Views : 21,627
Genre: Gaming
Date of upload: Mar 20, 2024 ^^
Rating : 4.846 (51/1,277 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-18T00:19:22.85721Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
My problem with a lot of the later AC games is that the names Assassins and Templars just became shorthand for the good guys and the bad guys. Wear a hood, use a hidden blade and parkour, and do these things for no other reason than you’re the main character of an AC game: Assassin. Be bad characters that do bad things the main character needs to fight against: Templar.
109 |
My understanding of their ideologies were; Templars, peace through control (typically totalitarian society); Assassin's, peace through absolute freedom (anarchy, but an educated/wise populous)
The reason I say the Assassin ideology is through a wise or educated population is that we see in characters like Ezio and Altaïr is a revelation that "All is Permitted" doesn't mean "do whatever you want," which I find implies more a rule of morality. However, they're still assassins and inherently derranged for their borderline excessive slaughter. So I believe their saying "stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent" implies a method to obtain their version of a utopia: kill those that infringe the freedoms of others, or don't kill unnecessarily, but who decides what makes it necessary? Though, maybe they're just hollow words that lose their meaning or changed through time and the interpretation of Assassins of the time has altered the true meaning of the tenant. Bayek seemed to mean "protect those that cannot protect themselves," a noble cause, but not really one we see much in games that take place later. Many later assassins allow the innocent to die to kill a Templar, the conflicting ideas seeming to cloud the mission of both sides.
The Templar "utopia" would likely resemble the domed city in a novel called "The Giver" where there's an absolute rule, lives are planned for you, people have given up all individuality and preference (or as much as can be removed from a person). At least that's (in my opinion) the most "peaceful" iteration of their world. Absolute order to establish a peaceful world, though freedom is absent
I think either world would be quite dystopian in practice, so ideally the two sides would find a common ground to create something better than their two extremes, but that doesn't really happen because both sides are overflowing with zealots. The Templar's absolute authority attracts the power hungry, whereas the Assassin's absolute freedom attracts the derranged. There are good people on both sides, but they also each attract and encourage their own kinds of evil as well.
That's the short-ish (not really) of my thoughts on the two. They're hopeful ideas, but in practice couldn't work very well as they rely on people being perfect and never falling to corruption or depravity
38 |
The ironic thing about assassins fighting for free will is that ezio and connor have shown us that the isu either can control what will happen (which i heavily doubt) or that they can envision the future and exactly what will happen and slightly influence that with the pieces of edens, meaning that at the very least ezio and connor had no free will just to show desmond valuable things
46 |
"For the greater good, Kassandra, all things are permitted" - Gergis, Order of the Ancient, Legacy of the First Blade DLC. This guy quoted the creed thousand years before it formed.
Still, I have come to the conclusion that assassins are merely the natural response to the templars. Meaning, the templars can exist by themselves but the assassins cannot. The templars pursue order while the assassins only respond to their actions. In a setting where there are no templars(Ancients, Cults, etc) the assassins will have no purpose, not just game-wise but ideologically as well.
No side is probably right. They're just game pieces in Isu DnD lol
20 |
@TheSpaniardAssassin
1 month ago
Do you agree? Or is this templar propaganda?
119 |