of Ancients, so there's no continuity with the actual Persian Brotherhood. This groups existed before the creation of the Assassins, so these shouldn't be considered as such, it's contradictory. Same with Iltani's Brotherhood. The Hidden Ones also used that word so it's not proof enough (despite Iltani being honored with the title of Assassin in the future). The difference with the Hidden Ones is that Ubi wanted them to be the very flame that would spark the Assassin Revolution in humanity's history.
      4. Q: So we should be categorizing Kassandra as a proto-Assassin?
        1. R: If we just consider the fact that she fought against the Order of Ancients, yes. Otherwise, no.
      5. Q: Is Zero's proposal preferable to anyone?
        1. R: I support it as long as Cyfiero's arguments are still valuable (and they can be). It's important to mention that before the Brotherhood they were not Assassins, but in the future the Assassins themselves will honor their memory by giving them the title of Assassins, making them part of the Brotherhood. The line should be drawn in the Hidden Ones' epoch (Ptolemaic Egypt).

      Ubisoft never gave a good answer to this kind of problems and when in trouble trying to fit their new ideas to the lore, they read the wiki. So I think it's important for us to make this first step and they will probably follow.

      This could have been avoided if only Ubi have set Odyssey's story as the origin of the Assassins instead of having them 400 years later!

        Loading editor
      1. I actually think this it's a good idea to merge the pages. The only unique content is the broader history sections which can be merged into the existing Assassins and Templars pages, and they have lists of their members which we don't necessarily need. The inclusion of the different logos and listing of the names Hidden Ones and Order of the Ancients in the introduction sections of the Assassins and Templars pages will do.
      2. Let's hope this will be revealed soon enough, but in the meantime, I agree with Zero-ELEC's proposal to refer to all of the "proto-Assassins", Hidden Ones and Assassins as simply "Assassins", I don't think referring to them as Assassins for the time being is an issue.
      3. I'll stand by my counter-argument here. As far as I know there has only been one transmedia source so far that outright uses the terms "Persian Brotherhood" and "Babylonian Brotherhood", and it has since been revised.
      4. While I don't necessarily agree with it, yes, seeing as she is referred to as being honored by the Assassin Brotherhood as one of their precursors in the Essential Guide version 2, we should follow this.
      5. To a certain degree. I assume by Zero-ELEC's proposal you mean to refer to any pre-Assassin Assassins as just Assassins, and the same for any pre-Templar Templars. On their respective pages we should clarify in the introduction as well as the main bodies that while they were not part of any Brotherhood/Order or group that called themselves Assassins/Templars, we should categorize them as Assassins and Templars and point out that, by 1476 at latest, they were considered to be part of the group. As long as we clarify where necessary, we can refer to characters like Darius, Iltani and Wei Yu as Assassins as that is what they have been labelled as for almost a decade.
        Loading editor
    • So here are my answers to those questions:

      1. Yes I think it is a good idea to merge "Hidden Ones" with "Assassins and "Order of the Ancients" with "Templars" for better organization. Even though we could say that "Assassins" and "Templars" would only touch upon the Hidden Ones and OotA briefly, at the end of the day, I think three pages which leads with "Hidden Ones" is too confusing for readers. It is also confusing for me when linking. We should, of course, keep "Egyptian Brotherhood of Assassins" separate but our writing in it currently makes it confusing whether "Hidden Ones" is an older name of that particular branch or the name of the Assassins at the time of its origin.
      2. Looks like we'll have to wait for Valhalla to confirm, but in the meantime, I think we can use "Assassin" retrospectively for all Assassin groups from the founding of the Hidden Ones to the founding of the Assassin state.
      3. I would have argued for renaming both pages, but since you guys have pointed out that Artabanus' group was destroyed—I would not know because I still haven't finished the DLC—then it would merit its own article. Of course, "Persian Brotherhood" should still mention them as their predecessor. On the other hand, I reaffirm my position that "Iltani's Order" should be renamed to "Babylonian Brotherhood", canonical name over conjectural name. I think editing based on what we infer to be retcons can be problematic based on Zero's examples to me earlier about my poor citations in "Persian Brotherhood".
      4. Exactly the same as what Sima expressed. I don't necessarily agree with it, but sourcing would dictate that she should be at least categorized as such.
      5. As I said, I support both my initial proposition and Zero's bolder one. Either one is fine by me. Of course, we must clarify in the article how later Assassins treat these figures as Assassins retrospectively though.
        Loading editor
    • I had originally refrained from commenting on this as I thought it was too big of a decision to be a part of.

      I think that perhaps the Hidden Ones should remain a seperate article but to have them still referred as "Assassins". If they were Assassins after 1090, then the Hidden Ones were a predecessor organisation as we list them as now. However merging them and the OoA does make sense and will probably neaten things up. Regarding the Egyptian Brotherhood of Assassins and the info in it pertaining to the Hidden Ones, an article could always be made for Egyptian Brotherhood of the Hidden Ones (but thats a mouthful and will make more links, being more confusing in the end)... If the Hidden Ones article is kept then all info on them in the Assassins page should be mostly removed, replaced with a brief mention and a Read More link.

      And the Assassin's that predated the Hidden Ones should also be called Assassins as they were remembered as posthumorously that being their legacy. Adam, Eve, and Kassandra should be the only exceptions. Being that history had forgotten them and their actions, they are not remembered as Assassins.

      Arguing against a merger, if we were to merge OoA with Templars then people will want the Cult of Kosmos to be merged too, then the Children of Cain, then every other 'bad' organization. I say we keep them all seperate but revise info in Templars/Assassins about the previous incarnation.



      Hopefully this all makes sense...

        Loading editor
    • Regarding Iltani's group, its only canonical name that has not been revised is "the Order" as mentioned in Database: Iltani's Story 5. If we were to move it, I would instead suggest something akin to "Order (Babylonia)" rather than "Babylonian Brotherhood of Assassins".

      As VilkaTheWolf's latest comment, the Cult of Kosmos, according to the latest version of the Essential Guide, is not Templar group and so therefore would not be merged into the Templars article. While them not being a Templar precursor doesn't make much sense to me given the similarity in their goals and actions and the Templar insignias that appear all over the Cultist menu, we probably should heed the Essential Guide's description until further notice.

        Loading editor
    • Cult of Kosmos is a curious beast, in all of this. Because Aspasia essentially says "Yeah, y'know, I had this idea, and then these guys... kinda really fudging misunderstood it and just turned it into a pyramid scheme."

      Aspasia claims to have wanted order and stuff, the unification of Greece, but the rest of the Cult played their own little games of power and money, resulting in chaos. The letters allegedly from her don’t really help, and one of the ’clues’ to the Ghost’s identity flat out states that she lies.

      Taking her words at face value, if pushed, I’d say Aspasia shared the Templar ideas, and might be considered a Templar. But that’s a personal opinion which has no place in this wiki. (We don’t know exactly when the CoK was established, do we?)

        Loading editor
    • Is not allready established that the Cult of Kosmos essentially is a part of the Hermetisics despite their disagreement with the Cult of Hermes? Because it would make more sense to merge any Hermetic group in one page and whatever sililarities they have with Templars doesnt seem new to Hermetics at all when they isn`t the only Hermetic group assosiated with them nor spoke of similar ideas of elighnement.

        Loading editor
    • My feeling is that we should just go by Assassin for any relevant interim group/individual between the Hidden Ones and the Hashshashin in the absence of another name.

      I've been fine with proto-Assassin as short-hand for before Altair but it just being used for what precedes Bayek/Aya makes sense. (Origins establishing so much Assassin structure in one go was silly anyway.)

      If Eivor joins whatever the Assassins are called in Valhalla then he/she should be called a member of whatever that name is. If they are not named then an Assassin. Certainly not Hidden One though.

      I don't see the problem with Hidden Ones and Assassins having separate group pages as long as we aren't pretending they're not a continuation.

        Loading editor
    • So these are a lot of comments to take in, and I reckon that most of us are probably lost by now what the consensus is. I am going to try to organize everyone's answers and you guys let me know if I have them all correct.

      Soranin:

      1. No to merging Hidden Ones with Assassins, OoA with Templars
      2. N/A
      3. No to moving "Artabanus' group", yes to "Iltani's Order"
      4. Yes, call Kassandra a proto-Assassin because it was in her marketing, right?
      5. N/A

      Lacrosse

      1. No to merging because the transition from Hidden Ones to Assassins is more than just a rebranding
      2. N/A
      3. No to "Artabanus' group", yes to "Iltani's Order"
      4. ambivalent
      5. Support Zero's proposal (but wants to see how it is worded first)

      Zero

      1. ambivalent
      2. noted that Valhalla interviews mentions the presence of Hidden Ones in the Viking Age
      3. Yes to merging/renaming both "Artabanus' group" and "Iltani's Order"
      4. Yes to Kassandra being a proto-Assassin because of sourcing (otherwise would have been opposed)
      5. Yes

      Cris

      1. Yes, merge Hidden Ones w/Assassins and OoA w/Templars
      2. Waiting on Valhalla
      3. No to renaming both
      4. Either way, but yes if following tEG 2.0
      5. Support but clarify for readers

      Sima

      1. Yes, merge the pages
      2. Waiting on Valhalla, but call Assassins in the meantime
      3. No to moving both
      4. Yes because sourcing
      5. Support Zero's proposal, provided we clarify where necessary

      Cyfiero

      1. Yes, merge Hidden Ones w/Assassins and OoA w/Templars
      2. Waiting on Valhalla, but call Assassins in the meantime
      3. No to moving "Artabanus' group", yes to moving "Iltani's Order"
      4. Yes because sourcing
      5. Support Zero's proposal, provided we clarify where necessary

      Vilka

      1. No, don't merge Hidden Ones w/Assassins and don't merge OoA w/Templars
      2. N/A
      3. N/A
      4. N/A
      5. Yes, support Zero's proposal

      Vetinari

      1. No, don't merge the pages but the relation b/w Hidden Ones & Assassins, OoA & Templars should be clarified for readers (i.e. they are continuations)
      2. Viking Assassins should be referred to the name they use in Valhalla, of course, but defer to using "Assassin" if there is no other option. Definitely do not use "Hidden One".
      3. N/A
      4. N/A
      5. No to Zero's proposal (does not explicitly oppose but prefers to only pull proto-Assassin to before Hidden Ones)

      Extrapolating RShepherd's response prior to the 5 questions I listed out:

      1. N/A
      2. N/A
      3. N/A
      4. No Kassandra was not a proto-Assassin (but "it would ultimately be up to the loremasters if she qualifies", meaning defer to sources?)
      5. Yes, we can use "Assassin" and "Templars" for even Darius and Iltani and call the OoA Templars.

      I understand that you said that we should be consulting with an official Ubisoft writing team, but in our experience, that has not been helpful. :(

      In any case, it seems that our wiki unanimously agrees on referring to Hidden Ones as Assassins and Order of the Ancients Templars at the very least.

        Loading editor
    • Gonna fill my other questions out (and add a minor correction) to see if it helps:

      1. Ambivalent to merging Hidden Ones with Assassins, OoA with Templars
      2. Waiting on Valhalla, but call Assassins in the meantime
      3. Ambivalent to moving "Artabanus' group", yes to "Iltani's Order"
      4. Yes, call Kassandra a proto-Assassin because it was in her marketing, right?
      5. Support Zero's proposal, provided we clarify where necessary
        Loading editor
    • It also sounds like the majority of you actually wish to go ahead and to support Zero's proposal. I just wanted us to clarify how this would be implementing, both in terms of writing and categorization.

      Does this mean that henceforth, we should in fact be referring to Darius, Iltani, and Wei Yu as Assassins again—not just the Hidden Ones—provided that we explain clearly in the article that they preceded the founding of the Hidden Ones/Assassins and were regarded as Assassins posthumously?

      Moreover, it sounds like most of us agree on referring to Kassandra as a proto-Assassin but only because The Essential Guide describes her as such. If this is the case, this means that in spite of implementing Zero's proposal, we would still be using "proto-Assassin" in at least one case (if not only one case): Kassandra.

      In other words, any predecessor of the Hidden Ones/Assassins that was posthumously honored as an Assassin will be called an Assassin and categorized as such. The term "proto-Assassin" will be reserved in the cases of some ancient ally who is expressly called as such by a source. Since most of us would not have counted Kassandra as a proto-Assassin much less an Assassin in the first place, this is probably fine.

        Loading editor
    • Sol’s summary sounds good.

      Afaic, Wei Yu/Darius/Iltani/etc = Assassins, but yes, please, clarify in the article why. Ditto for calling Kass ’proto-Assassin’.

        Loading editor
    • Quick tangential question. Liberalis Circulum was reconfirmed canon in Last Descendants but do we know what they called themselves as members? In the Scrolls of Romulus Brutus uses the term Liberatore (anachronistically although that might be an Animus translation error) but not actually in conjunction with either the Hidden Ones, the Liberalis Circulum, or the Assassins. Additionally if we are going to keep Aquilus and Accipiter as canon do those comics ever mention a name in the regression?

        Loading editor
    • 3. If the official names we have for those two groups are Persian Brotherhood of Assassins and Babylonian Brotherhood of Assassins, that's what their article name should be.

      While it's not helpful for fiction, real world things can have the same name.

      "Persian Brotherhood of Assassins" can just mean a fraternity of Persians who assassinate which does not necessarily make them of the Assassin Brotherhood, it means that if they want to name themselves a Persian brotherhood of assassins, English requires capitals.

      4. If Kassandra is the only proto-Assassin, the category is redundant in my opinion.

      5. Of the Assassin Tomb personnel I just wrote around the possible conflict on the Darius page saying "By the time of the Renaissance, Darius was retroactively considered an Assassin" which I think clarifies but if Ubisoft says the Assassins started with the Hidden Ones we shouldn't be saying they were Assassins. And proto-Assassin is preferable to honorary Assassins or some such.

        Loading editor
    • Vetinari wrote: 4. If Kassandra is the only proto-Assassin, the category is redundant in my opinion.

      I suppose if we end up going with Zero's route, and Kassandra is the only proto-Assassin, you are right that we shouldn't have the category anymore. She would just be mentioned off-hand as a proto-Assassin in her own article.

        Loading editor
    • Important stuff from the tE.G2.0

      I'd like to add some paragraphs coming from the tE.G2.0. I have the Spanish version so I translated them to English as best as I could. These should give us an understanding about how it handles concepts regarding these characters.

      CHAPTER 3

      1. Before the Brotherhood: "The fight between freedom and control it dates back to a past very far away. The Brotherhood and the Templar Order have their roots in different historical events and in the decisions of ancestral figures, many of them being members of civilizations like Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. These people, groups and significant events influenced in the development of convictions that ended up becoming in what we know as Assassins and Templars."
      2. End of the Golden Age: "The conflict between order and chaos as always existed; the need one another, generating a delicate balance. The first hint of the origins of the values and actions that would lead to the creation of the Brotherhood it dates back aprox. in year 465. b.c.e, with Darius, a persian assassin (EDITOR'S NOTE: The "assassin" word is not written with the capital A in the book). Darius killed King Xerxes I by using a blade attached to his forearm that could extend and retract into a sheath, the first recorded use of a tool that would be known as the hidden blade."# Kassandra: "Kassandra was a proto-Assassin, since her state of activity was before the formation of the Brotherhood. Her values was family, free will and the belief that humanity deserved to take their own choices. These values were in consonance with the ones that would manifest centuries later in the Brotherhood."
      3. The Hidden Ones: "Aya took the alliance of Cleopatra with Rome as a disloyalty to what Aya herself considered most valued: the security and freedom of Egypt and its people. She discovered the evil that the Order represented, the hidden comrades that worked in the shadows to manipulate power instead of working for the betterment of the people of Egypt, were also in Rome and beyond. The compromise that Aya and Bayek with their objectives and their ethics decisions about how to take the Order out, took them to establish a new structure. So the Hidden Ones were born, an organization based in a code of shared ideals who would transform in the Assassin Brotherhood."

      CHAPTER 4

      1. The Assassin Brotherhood: "Although the roots of their ideals that would ended up being the seed of the Brotherhood dates back to antiquity, the origins of the organization and its Creed as we know it were established in Ancient Egypt, when Bayek of Siwa and Aya of Alexandria founded the Hidden Ones. Another prominent person whom the Brotherhood claims as ancestor is Iltani of Babylon, who murdered Alexander the Great in 323 b.c.e."
      2. The Assassin's Creed: "The essence of the Brotherhood's philosophy is coded in the Three Precepts of the Assassins which are based in the rules Bayek and Aya established for the Hidden Ones."
      3. Free Will, not chaos: "Free will doesn't imply the absence of consequences or of morality. It's rather the contrary; the Precepts require a deep level of auto discipline and ethic consideration and respect for other cultures, points of view and beliefs, in addition to accepting that it's not flawless."
      4. The Hidden Blade, the iconic weapon: "[...] Aya received the one used by Darius to kill Xerxes and gave it to Bayek. Later, she acquired her very own. THe Hidden Blade became the iconic weapon of the Hidden Ones."
      5. Back to the Shadows: "Under orders of Hassan-i Sabbah (1050 - 1124), the Levant Assassins were known publicly to inspire people to fight against opression. A century later, the Mongol forces attacked the Brotherhood as revenge for their participation in the death of Genghis Khan in 1227."

      CHAPTER 5

      1. The Templar Order: "Just like the Assassin Brotherhood, the origins of the Templar Order is shrouded in mystery. According to a foundational legend, Cain, one of Adam's and Eve's children, was one of their ancestors. He killed his brother not out of jealousy, but to acquire his PoE. Some refer to the symbol of the Order, as the Mark of Cain. The Templar Order has its roots in secret organizations of the past, like the Order of Ancients in Ancient Egypt, and other places. Previously, the fall of the Cult of Kosmos in Ancient Greece was a catalyst for the Order to establish a strong presence there after the end of the Peloponnesian War.".

      Answer to Cyfiero's question

      Cyfiero summarized my thoughts very well in the list, so no problem there. I'd like to see how it will be implemented (in both writing and categorization) once it's decided.

      Now, answering to Cyfiero's question: "Does this mean that henceforth, we should in fact be referring to Darius, Iltani, and Wei Yu as Assassins again—not just the Hidden Ones—provided that we explain clearly in the article that they preceded the founding of the Hidden Ones/Assassins and were regarded as Assassins posthumously?" I'd say yes to this. This way Zero's proposal works perfectly and every IU document calling them Assassins would still be correct because it was the Assassins themselves who honored them with that title. How? It's unknown and we can't be certaint about it. but we can deduce when: In Domenico's time when he founded Villa Auditore and/or built the Sanctuary, very after Altaïr's order to expand the Brotherhood, OR in Hassan-I Sabbah's time. Why? The very appearance of the "Assassin" word "blows the whistle" IMO. Do you understand my point? All of them made posthumously. After all, they were all dead so they didn't have any choice in the matter. Ironic, isn't it? And from that moment, all members of the Brotherhood around the globe started mentioning them as Assassins, not only inspirations for the Brotherhood itself, but also as honorary members... dead members.

      Is it possible to ask Patrice about this? Or to one of the writers?

        Loading editor
    • Cris's closing question speaks to my own thoughts on the matter: How well have the true arbiters of canon thought this through? Have they considered this as carefully as we have, or are they simply repeating what they've read here on the wiki as "canon," mistakenly-written or otherwise, which leaves us simply self-fulfilling our own interpretations of the lore? Sol intimated that the latter has already happened in his opening post. If Ubisoft wants to "outsource" the lore-keeping to this wiki, that's on them, but at the same time, we shouldn't be giving them that option. If it's at all possible, the writers are welcome to and should weigh in on this topic. Though I understand the issues with actually getting them to come down and talk to us.

      As for Kassandra being an Assassin, proto- or otherwise; if the Essential Guide states that fighting against the Order of Ancients is sufficient enough, then she counts. That's what I meant by a "lore master." It would be a writer or an officially licensed documentation by the writers.

        Loading editor
    • A point of mine I fear was missed.



      I am in favour of having Kassandra (in extension Adam and Eve) noted as proto-Assassins, and name others honored posthumorously as Assassins as such.

        Loading editor
    • Essential Guide 2.0 as written: "The Scepter of Alexander the Great was a Staff of Eden, given to Alexander by the Order of the Ancients to help him secure control of Macedonian region, and establish an empire far beyond its borders." – Chapter 2 (Staves of Eden section)

      "Alexander the Great was supported by proto-Templars as he forged his empire." – Chapter 5 (Templar History)

      Cristophorus35 wrote:

      CHAPTER 5

      1. The Templar Order: "Just like the Assassin Brotherhood, the origins of the Templar Order is shrouded in mystery. According to a foundational legend, Cain, one of Adam's and Eve's children, was one of their ancestors. He killed his brother not out of jealousy, but to acquire his PoE. Some refer to the symbol of the Order, as the Mark of Cain. The Templar Order has its roots in secret organizations of the past, like the Order of Ancients in Ancient Egypt, and other places. Previously, the fall of the Cult of Kosmos in Ancient Greece was a catalyst for the Order to establish a strong presence there after the end of the Peloponnesian War.".

      The English version (Templar History): "Like the Brotherhood of Assassins, the origins of the Templar Order are shrouded in mystery. An origin legend has Cain, one of Adam and Eve's sons, as a forebearer, and says that he murdered his brother Abel not out of jealousy, but to acquire a Piece of Eden. Some refer to the symbol of the Templar Order, the red cross pattée, as the mark of Cain.

      The Templar Order has its roots in previous secret organizations, one of which was the Order of the Ancients in Ancient Egypt and beyond. Before that, the downfall of the Cult of Kosmos in Ancient Greece was a catalyst for the ideas that would eventually lead to the formation of the Templar Order."

        Loading editor
    • Vetinari wrote:
      Essential Guide 2.0 as written:

      "The Scepter of Alexander the Great was a Staff of Eden, given to Alexander by the Order of the Ancients to help him secure control of Macedonian region, and establish an empire far beyond its borders." – Chapter 2 (Staves of Eden section)

      "Alexander the Great was supported by proto-Templars as he forged his empire." – Chapter 5 (Templar History)

      The English version (Templar History): "Like the Brotherhood of Assassins, the origins of the Templar Order are shrouded in mystery. An origin legend has Cain, one of Adam and Eve's sons, as a forebearer, and says that he murdered his brother Abel not out of jealousy, but to acquire a Piece of Eden. Some refer to the symbol of the Templar Order, the red cross pattée, as the mark of Cain.

      The Templar Order has its roots in previous secret organizations, one of which was the Order of the Ancients in Ancient Egypt and beyond. Before that, the downfall of the Cult of Kosmos in Ancient Greece was a catalyst for the ideas that would eventually lead to the formation of the Templar Order."

      Thanks! My translation wasn't so wrong after all!

        Loading editor
    • VilkaTheWolf wrote:
      A point of mine I fear was missed. 

      I am in favour of having Kassandra (in extension Adam and Eve) noted as proto-Assassins, and name others honored posthumorously as Assassins as such.

      Pardon me for missing that point of yours and good job for correcting it!

      Apart from this, I wonder if the fact "Alexander the Great was supported by proto-Templars" would technically contradict the Order of the Ancients being Templars?

      Also it has now been 6 days since this post was made (wow I thought it has been far longer than that). I think the standard time would be two weeks, so let's give one more week for this discussion in case there's anyone else who wants to contribute to it who hasn't yet or there are new developments. Unless you guys are impatient (personally I kind of am) and think that we should just close this tomorrow. xD

        Loading editor
    • I am not in favor of the Cult of Kosmos not being Proto-Templar, because they share similarities such as order, the rejection of democracy, chaos and the search for Piece of Eden. Any organism previous to a current organism that has almost the same habits is a precursor to the other, even if it does not have all the similar characteristics. Like the Congress of Vienna and the European Union, that is what unified Europe and ended its conflicts or the Roman Empire and the British, that imperialism is something of Roman origin. I suggest that the information that the Cult of Kosmos be Proto-Templar be readmitted on the Wiki pages.

        Loading editor
    • Hi JA Skywalker! I'd like to reply to some arguments of yours in your comment. All in good faith, of course!

      I am not in favor of the Cult of Kosmos not being Proto-Templar, because they share similarities such as order, the rejection of democracy, chaos and the search for Piece of Eden.

      We shouldn't rely on similarities to assume which group is a proto-Group and which isn't. That requires deep analysis like the one we are doing here. I must say that some of the similarities you mention are correct, but I have to counter-argument those of "order and chaos". The Templar Order never considered chaos as the ultimate objective, but as a mean to and end. Their objective is ultimate control. With the Cult of Kosmos, this isn't the case. In the game, the group is disorganized, persuing different objectives, constantly arguing between themselves, starting a war that wasn't in the Templar's (Ancient's) plans.

      Any organism previous to a current organism that has almost the same habits is a precursor to the other, even if it does not have all the similar characteristics. [...] that imperialism is something of Roman origin. I suggest that the information that the Cult of Kosmos be Proto-Templar be readmitted on the Wiki pages.

      That's the main problem here with the Cult. By definition they are not proto-Templars because the Templar Order already existed by that time and they were known as the Order of the Ancients. It's confirmed in the Essential Guide and in Origins (in not a so good way) that the Templars and the Order of Ancients are the same group and they were founded not by Cain, but a Egyptian Pharaoh: Smenkhkare in 1334 BCE. The Cult of Kosmos was founded between the 6th–5th century BCE (aprox. 900 years later) when the group called the Cult of Hermes split up in two sub-groups, one that believed that disorder was superior to order and the other believed the opposite. The Cult of Kosmos was the first one, the fell into the arms of chaos. They abused their power and started the Peloponnesian War for selfish gains.

      The Cult and the Order were allies and worked together in the Greco-Persian War, they wanted Xerxes to rule over the Greek World, but eventually this alliance fell apart when the Cult started the Peloponnesian War, the Order didn't like that and broke any connection they had with the Cult, even to the point to tell their members to kill any Cultist should they found about their presence.

      So by definition, they are not proto-Templars, because the Cult wasn't founded before the Templars were, but after. We shouldn't consider every group that fought for control before the Templars as proto-Templars, because that needs a connection, despite these group has similarities or none at all. The same with the groups that came before the Assassins. The only connection I see possible is Aspasia. The Cult ending leaves us some hints of her future: She will join the Order of Ancients. This hasn't been confirmed tho.

      Feel free to reply! Stay safe!

        Loading editor
    • Cristophorus35
      Cristophorus35 removed this reply because:
      ...
      20:58, May 10, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Well I do not agree, the Order of Ancients is not the only Proto-Templar group there was, there were several groups and individuals throughout the centuries before the founding of the Order. In Ancient Persia there was a group before the Hidden Ones led by Dario, and the Medjay were also Proto-Assassins, Kassandra did not belong to any group and is Proto-Assassin, apart from the fact that from time to time he killed innocents to defend himself, that It goes against the current Creed, even Darius also killed innocents for the same, this contradicts your theory about the difference of the Cult of Kosmos to the Templars. There were also Proto-Templar individuals, such as Cain, Arturo, and Harald Bluetoohd. There is other proof that the Cult of Kosmos are Proto-Templars, they wanted to control Greece by absolute order to keep the peace through the Peloponnesian War, curtailing civil liberties and the rights of Greek citizens, the Templars are supposed that they wanted order in the world, in addition you said that the Templars detested chaos, however Apep in Egyptian mythology was the embodiment of chaos, and was the mascot of the Order of Ancients.

        Loading editor
    • [...]the Order of Ancients is not the only Proto-Templar group there was, there were several groups and individuals throughout the centuries before the founding of the Order.

      This is correct, the Children of Cain. And there could be more, but it's unknown to this day. For a group (let's call it group A) to be a proto-something of other group (group B), there must be something that group A gives to Group B as a legacy, something to carry on forever. Darius, Iltani and Wei Yu did something or created something or established something that was passed on throughout the years and ended up being used by the Assassin Brotherhood. This is very important because if, let's say, a group C existed and it was fighting for the same cause that group A and B but eventually found its end and never passed something on to B, then it shouldn't be a proto-Group of B, because there was nothing to share. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, Proto means "first, especially from which other similar things develop;", from this proto-something other stuff comes, there's a connection, and the things that these characters pass on inspired the Assassin Brotherhood, in its creation, in its arsenal, traditions or other stuff.

      In Ancient Persia there was a group before the Hidden Ones led by Dario, and the Medjay were also Proto-Assassins, Kassandra did not belong to any group and is Proto-Assassin, apart from the fact that from time to time she killed innocents to defend herself, that it goes against the current Creed, even Darius also killed innocents for the same, this contradicts your theory about the difference of the Cult of Kosmos to the Templars.

      It doesn't. First, they cannot go against the Creed if it doesn't even exist by that time. Proto-Assassins are not Assassins. The word Proto-Assassins means that he/she/they came before the Assassins (Hidden Ones) and their deeds or traditions were an inspiration for the Assassins and they (the Assassins) took them as their own. As I wrote before, the Cult of Kosmos was founded aprox. 900 years after the Order's foundation. This is not a theory, it's a fact.

      There were also Proto-Templar individuals, such as Cain, Arturo, and Harald Bluetoohd. There is other proof that the Cult of Kosmos are Proto-Templars, they wanted to control Greece by absolute order to keep the peace through the Peloponnesian War, curtailing civil liberties and the rights of Greek citizens, the Templars are supposed that they wanted order in the world, in addition you said that the Templars detested chaos, however Apep in Egyptian mythology was the embodiment of chaos, and was the mascot of the Order of Ancients.

      Harald Bluetooth was not a member of a proto-Templar organization, but an ally. It's no the same. And no, in Odyssey, the Cult of Kosmos didn't want to control Greece by absolute order through the Peloponnesian War, as I wrote before they changed, the Cult of Kosmos was an ally of the Templar (Ancient's) Order, but they were not the same thing. At first, their interest were the same, but years later, they broke up their alliance. The reason behind this is because the Cult wanted power over Greece and not control, they wanted to profit from the war for their own selfish gains. And it's seen in the game that the Cult had big problems trying to keep everything right but they were so disorganized that it didn't go well for them. These issues can be seen by reading the hints we collect to discover the Cultist's identity, they give us additional lore. Again, we shouldn't rely on similarities, they don't confirm much of a connection at first sight. Now, I never wrote that Templars detested chaos, I said that they used it as a means to an end. The reason why the Ancients called their collective as "Snake" it was because the Order was so big, like Apep, that it doesn't matter how many of their members Bayek kills, the Snake will never die. Finally, it's not confirmed that the Snake in the Order's banner is Apep. It could symbolise the goddess Wadjet, an ancient protective deity of Lower Egypt, or Renenutet, goddess of the food, fertility and protector of the Pharaoh.

      Be safe!

        Loading editor
    • So in some future it could be mentioned in some game that Cult of Kosmos are Proto-Templars.

        Loading editor
    • SwordXD wrote:
      So in some future it could be mentioned in some game that Cult of Kosmos are Proto-Templars.

      Yes, it could. But that mention would be incorrect considering the arguments I wrote based on the info given by the essential guide and the game's DLC. Mentioning them as such with all of these reasons behind is misleading and, even, inconsistent.

        Loading editor
    • I had posted a longer message yesterday but it doesn't seems to have saved. I notice the page opposite the Templar History in the Essential Guide suggests the Cult of Kosmos are Templars cause it cites Deimos as an example of times Templars weren't able to keep their own in check. So the Essential Guide doesn't know what it wants. ;)

      Most of Origins/Odyssey is covered in a Before the Brotherhood chapter but that looks like it was done to avoid upending the structure of the following Brotherhood chapter carried over from the previous version of the Guide.

        Loading editor
    • Vetinari wrote:
      I notice the page opposite the Templar History in the Essential Guide suggests the Cult of Kosmos are Templars cause it cites Deimos as an example of times Templars weren't able to keep their own in check.

      Could you please mention the exact page? I tried looking for it in chapter 3 and chapter 5 but I couldn't find it. Maybe the translators took some liberties, or I'm blind as hell.

      In any case, my point still stands and even could confirm that Aspasia did end up joining the order.

        Loading editor
    • Page 113, the page of Ayala with the blood vial.

      The Templar Order also struggles to maintain control over the political puppets and weapons it shapes, and can sow the seeds of its own defeat, as seen in the early example of Deimos in Ancient Greece.

        Loading editor
    • Page 113, the page of Ayala with the blood vial.

      Thank you very much. I took a look at said page and I can confirm that (in the Spanish version) there's no mention of Deimos. Here's the picture: https://imgur.com/a/tTP2A9X This is bad news, we can only rely on the English version of the book.

      Vetinari, do you have the Essential Guide 2.0? Could you share with us a picture of said section, please? Just to be sure. :c

        Loading editor
    • Cristophorus35 wrote: Vetinari, do you have the Essential Guide 2.0? Could you share with us a picture of said section, please? Just to be sure. :c

      https://imgur.com/a/CgiB3z1

        Loading editor
    • Vetinari
      Vetinari removed this reply because:
      Dupe
      21:22, May 15, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Thank you kindly!

      Well, this sucks. It appears the E.G2.0 fails to give a proper answer and assumes the reader understands that the Cultists were Templars when clearly they were not (because of the reasons listed above). If you ask me, this little thing confirms that Aspasia ended up joining the Order, merging the Cult of Kosmos to it. That's the only way I see possible.

        Loading editor
    • Until we see a direct connection or influence from the CoK to the OotA or Templars I say we disregard that tidbit. Personally it makes sense for it to exist but if it’s never revealed that Aspasia joined the OotA and influenced their views they can’t really be said to be a predecessor.

        Loading editor
    • Hey! Just passing sharing the thoughts of a friend of mine, Wicih (and now known as "Phantom of Kosmos") about the "Liberatores" issue. He wanted to wrote this himself but was too busy. Anyway, here it is:

      Hi, there, I couldn’t read this thread yet but I noticed someone asking about the Liberatores’ position as a proto-Assassin organization. Maybe I can bring some lights: there is a Spanish community called “Assassin’s Creed Center” which is reviewing the figurine collection so far. The issue #41 (Amunet) talks about her allies, including Cassius and Brutus. Here you have the picures:

      https://imgur.com/a/GAa707k

      Look at the middle of the first paragraph, I’ll translate the sentence for you: “Caesar’s despotism encouraged Cassius and Brutus to conspirate with another senators in a try to assassinate him... They called this group the “Liberatores”, and were dedicated to protect Rome’s freedom against the possible Orden of the Ancients’ tyranny. When they realised oppression and dictatorship were not exclusive for Rome, began an alliance with the Hidden Ones so both groups got benefited by the relationship”.

      https://imgur.com/a/s7P5MFa

      Again, look at the middle of the first paragraph: “Brutus found this precursor vault by his visions and the “Liberatores” point of reunion, who later became part of the Roman Hidden Ones, was located in an adjacent room to the chamber”.

      I’m not changing any information and Cris can reafirmate it. So the Liberatores were not directly the Roman branch of the Hidden Ones, they started as alliaes and then decided to join Aya in the fight against the Order. I hope to had solved this question from… Cyfiero, if I remember well?

      Oh, and there was an image of Amunet’s hidden blades. Maybe they look cool for someone to add in an article.

      https://imgur.com/a/IPCxVhx

      I want to add that, in tE.G2.0 (Spanish version), Cassius and Brutus are not mentioned as member of the Hidden Ones but as "Individuals who worked with like-minded people [Aya]". But in page 56, it mentions that they left Rome to continue the Hidden Ones' work and later, they returned to save Aya.

      That's it! Stay safe!

        Loading editor
    • Lacrossedeamon
      Lacrossedeamon removed this reply because:
      Done being curious
      01:07, May 17, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Last Descendants (1) says "the Brotherhood can trace its roots in Italy back even further [than Ezio], to the Roman Liberalis Circulum." Which isn't necessarily stating that Liberalis Circulum = Roman Brotherhood = Hidden Ones.

      I don't have the Ankh trilogy to hand to see what those books say though the Ubisoft line seems to be stop bringing up the Ankh dammit. ;)

      Wiki users do sometimes have a habit of running with assumptions. We have North and South Korean Brotherhood of Assassins page titles just because Syndicate said there are Assassin cells in those countries yet there's a conjecture tag on Iltani's Order stating there's no canon name for that group. And King Arthur's page currently saying that he's of the Order of the Ancients makes my teeth itch. :p

        Loading editor
    • If i remember, Ubisoft said the past elements from the first AC French comics were canon while the present part wasn't. Maybe it evoled. In the comics the Circulum appeared in different part of Roman empire, Gaul, Hispania and Germania.

        Loading editor
    • Aymar Azaïzia stated in a tweet that the whole first volume (supposing he referred to the Cycle 1) of French comics was not canon. So that should include the past and present storylines as well.

      https://mobile.twitter.com/AymarMtl/status/1174356478507048961

      Apparently his tweet was an answer to Ilias // venngar_0011, who mentioned how those comics were made without consulting Ubisoft's brand team. https://mobile.twitter.com/venngar_0011/status/1174667252936953856 https://mobile.twitter.com/venngar_0011/status/1174271832897314816

        Loading editor
    • Wait, is Aquilus still canon? Because in the manual of AC3, they mentioned him as an Ancestor of Desmond. If they said he isn't canon, AC3 and all the sequel aren't canon also.

        Loading editor
    • Since elements from the regressive parts of those comics have been mentioned in other media like Aquilus in AC III or the Liberalis Circulum in LD we treat it as ambiguous canon much like Discovery.

        Loading editor
    • I was actually supposed to close this thread with the final results yesterday but neglected to do so. While I am glad to see that a fruitful discussion is still taking place here, it doesn't seem to be directly related to the questions posed by this thread which it seems everyone has had a chance to provide their input on by now.

      Voters

      For the purposes of these results, the following users have been counted:

      1. Soranin
      2. Lacrossedeamon
      3. Zero-ELEC
      4. Cristophorus
      5. Master Sima Yi
      6. Cyfiero
      7. VilkaTheWolf
      8. Vetinari
      9. RShepherd
      10. Sadelyrate

      If certain users left a question unanswered, their position is treated as neutral or ambivalent for the sake of keeping the total count of votes consistent. (i.e. makes it easier for me to keep track of and verify my counting).

      Votes

      Here are the final results:

      Should Hidden Ones be treated as Assassins?: YES
      Should Templars be treated as Order of the Ancients?: YES

      Extended proposal: Should those preceding the Hidden Ones who are honored as Assassins in older media (e.g. Darius, Wei Yu, Itani, etc.) also be called Assassins?

      1. Merging the pages

      (a) Should "Hidden Ones" be merged with "Assassins"?
      3:4:3
      (b) Should "Order of the Ancients" be merged with "Templars"?
      4:4:2
      NOTE: I counted Lacrosse's vote for 1(b) as "neutral" because I wasn't sure whether his opposition extended to OoA with Templars.

      2. Is the name "Hidden One" limited only to the Egyptian and Roman branches?

      We seem to all agree that we should wait for Valhalla to clarify this, but several people stated that in the meantime, we would still refer to Scandinavian Assassins prior to the 11th century as Assassins, not Hidden Ones.

      3. Moving Persian and Babylonian branch pages

      (a) Merge "Artabanus' group" into "Persian Brotherhood of Assassins"
      2:4:4
      (b) Move "Iltani's Order" to "Babylonian Brotherhood"
      5:3:2

      4. Call Kassandra a proto-Assassin?: 7:3:0

      I wasn't sure whether to count Vetinari as a vote for yes or neutral and ultimately went with the latter. You said that the category would be redundant if Kassandra is a proto-Assassin, which I agree with, but it's unclear if you agree that she herself should be treated as one or not.

      5. Support Zero's proposal to call Darius, Iltani, Wei Yu, etc. Assassins?: 9:0:1

      Conclusion

      Based on these results, here are the conclusions:

      • We are henceforth going to treat Hidden Ones as Assassins and Order of the Ancients as Templars. Individuals who predate the Hidden Ones but who we know of to have been honored posthumously as Assassins will also be treated as Assassins. (In other words AC2 mentioning them as Assassins will not be treated like it has been retconned away). The Cult of Kosmos will continue to not be treated as a Templar or proto-Templar group.
      • We remain unsure if "Hidden Ones" refers only to the Egyptian and Roman branches prior to the 11th century or also to any Assassin prior to the 11th century. Because of this, we will prefer "Assassin" over "Hidden One" for Assassins outside of those two branches prior to the 11th century.
      • Kassandra will be treated as a proto-Assassin, probably the only one so far. The category for proto-Assassins may indeed be redundant now, but we can discuss that more another time.
      • We will not be merging "Artabanus' group" into "Persian Brotherhood of Assassins", but we will be moving "Iltani's Order". I wish to verify which name we will move this latter page to, whether to "Babylonian Brotherhood of Assassins", "Babylonian Brotherhood", or "Order (Babylonia)" as Sima suggested although I think everyone else has already expressed their support for the former two.
      • We will need to revisit the questions about whether to merge "Hidden Ones" with "Assassins" and "Order of the Ancients" with "Templars" on their respective talk pages. The former is a tie, and the latter is too close for me to be comfortable doing the merge especially since its because Soranin divided his position on both.
      P.S.

      I recognize that this wasn't really formal voting. As of yet, we still don't have a formal voting system for this, and hopefully, this can be a step towards developing one. Some wiki like to have a preliminary discussion thread before opening up an official poll, but I thought that this two-step process would be too complicated for you guys. I wasn't sure if you guys would remember to come back for official voting. We have had issues with users having to gather "votes" based on the input in the past due to potential misinterpretations, and I hope everyone's positions were accurately presented here when I gathered them this time. Feel free to let me know if there were any errors that weren't caught! :)

      If you guys have any serious concerns or lingering questions regarding the results, please contact me on my talk page or open up a new thread.

        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+