The Assassins and Templars are Idiots

[Sonofadiddly]

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

 

[barbzilla]

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

 

[freakonaleash]

Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

 

[Yosarian2]

First off:

@CaspianRoach:"So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha." As presented in the article, Assassins are the no-governance and that has always been the conservative (as in less government) line. People who want a liberal amount of government would be the Templar. Equating everyone you don't like to every other bad guy ever is how you get things like the occupied territories of Israel (because Jews couldn't possibly run a concentration camp, that would be ludicrous!), and siding with Chechnyans that bombed civilians and held schools hostage (because they're fighting Russsians and commies are bad like in the Bond movies).

Well, not really; liberals are more in favor of a government involvement in economic terms, but they are also more in favor of individual rights, while conservatives tend to be much more pro-authority, pro-police state, tend to be in favor of more harsh punishment for crimes, tend to be more in favor of a strong military, ect.

 

[barbzilla]

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

Lol, yeah we are on the same page. I just wanted to make the correction to the original statement, other than that agree with you 100%

 

[Kurt Cristal]

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

Lol, yeah we are on the same page. I just wanted to make the correction to the original statement, other than that agree with you 100%

Must. Resist. Pro-anarchy. Counter-arguement. HRRRRK!

GAH! NO USE! I'm not necessarily an anarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist. Which is fun and different from plain old boring anarchy and has books about it. Very short version: no government, everyone's individual rights are protected by insurance companies, capitalism is free of cronyism without a gov to hold their hand when they screw up so everything is pro-business and actually about success by being better. I believe this could work, but the world can't simply JUMP into this kind of society, especially not the USA.

On topic, based on what I got from the Assassin's and the Sons of Liberty themselves is that, as other people have said here, their ideology far more fits in with libertarianism. On the surface I'm a libertarian myself because if anarchy can't be achieved, at least libertarianism does still have a chance. Plus I don't get stones thrown at me for saying anything nice about anarchy. But the founding fathers, they were profoundly libertarian. Minimized government, freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of crapiness. Wait I think I got part of that wrong...

 

[Futzpah]

"History has shown that tyranny doesn't work out in the long run. But it has also shown that what equally doesn't work are political systems based around the assumption that human beings won't act like selfish dickheads." - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

Epic.

 

[BlackStar42]

Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Well, I would have used "The Keepers" as the name of this neutral, observant, balance-keeping third party, but I suppose those guys lost rights to the title of "Team Sensible" about halfway through Deadly Shadows.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

Socially perhaps. Democrats tend to be a bit more favored towards big governemnt controlling things, but alot more allowing of social choice and the republicans go on and on about freedom from government intervention and control but if anyone wants to get married to a member of the opposite sex or doesn't want to live in a theocratic state all that freedom stuff comes crashing down. I would compare it more to the Libertarians vs the Communists. Or perhaps Anarchist vs Totalitarians but same basic idea.

 

[Strazdas]

So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

Democrats are Templars, Republicans are.... well lets not get there. Assasins are agressive hippies.

article has been great as always, why do peopel still create games about war of independance? noone cares.

 

[PatrickXD]

I would vouch for Desmond's bloodline to be that third party Yahtzee is talking about.

Spoiler

Considering the fact that Haytham is a Templar, and obviously a very high ranking one who gets shit done. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that Desmond's grandparents were Templar's who got Abstergo started.

I think that the writers of Assassins Creed are well aware that both the Assassins and Templars are idiots, and the resultant message will be 'let's work together'.

 

[IronMit]

The world doesn't care about America's war on independence because no-one else learns about it. It's not relevant to anyone else except Britain and maybe mexico.

I'm assuming the war of independence is British colonies fighting off England/Britain. I'm not even sure because we don't learn about it in England. I learnt about Henry VIII 6 wives and how he killed them , i learnt about Ancient Egypt but not about America's war of independence against us or Napoleon.

Thus when watching Bill and Ted's excellent adventure or National Treasure there's a lot of references that I probably don't get.

I don't even have a point I thought I should just add something

 

[Monsterfurby]

Applies to US politics as well. There needs to be a "reasonable" party.

 

[Balkan]

I like this idea. Focussing on a possible third ancient order who's job it is to keep the scales balanced between the two extremes of the Assassins and The Templars. They'd be be a lot better than the convoluted (and ultimately pointless) 'Ones Who Came Before'.

Also, now the series is done with Desmond's arc, there's nothing to stop them going backward in History again, so we may still see the French Revolution yet. Personally, I hope they go all the way back to a pre-AC1 date. Ancient Egypt perhaps?

Ive always wanted an ac set during the russian revolution. Great architecture, lots of people dying in mysterious ways and a great period for AC's philosophical themes .Also ubisoft has the fucking roots for it all from their own comic books .
Revolutionary 'Merica might have worked if they showed people standing up, get inspired and fight for their rights, I don't care in its historicly accurate or not, sounds way more interesting than some guy going around random battlefields .You never feel like Connor knew what he was doing, he just goes places and fiths other people's battles for them .It never feels like a journey, the story doesn't live up to this epic trailer .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9jn5kRo9k
Pretty much all the effecting moments are here .

 

[beastro]

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of martial law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike], but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

Sorry, my interest in history has been primarily military in nature since before I could read.

It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.)

Sound like things have changed. All I had to deal with in school was about the French-Canadians, Indians and Metis. The Red River Rebellion occupied a massive part of it, or at the every least, stuck in my head. Sure has left me pissed off that Riel has now become a folk hero in our countries typical manner of making heroes out of enemies of the British Empire and vice versa.

Beyond that in social studies was learning about places like Nigeria as I rolled my eyes and kept wondering why we weren't studying the history relevant to a Western nations: European, Roman and Greek history.

I'm born and raised BC, btw.

 

[beastro]

Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.

The Americans introduced those ideals. Do you even realize that the French took inspiration from their War of Independence?

Their Revolution was the blackest of black marks on human history. It destroyed the foundations of Europe's cultural that took centuries to create and left nothing but Socialism and bloodshed in it's wake. You can thank that bloodthirsty mob for all the following revolutions and wars in history that killed more people in the last century than in entirety of human history combined.

The Latin American Wars of Independence had more in practicality to do with Britain and the Royal Navy than anything else. It was directly in the interests of Britain to break up Spain's colonial empire and open up new markets. But I will give you one thing, the meaningless cycle of bloodshed and infighting that resulted from it was surely inspired by the French.

Also, 1812 had little to nothing to do with impressment, it was merely the casus belli used by the hawks in the US to do what they'd been itching for decades to do: Complete their ultimate goal of conquering British North America and make their country the only power north of the tropics on the continent.

 

[jmarquiso]

As for the third group, I was expecting the Freemasons, to be honest. Not only did they really play a huge part in the revolutionary war, but they have a ton of conspiracy theory lore sent their way.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't think Connor's not exemplifying the views of the assassins was poor character development. I think this is an actual exploration by the developers into the cause. He's meant to not think what his actions really mean. He's meant to have an inner conflict over who he should be helping, what will result in the better outcome, between ideals and reality. The Templars are also meant to be sympathetic. They all exemplify a different aspect of the Templar ideology, and some of those make you legitimately question Connor's actions. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find AC3 more ideologically challenging than either of the other two. AC2-era probably had the largest share of Templars who were just dicks and needed to die, and the fight against oppression and the motive of revenge were both apparent. In AC3 there's a bit of confusion over who wants what, Haytham in particular makes a good point about how the Patriots are using Connor and don't necessarily uphold Connor's ideals or those of the assassins. Even in gameplay, patriots are just as ready to give you a shove with their rifle as any British soldier, and you don't even feel welcome in the forts that you liberate. AC3 is about questioning what and who is right, and whether either side's ideal state could ever be achieved.

That said, the Illuminati or Freemasons. Shady force controlling things behind the scenes, no-one's sure what they really do? Come on. Although, they seem to already have established the Templars as being in every nook and cranny of control.