Hi everyone, so here is another interesting debate that came across to me as I played ACIII today.
First of all please try to argue without spoilers.
Here is the thing: as I figured it out, both Templars and Assassins wanted a world peace to be achieved. Yet, Templars tend to do that by force and believe that freedom is dangerous to people. Assassins faction on the other hand believes that freedom to people is the way to go. So I was curious which ideology would YOU choose if you ignore the religion bit (Templars were Christians and Assassins were Muslims) so purely based on their ideological view and not their affiliation?
I personally chose the Templar ideology bc it makes sense that the world needs order and that in nowadays the freedom leads more to destruction and misinformation and that the peace will come with a guiding hand.
To be honest, I always thought that the very ideologies of the Templars were correct. I don't know why, but the Assassins running around and causing chaos doesn't seem very peaceful at all. If you think about it, all throughout the game, you play like a villain.
I think it probably necessary to disclaim that I have never played any of the games of that series.
I personally chose the Templar ideology bc it makes sense that the world needs order and that in nowadays the freedom leads more to destruction and misinformation and that the peace will come with a guiding hand.
How can freedom lead to misinformation? On the contrary, with an arbitrary 'guide' misinformation is pre-programmed ("to keep the peace" or whatever Big Brother argumentation is used) while freedom allows for different views. As for the destruction, history (real history) shows us that totalitarian regimes weren't exactly peaceful either.
To be honest, I always thought that the very ideologies of the Templars were correct. I don't know why, but the Assassins running around and causing chaos doesn't seem very peaceful at all. If you think about it, all throughout the game, you play like a villain.
Aren't you comparing an ideology with a methodology here?
Freedom produces a lot of perspectives including false information. Each person benefits from the deception, they earn money like that. Each media using their freedom can false blame a person, portray a false perspective. That is the problem with freedom.
Just the fact that I just typed that could have already been utter nonsense that would give you the wrong idea, all bc of the freedom that I had (its not actually nonsense, just an example).
Totalitarian regimes worked fine through out the history as empires were forged and sustained for years. It is the discipline that you call "lack of peace" I presume.
Aren't you comparing an ideology with a methodology here?
I'm sorry let me rephrase myself, Templars believed in order to attain peace. Assassins believed in freedom to attain the same thing. If everyone acted on the idea that they could be free like the assassins, it would be a world without authority. Order is necessary, that's why it exists, even in this world. I think the world needs discipline more than freedom. So, I'm going with the ideologies of the Templars.
[...] both Templars and Assassins wanted a world peace to be achieved. Yet, Templars tend to do that by force and believe that freedom is dangerous to people. Assassins faction on the other hand believes that freedom to people is the way to go.
This is far too generalized. Freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and freedom of information should not be inhibited, and an individuals freedom should not be allowed to impinge upon the freedoms of another. Peace is unattainable for both totalitarianism and anarchy, so the question is a false dichotomy.
Therefore, I choose neither.
(Templars were Christians and Assassins were Muslims)
For some reason, I don't see this game being very popular with the Muslim community. Just a feeling, mind you.
Freedom produces a lot of perspectives including false information. Each person benefits from the deception, they earn money like that. Each media using their freedom can false blame a person, portray a false perspective. That is the problem with freedom.
Freedom may offer the perspective of disseminating false information, yet it also offers the liberty to critically review information and share such review. Logically it also offers the possibility to disseminate true information. Totalitarianism only allows the "truth" of the regime and suppresses any other information or any criticism of the regime. Hence, your point makes no sense.
I'm sorry let me rephrase myself, Templars believed in order to attain peace. Assassins believed in freedom to attain the same thing. If everyone acted on the idea that they could be free like the assassins, it would be a world without authority. Order is necessary, that's why it exists, even in this world. I think the world needs discipline more than freedom. So, I'm going with the ideologies of the Templars.
Maybe this makes sense if you only consider the two given extremes given by the game and the OP. But the game forcibly confronts you with the two extremes so as to develop the storyline; the situation is obviously far more complex in reality, as freedom and order are not mutually exclusive. I just cannot side with the Templar ideology because it apparently discards individual freedom, even if the other choice is whatever the assassins are. I do sympathise with Fishs choice to side with neither.
For some reason, I don't see this game being very popular with the Muslim community. Just a feeling, mind you.
The game is probably just referring to the historical origins of the assassins.
The game is probably just referring to the historical origins of the assassins.
It is. The first game follows a Muslim assassin fighting invading Templars during the Crusades. Other games include such notable Muslim leaders as; a merchant's son during in Europe during the renaissance, a native American helping in the revolution, and a Christian ex-slave freeing other slaves.
This strikes me as a rather absurd question. I, admittedly, haven't played all the AC games. But the protagonists are always assassins and as a result the assassins guild is always depicted as the good guys. Meanwhile, the Templars are never shown to be anything other than amoral, power hungry, megalomaniacs. They see the pieces of Eden as a means of forcibly controlling people and will do anything to acquire them. Even if their ultimate goal is peace, they're clearly villains. Asking which side is right makes as much sense as asking if we should have let the Nazis take over because they had an anti-smoking campaign.
In AC-III, Connor's father was converted into a Templar by Birch while his son Conner still remained an Assassin. I haven't played AC but a short storyline of it was told to me by my friend. At the starting of the game it seems that Templars are good than Assassins but as soon as we move forward in the game, we get a shock! The true character of Templars gets reveled.(<<<Just an intro)
As you said, Templar and Assassin have a same motive, that is "to attain peace" but one seeks it from the path of violence while other non-violence. I think in real sense neither Templars nor Assassins want peace. This is because these both classes fights cruelly with each other and because of this the whole concept of peace gets gone,,, the fights between them even makes the case worst. I think they both should sign a 'peace treaty', that would be better. Wars don't solve anything, it even makes it worse. (In other words their way to attain peace is bad).
In conclusion I think there should be order as well as freedom. Therefore, I choose both ideology but in a limited extent i.e order as well as freedom only. (Don't link this paragraph from what I said above because in this paragraph I am talking about their ideology while above I was talking about their WAY to fulfill their ideology).
I personally chose the Templar ideology bc it makes sense that the world needs order and that in nowadays the freedom leads more to destruction and misinformation and that the peace will come with a guiding hand.
That all comes down to who is doing the guiding. One thing you can count on is eventually people will screw up. Thus putting everything in the hands of the few only means it requires just a few to screw up everything. Which given enough time would be inevitable.
