Are The Templars Lowkey Right?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- All Clips Taken From Altair Stealth: / @altairstealth
Let's look at whether the templar order in Assassin's Creed is actually more correct and informed than the assassins. the important distinction we need to make is that methodology is very different from ideology. From there, we can begin to examine which group has the better idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliate Links
My Editor:
go.fiverr.com/...
MY PC
RTX 3060: amzn.to/3Y765gc
RAM: amzn.to/3VZbZ1b
Intel Core i7: amzn.to/3P65urg
Laptop: amzn.to/3Rbx5bY
MY EQUIPMENT
Headphones: amzn.to/3d0MkV2
Hard Drives: amzn.to/3qvC61T
Microphone: amzn.to/3RPx2kN
Pop Shield: amzn.to/3RPx2kN
Book of Altair: amzn.to/3xTFloc
AC GAMES
AC Valhalla: amzn.to/3d2GNgK
AC Odyssey: amzn.to/3B4ZRTq
AC Origins: amzn.to/3RNJoK3
AC Unity: amzn.to/3d42fBR
AC Syndicate: amzn.to/3Rw74Db
Do you agree? Or is this templar propaganda?
you want freedom and order mixed? very simple create an order of eternal vigglent watchers and protectors. people who know the pain the few have caused the masses. have them bound by an unbreakable moral code and let them secretly scare/remove those few into relinquishing their power... ie the assassin's order
Order works for thyself, but when you try to extend that order to others, that's when you become a tyrant. The beauty and spice of life is subjective opinions in others perspectives. Order for yourself can propagate your own creativity but if you force your version of order onto others you diminish others creativity and how they choose to interact with the world. The problem with ideology is it's often romanticized when you're just speaking of it. The methodology of bringing that ideology to fruition is usually less than just. My grandfather was a member of the United States Air Force and he always used to tell me there's no such thing as a good guy in war. Just a difference in ideology. Both sides think they are the good guys ironically that makes them both bad guys.
The Assassins believe in Freedom but killing does take away another persons freedom
They want open minds but consider every other ideology a threat
So they take away freedom to maintain freedom which makes no sense so I would definitly agree that the Templars are right.
May the father of understanding guide us
@@Hershman545'Morality' is a blurred and convoluted conjunction that is meant to make 'meaning' when it's all BS at the end of the day by just for the fact alone that Humans exist...
"morality" is an abstract that's stemmed from an idea to give 'meaning' against the haphazardly on what the basis level of Good and Evil offers, despite that it isn't the case because of how "morality" as a concept is paradoxical by or against nature...
there's no measures to deter a set of principles between Good and Evil for you to be deemed as 'moral' since the contradiction plays at hand with the concept of 'immoral' that's stemmed from 'moral' but it plays contradictory connotations with the concept of 'moral' by acknowledging the alignment and principles through Good and Evil, and Immoral is deemed to differentiate those who apparently don't set the standards of what's 'moral' which for some reason alludes to 'Good'...
Amoral on the other hand, is the contradictory opposite to what 'moral' is and is instead generalised through the notion of not caring or dwelling or not grasping on the notion of what's 'right and wrong' - which the definition plays a hand of it being deemed 'different' despite 'morality' having the same or connotating paradoxical play...
Partially
This video is Sponsored by Abstergo.
shh dont tell anyone
Ubisoft?
@@TheSpaniardAssassinso i guess you didn't read about my comment regarding the concept of 'morality' how you can't really utilise 'morality' when such a concept wasn't a detrimental factor to give 'meaning' until the Modern Era of Humans where it basically became a part of the Modern Ideological Dogma with contrived and blurred concepts such as 'normal' - 'race' etc.
@@TheSpaniardAssassin also, 'corrupt' or corruption equates to 'change' and change is an abstract or a paradoxical concept by nature.
it alludes to the 'idea of change' and how that gets determined but in actuality, that gets contradicted because of nature not being able to determine actual 'change' - so with that notion within the Human Genome into bringing 'corruption' in regards to Higher Power alluding to change because of the 'Higher Power' - then you can't determine the 'change' because of Humans setting a higher power in general such as taking over lands, creating profit for the sake of profit etc.
lol
Abstergo Industries approves this message.
;)
Nahhhh don't forget ubisoft
Cesare Borgia feels less like a Templar and more like if Eric Cartman came to power.
lmaooo
@Imakeplaylists-in1pwYou could say the same about Hitler.
Apparently there are lore entries suggesting that the wider Order was shocked at what he did, which even lead to the Templars teaming up with the Assassins to take him down.
Rodrigo already seemed to be in the Templars and Catholic Church for his own benefit rather than believing in the ideology of either. Cesare took that "I AM THE PROPHET" ego without sampling the schemer that managed to infiltrate and lead two huge organizations while being in it for himself.
@@bustanut5501where did you hear that?
@@yodaddyrc1220 I'm honestly not sure anymore.
I think it was on the AC wiki, but I couldn't tell you if it was the official one or the fandom led.
No side is actually right. That is the dilemma this franchise needs to explore. I think no other game did it as well as the og assasins creed and ac 3. All the other games show the templars as evil or for rogue, the assasins are evil
i agree with this tbh both have flawed reasoning
no 'other' games show a one-noted side to anything except for AC2, Origins and that's pretty much it...
both of these games tend to tackle on the notion of greyness but fail in execution because of poor writing...
Most of the time ac knows that the assasins are usualy in the wrong aswell
Unity also
i personally feel that 3 did better than 1 in dealing with the "greyness"of this conflict
Haytham is clearly one of the more virtuous templars though.
He is for sure
I just finished ac3 today and left saying Haytham was straight up correct
The guy who founded the organization that came to be known as the templars, in the wake of the downfall of the Order of Ancients, certainly believed the ideology he claimed from what I can tell.
The fact that so many templar leaders across the organization's history turned out to be corrupt kinda speaks for the one hole in the approach: making sure the one establishing the order isn't as fallible as the average human being that needs to be controlled.
Granted they began as a Christian organization so that problem likely solved itself in their eyes back then, but everything got further and further removed from that as time passed.
Pretty sure that's Shay
@@Lushmuffin81 agreed
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.
not in the later game
actually in the first games like ac 1 and ezio games
templars were just dumb bad guys
it was after ac 3 and the entry of haythem that templars really had reason for their actions
but yet again in after unity everything went into dust
@@sunchild_stealthNah, AC 1 still made you question whether you were in the right or not. Just the Ezio games didn't do that
@@sunchild_stealth what do you mean? Altair had full convos and even listened to some of the Templars and questioned a lot. Its how he realized Al Mualim wasn't who he says he is. He even marries a Templar. The only one where we don't really see the greyness shown I'd argue is Ezio's trilogy, you didnt really question if you were right because the guys were basically evil.
Just like in real life where the Bloods fight the Crips because one side wears white and the other side wears red. It's just become a gang war where both sides have forgotten their original goals.
I like the vision Unity had for the two factions, because I felt like they were going for them being more dubious with their goals and actions towards those goals. They didnt deliver it well, but the vision was there
The thing that I always loved about the war between assassins and Templars is that no side is right. Each side has it's pro and con
Its a great dilemma
I don't think owning the free will of human kind can be considered grey area. The assassins may have their problems, but I rather have them over the templars.
@DoctorXXIV It's a tragedy because Connor tried to achieve that peace with his father Haytham. It just didn't work out because Haytham was lying to him and using him and their ideals were just incompatible. Connor figured out that Haytham knew the truth about his quest for revenge the whole time and never told him until it was meant to make his position stronger and saw the manipulation.
@DoctorXXIVyou say this on the assumption the assassins went on murder sprees, while lore wise they'd just go for their intended target. Templars used isu tech for massacres and genocides, they are manipulative like the apples they lust over.
I'm only a minute into the video but the origins' main theme syncs perfectly with the topic and your voice
Lets gooo! Great feedback
@@TheSpaniardAssassin Btw have you seen the frontflip mod for acu? I can't wait to see you push it's boundaries as always
"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
Only if you assume that order cannot exist without a templar, as well as templars want order in natural chaos, assassins want "chaos" freedom from order that being said, let's say there exist no templars and some ruler starts stripping away his subjects of freedom, assassins then have a reason to exist without templars being needed
@@abram6282 some ruler or government stripping away its subjects of freedom is more or less how templars vie to operate
@@bruhbroham8760 yes indeed but then they wouldn't be templars, implying that assassins would exist even without templars because they care for the freedom, unless you claim that everybody, everybody that is a bit anti-freedom must be a templar, which would be weird but I guess I would have to take such view
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
That for me is what made it so cool is how they were always destined to be in that exact spot at the exact moment, they were the prophet and the wolf ya kno? Which got lost with all the newer games like they could be replaced and nothing would be different if you replace ezio or Connor or Altair or Edward the whole thing falls apart, and the whole free will thing I felt was like just a hippie rendition of what they believed, all the ideas got copied and what not
Desmond, Altair, and Ezio were all basically born into the brotherhood and had no way out of the conflict to begin with, whether they realized it sooner rather than later. Connor was pulled into it by the machinations of an isu. All three were part of the calculated prophecies of said isu. For all they fight for free will (well Desmond just wants the world to not die) they actually did not freely choose this path at all. Ezio himself remarks in Revelations that he did not really choose this life.
To be fair, if you are part of a group that literally calls themselves *assassins*, would you really be surprised when people think you are part of the baddies?
hahahah
Putting the cart before the horse.
The name of the organization came first, our association with murder second.
The word "assassination" literally comes from the Assassin Brotherhood. The word "assassin" did not exist before them.
@@SaucyJack88True, they called themselves "The Hidden Ones" originally. Basim seems to despise it in the current lore anyway
@@dybiosol it's also the case in the real world. Look up the Order of Assassins in our world and also look up the history and etymology of the word 'assassin'. The word came into the English language through French (assassini), which came into the French language through Arabic (ħashshāshīyīn) which came into the Arabic language because of the Al-Ḥashshāshīyīn (the Order of Assassins).
The word Assassin has its roots in arabic.
Mistranslation and historical propaganda (of those times, and slightly later) said the word was rooted in "eaters of hashish", but it actually stood for "men of principals/principaled men".
They were in fact religiously fanatical and would kill their marks out in the open, knowing full well they would likely die.
least obvious abstergo employee
😂😂
3 minutes in and I can tell bro is trying his hardest to not be cancelled.
Hahahaha facts
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
I don't think Haytham wanted absolute control though. He wanted to support north america and its people. Lee messed things up with his arrogance. That is why it is difficult to put people into one group.
Ezio supported the new leader in venice after killing the one before him. Assassins don't want anarchy. Though some of them have their own motivations to join, beyond world peace.
I think it is more about progress. Machiavelli said "I am an assassin trained in the ancient ways to safeguard mankind's evolution."
When you have a religion that tries to tell you that earth is the centre of the "solar" system there will be humans that want to question that. That's why it is important that you don't have a dictatorship. They would stop research for the truth and sacrifice anyone that stands in their way.
The words "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" invite to question things. Remind that things constantly evolve. And that a piece of land is like a semi-blank canvas people can build societies upon.
@@SwetlanasCozyplace
But thats one example and he was a good mix of learning the Assassins and templars ways
I must highlight the fact that Connor tried once to join both factions but the templars preferred to die.
I think assassins are right because, just like Ezio wanted, their goal is not to create an anarchic society but to create (or educate/inspire) a world where people could be able to exercise their own free will properly.
The whole franchise criticises so much the fact that majorities are usually so blind and manipulable... Which is a reality. The reason why the Templars believe they do NEED to control mankind is precisely because of how childish and stupid society tends to be.
Assassins simply want to change that so that control won't be necessary, but the Templars believe it is utopic (which I, as many of our protagonists can respect, the assassins respect Templars and know they're just fighting for what's right).
Except for Caesar Borgia, you can go to hell creepy bastard.
@@SwetlanasCozyplaceYou're right, Machiavelo is an example worth talking about!
@@sebastianalejandromendozat4715this is the comment I most agree with. It's never moral perfection or just freedom, it's searching for a way to accept free will without ignoring balance, thinking, reason, social norms, taking care of others, helping one another, etc.
Templars fail in trying to control people, even if their objective is the same of wanting peace and justice.
what's funny is that they both want peace, but with their difference in the way how they are constantly at war.
Assassins try not to kill anyone who disagrees with you challenge
Difficulty: impossible
Lmao
I can imagine a ac game where happen in Rio de janeiro, while the assasins are the drugs dealers, BOPE are the templars.
@@Biker-kh8js Eu não acho que os traficantes não seriam fáceis de nos fazer simpatizar
@@Nyarly-san eu já acho difícil simpatizar com os sassinos mesmo. Justamente por eles conseguirem nos fazer simpatizar com os cruzados com argumentos lógicos, mas depois continuam vilanizando eles como se não tivessem dito" que não tem um lado errado ". Pode ser porque a perspectiva que nós jogamos é sempre dos assassinos no animus e tals, mas ainda me incomoda continuarem com a narrativa de sempre.
@@Biker-kh8js sim, mas eu quero dizer que, eu não consigo imaginar traficantes de drogas com a filosofia dos assassinos, que apesar de serem meio hipócritas ainda tem um propósito nobre, já os traficantes tem motivos bem mais egoístas e gananciosos, sem contar aqueles que não tem outra forma de ganhar dinheiro é claro.
The philosophy behind ac, the fact these convos exist, is what makes Assassins creed such a legendary franchise. Something the newer games are sorely missing.
its actually really dumb
Lucy said it the best in the first game when she said what they want is good, but the way they're going about it? It's bad. Really bad.
My take here is that Too much Order leads to Tyranny and Too much Freedom leads to Chaos
I just steam-rolled through your last like ten videos and I am amazed man. Awesome scriptwriting and interesting video ideas that go further than "top 5 AC characters". This video and your video on the psychology of Bayek and Altair are top notch man. From another Spaniard, awesome job.
Wow, thanks!
Power does not corrupt but rather amplifies the traits of the person wielding it.
Something that you touch on at the end is that templars are themselves as flawed as the people they seek to control.
I think the games point out that people who seek to exert control over others are most often people with skewed morals and ethics that end up bringing more harm than good. I would agree with the templar ideology that most people would benefit from being controlled and told what to do, but in practice very rarely does a good natured and moral individual seek out to be a leader with that much authority over people's autonomy.
I can see both sides. But it’s hard to say because many concepts such as freedom, order and such seem vague. Those words for instance means so many things to different people. I believe myself that the templars are more practical while the assassins are more idealistic.
I’m actually working on a story of how the templars see the world. It has Shay making a return and him learning from the Templar grand master of Russia, Catherine the great. Another head-canon Templar is James Madison.
I'm writing an Assassin's Creed completely set in modern days; The protagonist is a 18 years old teenager that finds out the conflict between Assassins and Templars and, after the father of one of his friends got killed, he joins the Brotherhood. But after some time and some things he saw he starts to think that both factions are dangerous and insane, so whit the help of another Assassin, the daughter of a Templar general and her second father figure destroys the two sides. I will make him give his own explanation of the quote "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" too
how did i just find one of the best videos on UA-cam. subbed! much love man, loved the religious and philosophical tie ins!
Thank you so much!
Yes, they are.
May the Father of Understanding guide us
Jokes aside, they are both right and wrong, the problem is both sides are extremists in their belives
may the father of understanding guide us
May the father of understanding guide us. 🙏🏻
@@admiralleel6604 (Dorime bgm)
the fact is throughout most of the series , the violence is driven through personal need for vengeance, its a recurring theme, at most point does the ideology simply becomes the hollow justification for their own twisted sense of justice, their own personal goals and aims, the ideology keeps fading into the background because the people, on both ends are selfish, unable to contain their hatred and vengeful nature long enough to make any progress before wandering in search of personal fulfillment
I understand the Assassin's viewpoint but I take issue with how Templars go about it. Haytham was the only one I agreed with because he points out how the people didn't actually choose anything etc etc. He's the only Templar I agreed with, but he was also still raised with Assassin tendencies along with his sister so I mean.
This is lacking to many underlying systems that affect these ideologies. Freedom doesnt mean let everyone do what they want, it means for people to allow people to live life without having to survive it by wage exploitation and poverty. Having freedom, is to be communal for the benefit of others and punish those who try to hurt others.
Oh, exactly how I’ve wanted to live since seventh grade!
True
Irrelevent comment from me is this liberty or freedom?
How do you define hurting someone else though? A lot of people think that something doesn’t hurt others, but the thing is it does.
The problem with control in the name of peace, is someone will always get the short end of the stick.
While I do think that both ideologies are flawed, they both exist for very good reasons as they counterbalance each other. If you let either the Templars or Assassins run rampant on their own for too long, they end up ruining the world because of unchecked dogma (See Rogue). However if there is opposition, it allows one side to stay in their lane out of fear for what could happen to them and their organization. Maintaining the order and harmony of society by the end.
This way, you get the best of both worlds from the Assassins and the Templars simply because they keep getting humbled throughout their conflicts with each other and they don't overreach too much. A yin for a yang.
Basically, the only solution for that world is to just let them keep fighting as it is the natural order of things. In other words, Assassin's Creed cannot end.
Free will is not something that needs to be maintained though, nor is it the opposite of order. It’s a reality.
Assassins aren’t against order, just oppression. The assassins supported the Medici and the new Doge of Venice. Their mission isn’t to wipe out the Templars just to be a check against them. Yin and Yang with daggers
Tbf, Ezio’s interpretation of the AC motto is quite grounded
He explained it perfectly in revelations
You make really good points in the video but I think that the "goal" of the assassins is often a little misunderstood. They don't completely deny or fight the concept of order, they are not anarchists. After all they are also known as the Assassins Order. Their creed has rules, they agree that order is needed, but what they are actively against is when order becomes opression. In that way I don't think the assassins exist to "eradicate" the templars but rather to keep them in check when that power ultimately corrupts the ones in charge.
Honestly, neither side is completely right. Absolute control and absolute freedom are both bad. Absolute freedom doesn’t work since humans almost always just work towards their own interests, while absolute control could be good with the right leader, but that doesn’t usually happen. I think the best ideology is a mix of both, putting strong leaders in charge and fair rules, while letting people have free will to an extent. Although, I feel like this still wouldn’t work completely since it is impossible to make a utopia.
I think it would be possible, but the line that would need to be walked for that is so thin as to almost be monomolecular. You'd need rulers who love and respect humanity as a whole and humans individually so much that they'd give them as much freedom as is feasible, but who also have the power and will to commit whatever acts neccessary to advance the greater good, coupled with an extremely strong moral compass keeping them in check.
@@johanneskaiser8188 Yeah, but as you mentioned, a perfect leader like that would be near impossible to find
Templars:Are we the baddies?
Assassins:YES, but so are we ✨
"May the Father of Understanding Guide Us"
A wise man once said “No one man should have all that power.”
I was playing assassins creed rogue and much preferred playing as a templar. It aligned with my worldview.
Assassin ideology vs. Templar ideology kinda remind me of the Autobot vs. Decepticon ideologies
I think my favorite thing about the themes these games tackle is how there isn't a right answer. While the Assassin's are clearly the good guys because all of the games place them as such, the actual ideologies are way more interesting than most of the games explore. The Assassin's fight for free will, they want people to make their own choices and they try to stop anyone's attempts to take control away from the people. But the Templar's seem more right from a "realistic" pov, the Assassin's fight for chaos while the Templars fight for peace, and with such noble goals it's not hard to start to think they might have a point.
And the beautiful thing about this conflict is they both have a point, I never want to live in a world that stops fighting for freedom and ideals but it's also just as important to see the importance that structure and order have for keeping people safe. The Assassin's can never win because they will never take the final step, they stop the Templar's plots to seize control and then wait until they try to do so again. But the Templar's are willing to do many heinous acts for the "greater good", which is never a good mentality to have.
To me they are both extremes of opposing ideas. Like freewill is important but order is what gives accountability. Templars and Assassin's both have like a savior complex. The true enemy to humanity is righteousness, the belief in being better or smarter. For Templars, they feel they have the right to oppress and control because they are the enlightened ones, they are smarter or better understand humanity and it's flaws and needs. For Assassin's they are righteous in murder, believing they have the right to decide which person is bad for this world. The problem with the idea of killing one person to save 100s is that it can only truly be acted on by someone of higher thought, who can see the future and understand all people, only a god could truly see if killing one man will save a 100. But no one is a god, which means those flawed enough to believe they know better are actually no better than the worse of us.
Nice video! I find it really interesting that, in all of history where assassins where effective at foiling the templar's plans, the world was completely miserable and always at war, and at the first moment the templars took large scale control wars nearly seized and people became alot smarter. Now there are plenty of reasons to explain this in real life, but in the ac universe this would have seemingly proved the templar's point that they really do have the better solution.
That is the beauty of this franchize for me,there is no right or wrong.Just different views on the same thing,and i think a lot of us understand that achiving peace through free will is a good concept but unrealistic in this world.Even if assassin's win and achive their vision of peace somebody,no matter if in 100 or 1000 years even somebody will give in to evil and start a cycle of vengance all over again.Kinda like an never ending war,and one thing that really hit me is that Desmond knew this before he made his choise,i remember him saying "Whatever it is that might be behind that door will not be the ending.It will be just be anoder chapter in this never ending book...it will be up to you to keep flipping the pages...we can ONLY BELIEVE that what we are doing is right...".It really gave a wonderfull conclusion to his story and the story of the game as well which is fitting for a protagonist
Freedom doesn't lead to war, what does is the hunger for order. People are not the one that is bad, it is the system which grow them from the very beginning.
The majority would choose to avoid violence, specially nowadays, that's why most of us can live our lives in relative peace. Funny enough, that evolution in nature only comes thanks to order. In primitive times, we didn't know any better; now, thanks to society and knowledge, even without rules or punishment, most people is wise enough to avoid conflict.
Is a mix of both, like most things in life. "maintaining the Golden Mean" as Aristotle would said.
I'd rarely add something to the discussion, but this idea is something that always bothered me.
When you think about it, Templars are somehow right in the idea of control to achieve piece, because in some way - Assassins do almost the same.
Assassins kill people that are "not good" in their eyes, that are trying to control others etc. In other words they CONTROL people through the power - power of taking someone else's life. I believe in Ezio and Bayek story we saw that they killed people that were not even truly templars, but they have done terrible deeds and acted superior over someone else.
Of course if you would use the term - "freedom of one ends where the freedom of the second begins" - than you could go back and forth about what is control and how many people would have to die in order to get to the point, where there are no people whom would like to take control.
But if you forbid something like teaching about control (methods, history,..), you would start controlling people through knowledge, which you can do but makes you lean towards the idea of Templars. Or you won't do it, and the next person who will try to control someone - you (as Assassin) will kill him, which also means you took CONTROL over his freedom.
This is a good observation
In AC1 I love that by the end of the game, you side with the head of the Templars (King Richard The Lionheart) and stop/assassinate the head of the Order of Assassins (Al Muallim)... such a perfect/visionary game.
yeah the story was the best in ac1 imo
In my opinion, I think the assassin’s and templars’s are both right and wrong. If the assassin’s win the war against the templars their would be freedom but there would be chaos and no law, and if the templars win the war there would be to MUCH law and order that it would lead to a revolution. I think the world would be better off with out them or the assassin’s and templars working together to make a better world.
i mean in a perfect world yes
I disagree on the value of freewill. Where you talked about it is not worth the suffering of humanity. But without freewill, all of that would be pointless, humans would be powerless, and wouldnt matter anymore and life would be meaningless. I dont think its arrogant but instead i think we value this core belief and maybe we hold our free will above all else.
And the point of not wanting to decide on other people's suffering is only cowardly in my opinion. There will always be someone who disagrees, does that mean I shouldn't do or believe in what I believe? No, trying to take into account of everyone on earth is only an excuse to justify your dissatisfaction of the unknown. The unknown of whether anyone has freewill.
I miss when AC games used to have deep philosophical questions like this. I've always sorta equated the Assassin vs Templar debate similarly to the Jedi vs Sith debate in Star Wars. Both represent two extremes of a really interesting argument with decent points on both sides. Despite a favored side with both franchises, the opposing side also had some good characters who can make good arguments for why they're right. For Star Wars, many people believe that Count Dooku represents a good argument for the dark side. Whereas with AC, its Haytham Kenway who presented the best argument for Templars. What are the chances that they just both happen to be British?😅
"Order" is just another word for saying "control" or "safety". Those who want safety over freedom deserve neither!
I completely agree. Great way to get your point across
Glad you think so!
I am on the side of the Assassin's, Ideologically and Methodically. I personally think that, peace through control, would feel more like "A forced peace for the sake of peace" which will lead to a fight for freedom. In my opinion it's a sort of "mixed" solution. A simple motto, nothing is true and everything is permitted but also there should be some rules. A "act of freedom" and a "freedom of war" are 2 completely different sources of freedom. The definition of freedom is very important in this conflict as well. Do we talk freedom like in Unity/ The french revolution? Do we talk Freedom like in Syndicate? Or do we talk peace of War like in AC 1, 3 and Odyssey? What are we actually talking about when we talk about freedom? The Question, the creed, the war all go much deeper than just the simple right or wrong.
The bad guys wanting order but going extreme and the good guys wanting freedom but not considering the consequences is done in so much media (star wars is the first example that comes to mind) and I'd really like to play as a character that challenges their beliefs and actually changes, not to the other side but makes their own side
Of course the Spanish inquisition enjoyer would make a video approving Templar activity.
It's really no wonder a company like Ubisoft would make absolute control as appealing as possible
lmao
I agree with aspects of both. Something I recently realized is that evil isn't just created by freedom, it's created by free-time. Life is easy now, we're not struggling to survive. We've drastically lessened the time and attention we need for survival and put all of it into maximizing individuality and hedonism, and the more we do so the more we drift apart from the people around us for individuality which then makes it easier for us to condone exploiting other individuals for hedonism.
Consenting control is what is ideal, which we have had and still do across the world with things like religion. We consent to beliefs and rules to run by and have an authority of those rules to carve out those that would otherwise oppose those beliefs and rules. Of course I'm just explaining the idea of laws here but if we take this approach, the approach of law, and expanded it, it could work, but it could just as easily if not more so fail, which is the problem. Can we trust an individual or small group of individuals to be the "right" people? Most likely not. If we could? Then it would be heaven.
I think the assassins and the templars act as a balance between each of them , their actions actually cause the balance between the free will and order throughout the world . (just my theory of assumptions)
Too many freedom is an invitation to chaos.
Ever since i heard that line in AC3, i thought the Templars might be right on this one. Haytham the goat man.
Facts
completely agree. we can not realy rely on people to maintain their own prospects and peace by themselves
never
How European of you
Imagine if Ubisoft could make the Templars a franchise
Very interesting video man, however I feel like there are more nuances to this whole thing because to me it just seems like an endless cycle, if there was an alternate world where the assassins won over the templars and abstergo was never a thing, we can assume that there would be complete 'free will', but the thing is that this freedom would always be toppled by those who would rise in terms of power and I think freedom to do whatever your heart desires would in fact bring about people who want complete control over everyone. Humans are as you mentioned, the flaw in both of these ways of thinking, because the human tendencies of the templars leads them to become power hungry and corrupt, and the human tendencies of the assassins lead them to a similar place as well. I feel like its an interesting dilemma that this franchise never really explored to its full potential lol. Ironically enough, with goals as grand as absolute freedom, most assassins still undertake journeys of self fulfilling revenge stories haha.
Regardless, love your content, you are a fresh breath of air in the ac creator scene. All the best man.🤍
i hope they explore it more in the future! and thanks for the support :)
I always thought no side were right. Assassin encourages freedom while templar are for control. Thats what i like about the franchise where there are no heroes nor villains if you look like that anyway. Freedom and control are both valid ideas imo. Sure they do go far sometimes but they both have a reason to do what they do.
They're both right and both go about it wrong. I personally consider their ideologies sides of the same coin, remove one and it stops being a coin. It's quite simple, really. The templars believe society without order would be chaos, they're right. The assassins believe a world without freedom is tyrannical, they're also right. The problem is both sides want the extremes of their ideologies at play and I kind of find it stupid that both of these factions THAT CLAIM TO CARE about society and humanity in a macro scale, after years of clashing, both came close and never really came to this realization. It irks me how over-simplified this multi nuanced dilemma has been when time and time again in the franchise we see flaws of both sides' ideologies at play. It's never come to a conclusion, both extremes have to fight each other for the franchise to keep going and personally, I feel like the intelligence of players is being insulted. Freedom and order both need to be kept in check and I hate how in the franchise that there's NEVER been a faction between these two that treats both Assassins and Templars as actual troublemakers and extremists instead of the "movers and shakers" of the world they are always depicted to be, tipping the scales to either side again and again as they always do.
Honestly, Ubisoft should have made an AC title where former Assassins and Templars band together to keep these two sides from ever gaining the upperhand in the fate of humanity. A sequel to Rogue would've been the perfect way to put this into perspective with Shay betraying the Templars after seeing the suffering they wrought through his actions in the French Revolution. A story like that would've stayed true to the namesake "Rogue" title, as Shay has a tendency to betray as soon has he sees the flaws of a group's ideology they turn a blind eye to out of "the means and the costs are worth the ends".
Stellar video but the background music is too loud, I had trouble hearing your voice.
thank you for the feedback!
To be honest, I agree with the templar point of view. Not only because it seems more just unlike (Quoting haytham) ,,... That nonsense talk of freedom of yours". Im not saying their actions are justified (excluding haytham, because he actually tried to make america a better place to live, same with Shay.) But if we take those philosophies and try to connect them, it won't work as those are not in harmony. Just look at modern france today. Strikes, protests, vandalism all over again. Its vive la revolution all over again. That is the cost of freedom of choice and speech. Sure, let them have it, but controlled to a certain amount. If they want to protest, let it be so. But instead of ignoring people, listen to them, and accept more profound ideas of their thinking, not because of your personal gain, but, actually to make their lives better. Do not mess with their private life, unless it poses a threat to you. Let them live like they want. Do not use them for your personal gain; rather help them overcome their problems and use their advantages to make the life of your own people better.
Haytham is the best case for templars love him
@@TheSpaniardAssassin Haytham is an interesting topic to talk about! As an Assasin's creed geek I would be honored to speak with you about him more.
I love to hear you expand or explain the ideas of a work of fiction an take them as yours.
I love this kind of META worldbuilding that us -passionate gamers- generate.
I so much love to hear this ideas as to actually think: Man, I really disagree with what he is saying, but I really like to be able to listen to him.
I mostly understand and get your point of view, to the point I disagree, I think control is oppressive and I think freedom is not an utopia. You can have mentors, guides, sages leading. You can have moral grounds and social justice. And everything could co exist in freedom. -I'm leaving this short because this is an old video and I'm not used to engaging a lot in youtube comments.-
It's a good thing that you distinguished ideology and methodology at the very beginning of this discussion, because that's probably where the essential problem lies with the Templars (and the Assassins too) - their ideology is generally sound. After all, a civilization cannot exist without laws and order. However, the issue in the Templars' methodology is that they commonly assume that only THEY know what is best for the people. They tend to put themselves on a pedestal, believing that the "masses" do not know what they want or that they are wrong and must be guided.
This reminds me of a conversation between Suleiman and Ezio in Revelations...
Suleiman: "The world is a tapestry of many colors and patterns. A just ruler would celebrate this, not seek to unravel it all."
Ezio: "[Ahmed] fears the disorder that comes from difference."
Suleiman: "That is why we make laws to live by. A set of rules that applies to all in equal measure."
I think it's worth to point out that the Assassins aren't really against order. Rather, I think the Assassin's ideology implies that even lasting order and peace can only come from mutual understanding and respect of all parties. In other words, order should be achieved through compromise, not subjugation. Because how can you have a lasting order when it's only a single person or party dictating how all the rest should live.
The most ironic thing it seems, is that both practice the opposing faction's methods. The Assassins follow a strict adherence to the Creed and hierarchical structure, at times even practicing blind faith and unquestioning subservience. The Templars, for all their talk of order and structure, often place personal freedom, ambition and preservation above their Order's ideals. And they are certainly not above betraying and purging their own ranks.
At the end of the day, I think both ideologies are flawed in isolation. I like to think of them as being two pieces of a greater ideology.
I remember playing AC3 for the first time… and seeing my whole world collapse because it made me realize there’s no good or bad here. Just the same goal trough a different approach..
I have always felt that the Templars are actually right. "If everything is permitted, noone is safe..."
I agree for the most part, humans are chaotic. Any chance of peace is pretty much impossible if humans are free to do what they want. But while the Templars have a good idea, it’s also flawed because they themselves are human, and since they are human they are also vulnerable to their flaws as well. Just look at Cesare, he didn’t want peace he just wanted to rule everything. The world would be better off without the Assassins and Templars, but that would just open room for two other factions to replace them. So I guess there really isn’t much hope for true peace, but if I had to choose which faction to join I think I would choose the Templars. Because as Haytham Kenway once said “Freedom is an invitation for chaos.” The Templars at least have a small sliver of hope for peace, but the Assassin’s views will just lead to more violence.
not inherently. The meaning of the main maxim of the Creed is to be wise and mindful of what you learn and what you do. Basically you can do whatever you want but then there will be consequences.
@@lostsoul7345 That’s true, but that’s also the problem. A lot of the Assassins don’t look at consequences like Altair or Ezio did. The colonial brotherhood is a great example of how they only look at the short term, they were arrogant and didn’t want to listen to Shay even though he had the most experience with the precursor artifacts out of all of them, since Achilles is the one who sent him to Lisbon to collect the artifact. Instead of calming Shay down and asking him to explain what happened, they ignored him and blamed him for being careless. They ignored the consequences that would happen if they collected the artifacts, and look what happened, Lisbon had an earthquake that killed thousands, Shay betrayed the brotherhood, and nearly all of the brotherhood was wiped out before Achilles finally understood. You see the creed does command them to be wise, but since they are human they are flawed and sometimes just refuse to be wise. I’m not saying the Assassins are wrong, but they have a creed that just cannot work. The creed commands them to be wise and realize that their actions have consequences, but they often refuse to look at the consequences of having a world that is completely free. The Templars aren’t much better, but they at least have a small sliver of hope of changing the world for the better.
"It seems your tongue has tasted sour grapes my spanish friend!"
Okay let me break it to you, Assassins work under a motto of nothing is true and everything is permitted, lets focus on the 2nd half of it
Everything is permitted, now does that mean do whatever you want?? Thats like a really bad combination with freedom dont you think?? Anyone think so?? Lemme ask you this, do you think people like altair who had the apple of eden that literally is the key to ones own mind, Ezio who stood by the brotherhood till their last breath would stand for something so ridiculous?? NO
The motto has to have layers, and it does. The phrase isnt an invitation to do as your mind wants or as haytham states "Chaos", but its a Caution, a reminder that says everyone is capable of everything, hands of some men commit murder, do you think my hands are incapable of it?? Thats not possible as im the same flesh and bones as everyone, then why is it that some gangsters kill people they dont like but there's still people I dont like but i leave them alive, cuz its simple, that act can easily come back to bite me, "in life whatever goes around, comes around", if i dont wanna get hurt i have no right to cause hurt to others, if i dont wish myself to suffer i cant wish it for someone else, regardless of how much profit it causes me, cuz 1) its unrighteous and hypocrisy and 2) im not god, im just a part of nature and like anyone else, i cant escape the consequences, this is the foundation of a peaceful society, where no one comes after you if you dont go after them, and this limit or rule applies to everyone because its a necessary one, just like the tenant doesnt tell you it full context the same way the goal of assassins, peace thru freedom, isnt the entire picture, cuz there a bigger part this knowledge plays in it, where everyone knows not only their wants and needs but that of others and have a rational explanation to back them up, where if people go thru loss, they'd never wish it on someone else cuz they first-hand know what it feels like, where if a person sees someone in pain, they offer help, cuz they'd want that help from someone too if they themselves were in pain, this peace, this mindfullness, this bond of trust between people would be so good that there wouldn't be a better life than this, that any attempt at disrupting this to find a better way would always result in failure
Is this too much to ask, is this too perfect to be real? I cant say cuz even after thousands of years of "Modernization" all we still know is war and exploiting, the same thing thats been unchanged for hundreds of years, weve never been close to this, we've never tried, the capable exploit and the victim turns a blind eye
Frank herbert said "Power is magnetic to the corruptible"
Freedom doesnt have that withdraw, order does and its evident ingame and irl
I think its possible, and id love to take life easy and be vulnerable to my fellow man, control takes away the ability to be vulnerable, without it are you even human?
very interesting that the templar's overall ideology is more correct than the assassins... it's just that most templars turn out to be power-hungry and greedy so their means to achieve it becomes flawed.
I think the templars and assassins could learn a lot from each other.
The thing is, though, Ubisoft has made it absolutely clear that the Templars are the ones in the wrong, and that their ideals and their goals would ultimately lead to a dystopia. I say this for two reasons.
Even in the three games where the Templars are painted in shades of gray or as the heroes (1, 3, and Rogue), they're not exactly painted in the best light. In 1, they openly abuse the populations of Acre, Damascus, and Jerusalem, and often do so with impunity. Even Robert de Sable eventually wanted to take Richard the Lionheart's place. In this game, the Assassins are more organized, but the worst of them is Altair during the game's start who openly abuses the creed out of pride. Even then, his abuse of it is mild in comparison to the abuse Al Mualim did.
In 3, it's much easier to sympathize with the Templars because one, we play as Haytham at the start, and two, Connor and Achilles are the only true members of the brotherhood. What this means is that the Assassins back the revolutionaries only because the Templars believe that by using the British Empire, they can expand their control. Otherwise, the Revolutionaries would have had zero reason wiping out Connor's people and making Achilles a slave. Haytham does also bring up the point that there are going to be some people who won't feel safe unless there is a form of order, but the thing is... who gave the Templars the idea that they were the ones to make that order? Even then, order has different shapes, and not all of them are good. Haytham's argument is simply that tyranny is better than anarchy, but whenever you create order, you need to have an authority to back them up. That's what the Templars want: They want to be that authority. Connor and Achilles believe that no one should have power over anyone else for any reason. That's why they both believe freedom is peace: They've seen the ugly side of order and hate it.
And in Rogue, while the Assassins are seen as crazy people who'd rather destroy entire cities than abandon their cause, the Templars aren't all that better. The end of the game sees them orchestrating The French Revolution, and the only reason they want these temples is to find the pieces of Eden within and control the people with them. It's easy to paint the Assassins in a negative light this way, but as cold-blooded as this may sound... those cities were necessary sacrifices to protect the world from the Templars. The Assassins might not have the best people or make the best decisions all the time, but one: they are well aware of it. This is best seen with Shaun in AC2 openly admits to the fact that their job title is literally unaliving people, and there's no such thing as "good guys" in this conflict. Achilles was well aware of this fact, too, even as he saw the cost of finding and destroying these temples. The only reason Shay and Haytham don't end his life is because he knows the locations of the other temples. If the Templars were truly concerned with what was best for people, or wanting people to live peacefully, then they wouldn't be messing with these temples in the first place. The Assassins only target them because the Templars want them.
Now for point two: Captain Laserhawk.
This is a Netflix show that takes place in an alternate universe where all Ubisoft games are canonical and live in the same world. The show's setting is a fascist cyberpunk dystopia where Eden is the ultimate authority. They lie to the people using propaganda, commit every human rights violation imaginable, and try to control every last aspect of life through direct control. Towards the end of the first season, we see firsthand who Eden's board of directors are. And guess what? They're Templars. They even wear masks with the Templar insignia when talking to the characters on screen.
So are the Templars right? No. They never were. There's nothing sympathetic about them or their goals, and the Assassins, while they'd never admit it themselves, are the morally better option, and have the moral high ground in all they do. Yes, both sides do some really nasty things, but the thing is, no one remembers people in history so much for "what they did" but "why they did it." It's why everyone hates the guy who ran Germany in the early 20th century despite his death toll being dwarfed by his communist contemporaries.
And I want to end this by saying that I believe you have little faith in humanity. Yes, we are flawed, but that doesn't mean we deserve to be treated like puppets. Even then, it would just be humans leading humans. If you can't trust the general population of humans to be good and peaceful, then why are you backing openly malicious people who'd rather have a violent dictator in power rather than no power at all? The vast majority of people are good and decent. Yes, we are flawed, but the kind of peace the Assassins are fighting for accepts those flaws, and eliminates only those who would challenge both the peace most people want, and the freedom that makes that peace worth having.
This reminds me of the tolerance paradox. Where if the 'tolerant', tolerate the 'intolerant'. The 'intolerant' will prevail.
In other words. If the assassins want absolute freedom, they must take away the freedom of those who want absolute control. That way you preserve at leats some freedom.
Another fantastic video! I love your deeply contemplative take on the whole series. You've singlehandedly gotten me back into these games after almost a decade away. Addressing the specifics here, I think that the answer that the series gives to this dilemma, perhaps unintentionally, is as close to the right one as human philosophy has ever figured out. That is, both sides are both right and wrong, but the best answer is to HAVE both sides. In its way, the Templar's ideal is as naively utopian as that of the Assassins. The Assassins claim you can trust people to get society right, and that doesn't seem likely to be true. The Templars say you can trust a small group of intelligent, ethically-correct elites to impose order and therefore get society right, but history doesn't bear that out, either. I think the problem isn't just, as you said, that individual people are human and flawed and corruptible. It's that no one is super-intelligent enough to make the rules of order for the whole world, and no system of ethics has been perfected that can be applied to the entire world. The world is just too complicated, too dynamic. Too much order seems to cause suffering because it doesn't allow people enough freedom to deal with their situations at the ground level. Things like the Maoist Chinese famine are the best example, but I think it's a fundamental problem with top-down operations. On the other hand, too little order causes chaos as well, as you said. In the absence of a system that gets this balance right, the best we can hope for is two opposing sides keeping each other in check. That's kind of the idea behind democracy, after all. No one has gotten anywhere close to getting the balance right, but most golden ages historically got closer to the order vs. individual empowerment balance than not.
Goated comment
The solution would have been to guarantee personal intellectual free will, but left very few space to society free will, because the society is dynamic and tends to create problems only because they are tired with old things, maybe the solution is to guarantee progress but with filters, without extremism, but in all the cases the majority of people find always something to complain about and for that you can't rely on.
At the same time, even if a "regime" is something like an Enlighten Dictatorship, there will always be people who want to kill the sovereign, because he have power and people want also the same thing, in fact even if Leopoldus II was a very intelligent and right absolute sovereign, his lineage could not improve his work because other Nation wanted his lands, and maybe only 10 person in History can be seen as Enlighten, and the growt of society falls apart after the death of the Sovereign. The Order will always be interrupted by chaos, so the only way to make it work would be to convert the people in the Ideology of the people that have power, in AC chase, the Templar have to destroy the Brotherhood and convert the beliefs of the remaining Asssassins (and this is not always very moral)
The Templar's underlying premise that society cannot be trusted in maintaining peace through free will calls into question why they, as people with their own free will, should be trusted any differently. While I will admit that I think peace could only feasibly be achieved through their ideology I think it's far more realistic that it ends in corruption and makes the world much worse for everyone besides them.
The Assassins will never achieve peace. They would however protect the balance that people with free will enact on each other as a collective preventing society from swinging too far in either extreme of peace. To me, Assassins are more likely to create a better world than the Templars but only the Templars can make the best world. I'd err on the side of caution and go Assassins for that reason
I’ve finished rogue a few days ago and I’ve come to realize that the templars are such an interesting group of individuals. Not the tyrants like how I thought they were all. After playing rogue I come to the conclusion that the templars are much more relatable. Playing as shay and Haytham really shows the true Templar tactics.
The faulty with Templars is that the ideology blurs with the methodology. Templars want peace through control, but this puts them into a kind of superiority complex in which they think they know “what’s right for all.” But the truth is, they don’t know what’s right for all, especially when they have to sacrifice some population in order to achieve their goal (peace).
This is the same dilemma Desmond had to face. When given the chance to choose humanity’s extinction and restart civilization, he was faced with that superiority/saviour complex. But Assassins don’t believe in saviorism. They believe that justice should be acquired by the people. That’s the Assassins’ principle. Throughout history, the Assassins’ role has been to lend their hands in people’s struggle: To be with them side-by-side. Because the Assassins themselves knew that they don’t even know what’s best for the people. Only the people can and should decide.
I hope this topic will be explored more in depth in future, I feel that they don't do it for the same reason maybe some people would say "they are justifying this" and with both sides you know, which is sad because in my opinion giving more depth would help a lot to have more interesting stories.
Very cool video, however I would suggest putting the background music just a tad bit lower!
Noted!thanks for the tip!
I’m about to watch the video, but Captain Laserhawk did a pretty solid job of making me less willing to agree by showing a world where they win. I’ll let you make your case, though.
The problem with templars is that their true purpose is not peace but control (that's the thing that actually guides their actions, in concrete). Meanwhile, assassins (as far as i remember), are not fighting for an utopia: they don't want the world to move "towards" something, but try to make it work as it is, without compromising peoples' consciences
i just want an AC where we play as medieval era templars in europe
Clicked on this not thinking it was AC
It was
I like how the way both sides go about things is basically what each other is fighting for. Sounds weird but for example for people who believe free will is the most important thing the assassins are very ordered and incredibly bureaucratic. Whereas almost every templar is different to each other, and wears different clothing and accomplishes their goals through their own means. Whereas assassins have a very strict code.
Really love the video. But i don't agree with you, i think freedom is the most important thing we have, even if that has a great cost. But i do agree with you on that it isn't possible to have peace and freedom at the same time
I fully understand both sides but I side with the Assassins.
The Templars are technically right in regard to ideology. Humanity cant be trusted to be fully off the leash. However, the flaw of the Templars comes in practice. They essentially declare themselves as worthy to play God as if they’re any better than the rest of humanity. The actions of most Templars throughout history is further proof of this misplaced arrogance.
In contrast, I see the Assassins as a constant mediator in regard to freedom. They fight to prevent absolute tyranny, but they also fight to stop those who abuse freedom. They’re well aware that their way isn’t a perfect solution, so that’s why they constantly regulate society by taking out those who would abuse their freedom to cause anarchy.
The difference lies with ideals vs pragmatism. Overall, I think the Templars are right in ideals, but the Assassins are imperfectly right in practice.
God I wanna sub to this channel again. I love philosophy and I love Assassins Creed. Keep making videos like this man!
Yeah i agree
Bro love your videos just one quick thing could you maybe turn down the background music its pretty loud
"Are the Templars lowkey right" as a video title, created by a channel called The Spaniard. The jokes write themselves.
When do we get the new Helix, Abstergo intern? Devils of the Carribean was 12 years ago
😂😂
Interesting take, but I think it overlooks a few things, if templars were able to achieve their goal who gets to decide who controls who or in other words would it not end up on most cases becoming a social class issue given the status of most templars and their influence. Also while you are right that freedom is the issue here but the alternative that the templars are proposing requires a few or more ideally just 1 individual who is free and shepherds the rest into order, this is at the heart of any idea of having a monarchy or absolute power, how do you decide who gets to take that role whether its a group or 1 person and how do you remove the chance for corruption to take place, this goes back to the fact that in order to achieve what they want some smaller set of people or 1 person has to be free or think for themselves to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not. In my opinion this could potentially blow up into something even worse than having freedom, having people who fight for the rights of others like the assassins (and sometimes the templars) could mitigate the negatives of freedom. I don't know but it is just how I see it, great video!
I think Aristotle wrote that freedom is in choosing the good. A little more detailed than freedom to do anything-that’s licentiousness. But then St Thomas Aquinas came along and said the best government is a Monarchy with a good King. The worst government is a Monarchy with an evil King. A republic is great so long as it slows down or buffers bad choices; but also only works with small populations, not gigantic countries and empires.
It was rough only meeting Socrates in Odyssey. Kid Plato was there, but he and Aristotle didnt get to refine their stuff til decades later. And Aquinas centuries after
Then again, my biases obviously involve popes and sages/saints, sooo i guess i’m on the badguys side. Or the alien overlords’. It was hard to tell after the Desmond 2012 fiasco
All hail Shay Patrick Cormac
in my opinion both sides have their points and that's why both of them exist because in their conflicts when one side is corrupt the other side stops them that is why they both are needed. to maintain balance
I think the trouble with the Templars is they have the inverse of the Assassin’s philosophical contradiction. The Assassins have a creed that requires blind faith and gives order to the brotherhood, despite fighting against the Templars in order to preserve freedom. They also have tenets that stop them from taking things too far, to fight but in the right way. When Haytham says, “We require no creed. No indoctrination by desperate old men. All we need is that the world be as it is. And THIS is why the Templars will never be destroyed!” he is making a great pro-Templar argument but is simultaneously showing the issue with the Templars. They fight for order, but have no maxim to stop themselves from going too far as the Assassins do. This is why they routinely commit atrocities. Because the ends always justify the means, even in their oath it ends with, “whatever the cost.”
The whole point of the Creed is that you must be willing to ask questions and not just accept things at face value.
@@lostsoul7345 sure but at its core, doesn’t it require a blind faith that humanity is inherently good? Peace through freedom?
Ubisoft's attempt to disgrace christian templars and praise Islamic cults in the name of DEI.
The Assassins portrayed in the games couldn't be more wrong. When it comes to ideals, neither is really right or wrong. The Assassins only kill people who are officially Templars instead of killing all people who act according to their ideals. For example Ratohnhaké:ton fought for the Patriots who were in fact no better or perhaps were even worse than the British Templars. They did not ban slavery, they were openly racist and taking land from the native tribes, had death penalty (some states still do), took no shame in selling the native peoples' land to colonists. Even the British didn't do these things. And the Templars wanted to control both sides for all people to be equal in case any of them won. This way the Assassins killed many people who did nothing other than seek a good thing.
I think Tactical Bacon Productions said it best: The Templars and Assassins are both right. Problem is they aren’t 100% right. As the Assassin’s version of peace through freedom leads to Anarchy and the Templars version leads to Tyranny.
The key is a balance between the two, and its those who can’t reconcile this that cause the conflict to keep going.
“Freedom without order is chaos, but order without freedom is tyranny”.