Poll: Assassin's Creed: Are you an assassin or a templar?

[FakeSympathy]

Do you believe everyone should be free to do whatever they want under no authority?
Or do you think there should be an order that rules people to keep peace?

 

[TheIceQueen]

I will choose free will over control any day of the week.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

No third option allowing for middle ground, I am disappoint!

Templars. As Inu-kun said the Assassin's are straw anarchists at best and have this tendency to just murderize everyone that doesn't want absolute freedom. The Templars have, strangely, seemed very sympathetic ever since Assassin's Creed 3, with the Assassins looking more and more like a bunch of genocidal hypocrites ("everyone should be free, that's why our secret society runs all of Paris in secret!"). It doesn't help the Assassins that Haytam Kenway seems like the most reasonable person in the entire series.

 

[Ronald Nand]

If I'm forced to be an extremist and pick a side I'll go with the Templar Order.

Their the only ones who actually have a plan and their plans will bring peace, both in theory and practice. The Assassins sound nice but have no endgame plan, sure they fight tyranny and and oppose those whom seek to control others (whether for personal gain or ideological reasons), but they have no plan about bringing peace through freedom. Their idealists, they sound nice in the moment but have no future.

Besides Templar control (atleast Modern Templars) is less North Korea, and more Illuminati, you'll never know that their manipulating world governments, chances are things will just be normal the illuminate doesn't want conflict, and that's the worst case scenario (not being a Templar), if I'm in the order then I'll gain all the perks and benefits you see in ACB multiplayer.

 

[StormShaun]

I'd probably become a Templar.
This is more personal attraction, rather than goals and such.
Besides...

For as we know.
There are the "better" and "worse" members/smaller factions within these groups.
Sure, it is the same for the Assassins, but there are good Templars, yet the AC world hasn't exactly told us this ... Yet.

So yes, I'd become a "good" Templar. (The "" are because the definition of good and bad are different in AC, depending.)

 

[Keoul]

Templar I guess, not a fan of the whole religious spiel but law and order is the way to go for peace.
Then again I'll probably betray them and find a better middle ground.

 

[-Ezio-]

hmm. suddenly i feel very uncomfortable here...

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I...errr, well, ummm...oh I hate having to choose! Is there free ice-cream with any of these guys?

 

[Sniper Team 4]

there are good Templars, yet the AC world hasn't exactly told us this ... Yet.

Agreed. I would probably end up being a Templar as well because I think society needs to be structured and have leaders, but all the ones we have seen in the game series have just been evil. It's not a matter of opposing views, but one side being power-hungry murderers that want the world to kneel at their feet, not guide it like they claim.
At least playing as an Assassin, I can choose who I kill. I make it a point to never kill any guards that aren't Templars, but the Assassins only barely come off looking better than the Templars. It would be great if we got a game where we got to see the Templar's side of things. And I mean a real one, not, "Oh, with this I can rule the city/country/world!"

 

[kasperbbs]

I voted templars, but now that i think about it i just picked suicide, just one assassin easily murders thousands of people and they dislike Templars!

 

[Creator002]

There's parts of both I do and don't agree with. THIS THREAD IS ONE GIANT FALSE DILEMMA! Learn how to logic!
I do believe that rules are needed for peace, but you can't control people completely.

 

[lunavixen]

Neither group are particularly "good" morally, they're opposing extremes. A middle ground would be much better for everyone, yes, freedoms are good, they're great, but unlimited freedoms would result in worldwide anarchy, but being totally under others thumbs and being told what to do and think all the time is no good either, being under either "regime" would result in dissent and rebellion, often with lethal results for innocent people.

I can see both sides of the argument here, but the thing is, they're both working on a faulty premise.

Even captcha is in on it this time, "frabjous day", well played captcha, well played.

 

[rgrekejin]

Their the only ones who actually have a plan and their plans will bring peace, both in theory and practice. The Assassins sound nice but have no endgame plan, sure they fight tyranny and and oppose those whom seek to control others (whether for personal gain or ideological reasons), but they have no plan about bringing peace through freedom. Their idealists, they sound nice in the moment but have no future.

Why do the Assassins *need* an endgame plan? The Assassins have never had any grand objective beyond "Stop the Templars from secretly controlling everybody and free everyone up to do their own thing". To accept the idea that the Assassins need a plan beyond that is to accept the Templars' assumptions that people need to be controlled (for their own good of course!) by a central authority. And, as the saying goes, even a madman seems reasonable if you're willing to accept his assumptions.

 

[Hero of Lime]

You know the Assassins have some serious issues when the protagonist of AC 4, thinks their philosophy is full of holes. I've come to find the Assassins to be extremely lame in newer games. It seems like the Assassins cannot keep themselves afloat for long before their order collapses, while the Templars manage to stay in power. As others have mentioned, it's because the Templars have solid plans, while the Assassins just run around stabbing a bunch of people hoping things work out.

The Templars wanting ultimate control is obviously selfish and messed up. However, I feel like if they were to succeed, the world would be better off than the pure anarchy Assassins seem to desire. Though as far as I'm concerned, neither is close to having a solid ideology.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really hate both side sin the games, so I didn't vote.

I guess if I had to choose the least worst, I'd go with the pseudointellectual anarachists over the pseudointellectual authoritarians?

But really, it's like deciding whether you'd rather be shot in the left kidney or the right.

 

[erbkaiser]

Control over anarchy any day.

I make my own luck.

 

[Pseudonym]

I've played two of the assassins creed games to completion but the story, or anything about it really didn't stick out much besides being bad. I barely remember who we were or why I did anything. I believe I was being manipulated anyway so it didn't really matter. So going purely by their motto's you've added: screw the nihilists. It is true that 'two plus two make four' and torture is not permitted. Assasins refuted. By comparison, I don't know who this father of understanding is but taking the liberty to not take the templars entirely literally, understanding is a good thing and reaching it should be a guiding principle in any circumstance.

 

[Doom972]

If it's purely a matter of order vs chaos, I would always lean more towards order. If I didn't know what Desmond knows, I'd probably go with the Templars.