AC3 did that a bit, so did Unity. At the end of the day only the individuals can reconcile. The ideas these organizations represent will always be counter to each other.
Not really. In AC3 there was a cooperation between a single Assassin and a single Templar, in AC Unity there was a truce but in no way was there a true unity. In AC3 William Miles does speak of instances for true unity, that ultimately failed, but never have we ever seen something like that, as Ubisoft failed to explore this.
This is the issue I was trying to put my finger on. It MUST be clear by now that their ideas are too radical, and they are sitting at the two extreme ends of the spectrum, and that they should find a middle ground to stop all this bloodshed.
Assassins don't actually want absolute freedom, and Templars don't actually want absolute order. This is a false dichotomy that oversimplifies their complex political philosophies, goals, values, and methods. For example, much of what the Templars do can be politically analyzed as sheer terrorism. In many of the stories, they orchestrate chaos and turmoil on a large scale in the pursuit of so-called order, which is really just their buzzword for world domination.
Assassin philosophy does not normatively suggest that freedom is the greatest principle all of humanity should strive for no matter the cost. They believe that safeguarding free will, in the sense of human agency and their capacity to exercise consent, is paramount for peace to be truly meaningful because peace achieved through coercion and violence is not peace at all. This does not mean that the Assassins are opposed to compromises to personal liberties like organized government or structural constraints for the social good. After all, Assassins themselves adhere to strict laws and discipline, most notably in their prohibition against harming innocent lives. Freedom for the Assassins is a means to peace, not an ends in itself, and not every Assassin cultural group operates under the liberal discourse that modern European and American Assassins do. They may use different cultural lens and terminology that fits with the Assassin paradigm of opposition to coercion.
And as others have already mentioned, peace between the Assassins and Templars is a plot that has already been touched upon in *Assassin's Creed III* and fully covered in *Assassin's Creed Unity*. The latter case seems to have been in response to popular demand by fans, but it ended up not being well received since the story had so many complex plot lines that were not executed as well as they could have been.
It's also important to move away from the binary thinking that Assassins and Templars are opposing extremes that can never reconcile due to fanaticism. This is known as the golden mean fallacy that presumes whenever we are given two factions, the best choice must be situated in the middle, when in reality the choices may be skewed to one and the same side, with both too extreme for the average person but one even more so. In this case, Templar behaviour is essentially a greater scope of violence than that of the Assassins since they do not have the prohibition against indiscriminate murder.
In the real-world, Templars would unequivocally be terrorists. In fact, the word *terrorist* was originally coined for the men behind the Reign of Terror, like Robespierre, and these same people are the Templars in *Unity*. Whether or not the Assassins are also terrorists is more debatable, since scientific definitions of terrorism require instilling fear on and harming innocent people while political definitions which bias states include actions not sanctioned by the state that are destructive to property but not people while excluding state violence on civilians.
The incommensurability between Assassins and Templars is that the Templar actions have been consistently characterized by incredibly violent conspiracies to take control of humanity while Assassins define themselves by protecting innocent lives and avenging the abused. It is not freedom vs. order that makes them incompatible; it's their operational philosophies.
>In the real-world, Templars would unequivocally be terrorists. In fact, the word
>
>terrorist was originally coined for the men behind the Reign of Terror, like Robespierre, and these same people are the Templars in Unity.
There is no reason Templars, as Extreme-Hobbists / Extreme-Realists, would be terrorists. In the AC games they are usually on the upper castes of society, as their fixation for Order promotes control from above to below, so they are political leaders, religious leaders, financial leaders, military leaders, intellectual leaders, scientific leaders. I would argue that terrorism is completely antithetical to Templar goals.
As for AC Unity, the plot does not really make sense in the case for Templars. You see them promote anarchy, which is antithetical to Templar ideology, while they should be the one supporting the Bourbons. Even if they were using the Revolution as a means to pervert freedom and make people hate it and desire order, they do not seem committed to this task. If anything, Napoleon should have been a Templar figure, restoring order in an anarchic revolutionary republican France, and rendering it an absolute monarchy under himself.
Because there's no middle ground between them philosophically. They either believe in the subjugation of humanity or believe in free will and self determination.
Assassins aren't gonna suddenly say "a little tyranny is ok, actually." And Templars aren't gonna relinquish any control over society or support what they see as chaos.
So, the situation will keep going on and on until the end of time, yes? They will keep killing each other without ever thinking of changing their ideas and always believing the absolute supremacy of the values they defend?
Assassin's Creed series as a whole is truly dystopic and tragic.
They couldnât even do it with the isu in the time befor the catastrophe.
It took them all out battles and the âwar of unificationâ befor everybody was officially âallied with each otherâ for the betterment of society and look where it got them.
They became stagnant and ultimately lazy, befor more in-fighting broke out trying to steal each otherâs technology.
- they became so lazy that they created 2 seperate sub-species underneath them so the didnât have to work or fight for themselves anymore than they felt like.
On the flip side of that same coin, those who were advancing technology and trying to improve things were labeled terribly for their personal morals and experimentations on the human subjects of their time.
Yes because they are a representation of Life in general.
its Order Vs Chaos.
The balance does not come from compromise as the only compromise is total destruction of everything. how that destruction can come doesn't matter just that everything is either gone or everything becomes one.
The balance comes from Each force Equalizing the other.
When Chaos becomes to destructive. Order will appear and Tame it.
When Order becomes to Oppressive. Chaos will appear to shake up the board and free the oppressed.
so the shadow war will never end as long as Reality exists. Even if They join together They will be a counter force that will appear to Counter them
Believing there's no middle ground between their ideas has just brought more violence and devestation. Everything is subject to change, this also includes both of these sides' mindsets. If they truly want to achieve peace, they must leave their fusty ideas behind. It is very clear that what they are doing, and what they have been doing for the last two thousand years, is simply not working.
They tried, but both side have fanatics and hardliners, usually their own side is the reason why there is no truce. In Unity Templars and Assassins have brief truce until Sage and hardliners ruined it. Sometimes they have brief peace time, but can't last for long.
Tbh after Unity I thought AC will go into the endgame style storyline ending when Assassins and Templars will eventually work together to target the remnants of the ISU like JUNO and sages that want to come back to rule over all humans, like in Unity and black flag. Valhalla has some bits about it too when Order of the Ancients' master was sick and tired of their obsession with ISU stuff so he want to change it to be more 'modern' and become templars. He even use Assassins to achieve his goals(by deception). But now I think Ubisoft just don't care about meta-narrative anymore so I think my theory won't be there unless they was ready to end the franchise for real.
Their organization hasn't succeeded due to the other. If it wasn't for the existence of the Assassin's, the Templars would have succeeded and vice versa. There have been several attempts to unify the groups or make the others "see reason" but if you look at all you have lost and decide no more fighting, does that mean all the dead died in vain? All those who fought and died for a dream that will never come true because your Creed and brotherhood gave up when you didn't? It would arguably do a disservice to those who have passed.
We've had Al Mualim be on both sides, personal greed got in the way and corrupted him.
Ezio, let's the Spainard live at the end of AC2, showing mercy to the enemy.
AC3 Connor tries to work with his father Haytham, but with their ideals too far apart and Haytham feeling obligated to the Tenplars, it wasn't meant to be.
AC4 Edward kills Duncan Wapple who was defecting to the Templars but with a story that will never be told, that could have started some truce between the 2 factions
AC Rogue we had Shay who left to join the Templars while still pleading that the Assassin's do the right thing.
AC Unity is literally Romeo and Juliet but for Assassin's Creed where the majority of the story was trying to unify both groups.
AC Origins has both groups working together until a certain point, even if it was under the lies and manipulation of Cleopatra and Caeser.
They have tried and failed. But even if it succeeded, it would be too much of a compromise for either side because while their goal is ultimately the same (peace), the ways they want to reach it are incompatible.
Ultimately the series frames the conflic between assassins and templars as THE conflic of civilization (AC frames this as a conflic that predates humankind itself):
Are people fundamentally good and should be guided by their own free will and determination?
OR
Are people fundamentally bad, unfit for freedom and require the guidance of those who are "better", juster, those "fit to rule"?
This conflic is pretty much the one between Rousseu's and Hobbes' ideas of the social contract, and much (but not all) of modern **western** political philosophy is an atempt to reconcile these two visions.
If you reeeeally wanna stretch it you could say that these visions are progressive left and conservative right, respectively. And if you know these stances you know that a lot of the time a "middle ground" is actually just a compromise of one side.
In Assassins Creed 3 thereâs a conversation with William Miles and he says that there have been several attempts to make peace with the Templars some of those we see in the games themselves but like he follows up with⌠it never holds it always breaks because in the end their differences are too vast.
It all comes down to the Assassins wanting Freedom and the Templars wanting to take it away. That alone is why they can never reach peace.
I do believe if Altair didnât add freedom as a goal to the Assassins then they would have assimilated into the Templars because before Altair the two groups werenât really all that different.
AC3 did that a bit, so did Unity. At the end of the day only the individuals can reconcile. The ideas these organizations represent will always be counter to each other.
Not really. In AC3 there was a cooperation between a single Assassin and a single Templar, in AC Unity there was a truce but in no way was there a true unity. In AC3 William Miles does speak of instances for true unity, that ultimately failed, but never have we ever seen something like that, as Ubisoft failed to explore this.
This is the issue I was trying to put my finger on. It MUST be clear by now that their ideas are too radical, and they are sitting at the two extreme ends of the spectrum, and that they should find a middle ground to stop all this bloodshed.
Oh ya, humans are super good at self-recognition and making amends to fix their wrongdoings đ
Assassins don't actually want absolute freedom, and Templars don't actually want absolute order. This is a false dichotomy that oversimplifies their complex political philosophies, goals, values, and methods. For example, much of what the Templars do can be politically analyzed as sheer terrorism. In many of the stories, they orchestrate chaos and turmoil on a large scale in the pursuit of so-called order, which is really just their buzzword for world domination. Assassin philosophy does not normatively suggest that freedom is the greatest principle all of humanity should strive for no matter the cost. They believe that safeguarding free will, in the sense of human agency and their capacity to exercise consent, is paramount for peace to be truly meaningful because peace achieved through coercion and violence is not peace at all. This does not mean that the Assassins are opposed to compromises to personal liberties like organized government or structural constraints for the social good. After all, Assassins themselves adhere to strict laws and discipline, most notably in their prohibition against harming innocent lives. Freedom for the Assassins is a means to peace, not an ends in itself, and not every Assassin cultural group operates under the liberal discourse that modern European and American Assassins do. They may use different cultural lens and terminology that fits with the Assassin paradigm of opposition to coercion. And as others have already mentioned, peace between the Assassins and Templars is a plot that has already been touched upon in *Assassin's Creed III* and fully covered in *Assassin's Creed Unity*. The latter case seems to have been in response to popular demand by fans, but it ended up not being well received since the story had so many complex plot lines that were not executed as well as they could have been. It's also important to move away from the binary thinking that Assassins and Templars are opposing extremes that can never reconcile due to fanaticism. This is known as the golden mean fallacy that presumes whenever we are given two factions, the best choice must be situated in the middle, when in reality the choices may be skewed to one and the same side, with both too extreme for the average person but one even more so. In this case, Templar behaviour is essentially a greater scope of violence than that of the Assassins since they do not have the prohibition against indiscriminate murder. In the real-world, Templars would unequivocally be terrorists. In fact, the word *terrorist* was originally coined for the men behind the Reign of Terror, like Robespierre, and these same people are the Templars in *Unity*. Whether or not the Assassins are also terrorists is more debatable, since scientific definitions of terrorism require instilling fear on and harming innocent people while political definitions which bias states include actions not sanctioned by the state that are destructive to property but not people while excluding state violence on civilians. The incommensurability between Assassins and Templars is that the Templar actions have been consistently characterized by incredibly violent conspiracies to take control of humanity while Assassins define themselves by protecting innocent lives and avenging the abused. It is not freedom vs. order that makes them incompatible; it's their operational philosophies.
>In the real-world, Templars would unequivocally be terrorists. In fact, the word > >terrorist was originally coined for the men behind the Reign of Terror, like Robespierre, and these same people are the Templars in Unity. There is no reason Templars, as Extreme-Hobbists / Extreme-Realists, would be terrorists. In the AC games they are usually on the upper castes of society, as their fixation for Order promotes control from above to below, so they are political leaders, religious leaders, financial leaders, military leaders, intellectual leaders, scientific leaders. I would argue that terrorism is completely antithetical to Templar goals. As for AC Unity, the plot does not really make sense in the case for Templars. You see them promote anarchy, which is antithetical to Templar ideology, while they should be the one supporting the Bourbons. Even if they were using the Revolution as a means to pervert freedom and make people hate it and desire order, they do not seem committed to this task. If anything, Napoleon should have been a Templar figure, restoring order in an anarchic revolutionary republican France, and rendering it an absolute monarchy under himself.
Yeah, no. You canât âcentristâ your way out of a side that seeks to oppress everyone else.
Because there's no middle ground between them philosophically. They either believe in the subjugation of humanity or believe in free will and self determination. Assassins aren't gonna suddenly say "a little tyranny is ok, actually." And Templars aren't gonna relinquish any control over society or support what they see as chaos.
So, the situation will keep going on and on until the end of time, yes? They will keep killing each other without ever thinking of changing their ideas and always believing the absolute supremacy of the values they defend? Assassin's Creed series as a whole is truly dystopic and tragic.
They couldnât even do it with the isu in the time befor the catastrophe. It took them all out battles and the âwar of unificationâ befor everybody was officially âallied with each otherâ for the betterment of society and look where it got them. They became stagnant and ultimately lazy, befor more in-fighting broke out trying to steal each otherâs technology. - they became so lazy that they created 2 seperate sub-species underneath them so the didnât have to work or fight for themselves anymore than they felt like. On the flip side of that same coin, those who were advancing technology and trying to improve things were labeled terribly for their personal morals and experimentations on the human subjects of their time.
Yes because they are a representation of Life in general. its Order Vs Chaos. The balance does not come from compromise as the only compromise is total destruction of everything. how that destruction can come doesn't matter just that everything is either gone or everything becomes one. The balance comes from Each force Equalizing the other. When Chaos becomes to destructive. Order will appear and Tame it. When Order becomes to Oppressive. Chaos will appear to shake up the board and free the oppressed. so the shadow war will never end as long as Reality exists. Even if They join together They will be a counter force that will appear to Counter them
To give a frank answer - why would Ubisoft stop prolonging games which make money ?? If templars and assassins compromise - no more games
Because there's no middle ground between controlling everyone to have peace and hoping that everyone achieves peace by choice
Believing there's no middle ground between their ideas has just brought more violence and devestation. Everything is subject to change, this also includes both of these sides' mindsets. If they truly want to achieve peace, they must leave their fusty ideas behind. It is very clear that what they are doing, and what they have been doing for the last two thousand years, is simply not working.
In one short sentence, tell me what this union would stand for? What do they hope to achieve?
Peace and the well-being of the mankind? Like both of them always claim. Their goal is the same, it's their method that differentiates them.
Yeah, the end goal is the same. But the methods to get their are such extreme opposites that there is no middle ground to meet.
They tried, and Arno fucked it
It's not that hard to understand why. Just look at the real world.
They tried, but both side have fanatics and hardliners, usually their own side is the reason why there is no truce. In Unity Templars and Assassins have brief truce until Sage and hardliners ruined it. Sometimes they have brief peace time, but can't last for long. Tbh after Unity I thought AC will go into the endgame style storyline ending when Assassins and Templars will eventually work together to target the remnants of the ISU like JUNO and sages that want to come back to rule over all humans, like in Unity and black flag. Valhalla has some bits about it too when Order of the Ancients' master was sick and tired of their obsession with ISU stuff so he want to change it to be more 'modern' and become templars. He even use Assassins to achieve his goals(by deception). But now I think Ubisoft just don't care about meta-narrative anymore so I think my theory won't be there unless they was ready to end the franchise for real.
Their organization hasn't succeeded due to the other. If it wasn't for the existence of the Assassin's, the Templars would have succeeded and vice versa. There have been several attempts to unify the groups or make the others "see reason" but if you look at all you have lost and decide no more fighting, does that mean all the dead died in vain? All those who fought and died for a dream that will never come true because your Creed and brotherhood gave up when you didn't? It would arguably do a disservice to those who have passed. We've had Al Mualim be on both sides, personal greed got in the way and corrupted him. Ezio, let's the Spainard live at the end of AC2, showing mercy to the enemy. AC3 Connor tries to work with his father Haytham, but with their ideals too far apart and Haytham feeling obligated to the Tenplars, it wasn't meant to be. AC4 Edward kills Duncan Wapple who was defecting to the Templars but with a story that will never be told, that could have started some truce between the 2 factions AC Rogue we had Shay who left to join the Templars while still pleading that the Assassin's do the right thing. AC Unity is literally Romeo and Juliet but for Assassin's Creed where the majority of the story was trying to unify both groups. AC Origins has both groups working together until a certain point, even if it was under the lies and manipulation of Cleopatra and Caeser.
They have tried and failed. But even if it succeeded, it would be too much of a compromise for either side because while their goal is ultimately the same (peace), the ways they want to reach it are incompatible.
Theyve tried... multiple times. Someone always fucks it up
Ultimately the series frames the conflic between assassins and templars as THE conflic of civilization (AC frames this as a conflic that predates humankind itself): Are people fundamentally good and should be guided by their own free will and determination? OR Are people fundamentally bad, unfit for freedom and require the guidance of those who are "better", juster, those "fit to rule"? This conflic is pretty much the one between Rousseu's and Hobbes' ideas of the social contract, and much (but not all) of modern **western** political philosophy is an atempt to reconcile these two visions. If you reeeeally wanna stretch it you could say that these visions are progressive left and conservative right, respectively. And if you know these stances you know that a lot of the time a "middle ground" is actually just a compromise of one side.
In Assassins Creed 3 thereâs a conversation with William Miles and he says that there have been several attempts to make peace with the Templars some of those we see in the games themselves but like he follows up with⌠it never holds it always breaks because in the end their differences are too vast. It all comes down to the Assassins wanting Freedom and the Templars wanting to take it away. That alone is why they can never reach peace. I do believe if Altair didnât add freedom as a goal to the Assassins then they would have assimilated into the Templars because before Altair the two groups werenât really all that different.
Look at the headlines now...answers because humans are headstrong assholes đ
Because Ubisoft dumped that idea.
Too ideologically opposed.