I think Edward said it best when he killed Torres: You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, but dulled beyond reason and sapped of all spirit.
Well that's just Torres, all of the Templars have different beliefs about how their goals should be accomplished and how order should be brought about.
@@twinzzlers I absolutely agree. George Monro made a lot of good points when he told Shay that he doesn’t wanna control people he wants to supply them with what they need so that they don’t want anything.
The Templar's ultimate goal is the subjugation of mankind in the name of peace. They are not the good guys. But doesn't mean the Assassins are always right. They had to be reformed a lot of times during their History because they made a lot of miatakes.
@@darthnater9731Is that not as bad? To want for nothing, to never know the meaning of struggle or challenge, which gives life the ability to hold meaning? That we might be pigs in some pen, simply waiting for the next round of feed to be poured into our troughs?
Only difference is Altair actually ended his mentor, Shay basically made it clear that the Templar Order he spent this entire game building upon is in squanders because of Connor, who was trained by Achilles
@@Cruddy129tbf you could argue that Shay was acting in the interests of the creed by dismantling it. This allowed the North American brotherhood to course correct from their previous arrogance and incompetence through humbling Achilles and temporarily neutering the brotherhood. Shay probably upheld the values of the creed better than the rest of the brotherhood given that he got shot in the back for trying to stop the deaths of more innocents.
@aceliious my english isnt so good but you can read everything here he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_(%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%94)#%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%98%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C
The Templar philosophy is logical in its ideal state, but by it’s nature would almost definitely lead to some of the most immoral forms of control imaginable. It essentially ignores the will of mankind. While the freedoms that the Assassins typically promote can be problematic, they’re usually just fighting oppression which is more moral than the Templars imposing theirs will on humanity, so I'd usually pick Assassins over the Templars. But as AC Rogue shows, it really depends on what place at what time honestly. If I experienced what Shay did, I'd probably leave the Creed as well. Not really sure I'd join the Templars though.
The Templars ideally want control, but not oppression. In 4 we learn that Torres is anti-slavery, so the order doesn't appreciate all forms of control.
@@jossebrodeur6033 yep torres hates how sad and corrupted empires are also later templars hate the borgias/renaissance because they didn't follow the proper ideals because they were too corrupted plus the very first game shows how horrible the assassin's can be as well as the main protagonist who purposefully broke all three tenets and ill argue that the brotherhood in 1 are more corrupted than the colonial plus the renaissance brotherhood aren't all that good but compared to the templars they were seen as good vs evil but later ezio shows when assassin's show their flaw which is chaos and with that chaos ezio causes an explosion that suffocated innocents underground and in the novel ezio felt bad but he said that it was necessary
shay was also hesitant to join the templars but what I believe converted him was the fight against bandits and others who seeked to harm innocent like assasins did in rouge through their ignorence to the earthquake and attempts at taking other artifacts even when they knew the consequences
@@stanisawkubsik5769 i wish the 'bandits' or 'gang members' were assassin's because rogue originally had assassin's who wore white robes but fitting for their time period and it was shown in concept art when shay still had the hood on his templar outfit also one theres a YT thumbnail of doing a execution move with his rifle well shotgun at the time against an assassin and the assassin has brown armor over his white robe to show rank
Shay wasn’t really a full Templar. But what the Order did for New York at that time was for a good cause. Increasing the average standard of living for the citizens.
It depends on leadership because a bad organization can be good later in time while a good organization becomes bad. People like Cesare Borgia used the Templars for selfish reasons. Jack the Ripper used the Assassins to get revenge for his mothers by using his learnt skills against the Frye twins who were like family to them. Edward did join the Templars briefly while disguised as Duncan for coin. People like Mister De la Serre, Haytham and Maria tried to bring peace to the world by uniting both sides but failed due to vendettas.
i mean its the only game that offers some kind of explanation for the templars, albeit a bit shallow, so i get why he'd always use that as a point of reference
@@smileyent.3055 it ain't shallow because rogue was added to the templars from previous games especially if you compare them to the renaissance templars who are too corrupted and dont follow the proper templar ideals which is why later templars hate the renaissance/borgia templars
Haytham deserves a game about his origin. He and shay are the the few templars whose actions wasn't only for their personal gain. Its really pity Connor had to kill his father. I hope in future to see more content with templars who fight for the right cause.
that’s why connor was a shit assassin he knew his father was in the right and only killed his father due to achilles hating haythem for ruining his terrorist plans in assassins creed rogue
Theres a comic that kind of serves as a wnding to edwards story and kinda a prigin for haytham wont spoil it but yea a lot hate certain aspects of it (they killed edward off in a disrespectful way)
His origins......It is not a very nice story. I don't even understand how he remained with the templars after he found out his recruiter sold his sister into sexual slavery in the Ottoman Empire, got Edward killed, and lied about his role in all of it
Idk how possible it would be, especially in the current state of these games, but I'd love to see a rivalry kind of story where you play two different protagonists from the Assassins and Templars perspectives that intertwine in the story. ACIII Kinda did that with Haytham and Connor, but the game leaned more towards Connor's story of course.
My opinion: none of them was right, the assassins wanted to keep the artifacts safe but they had no idea that kind of miracle would happen. After the earthquake in Lisbon the templars thought the assassins were wrong. And so Shay was totally pissed at the brotherhood. Edit: thanks for this much likes, have a wonderful day :D
the Assassin side would have an excuse to doubt Shay (not that it isn't the far more logical thing to do to proceed with caution in case Shay is right) if not for the fact that Lisbon _wasn't even the first time_
I don't think I will ever get tired of that run from AC 3 to Unity; the Creed and the Assassins vs Templar angles felt important and we were finally able to get true nuance with different shades of both groups being on display. A Connor, Edward, Shay, and Arno sequels have so much more room for story potential, but we likely won't true sequels to stories ever again from Ubisoft unfortunately.
Unless it's an obvious moral choice like it was in Rogue, Ubisoft would never agree that the Templars are right. The Templars are similar to conservatives in that some degree of control is necessary, because they reject the idea that man is naturally good and society is what makes them bad (what leftists basically believe, and probably the Assassins too). I won't even touch on which irl historical figures mentioned in AC2 are considered good and bad.
Real. Maybe a faceoff with Connor, some kinda plot twist to get him interested in the colo- American templars or with Armo since he's in France. I truly hope Shay kills the templars in France after the events in Unity
While playing Assassin's Creed 3, I got the feeling that Achilles was a selfish person especially when he wanted to pit Connor against his father Haitham. He also wanted to instill in Connor the idea that tumblers are always bad. But when I played Assassin's Creed rogue, I was sure that the Assassins were wrong and my feeling was right
They are bad. Bad people can do good things, just like good people can do bad things. Also of course he would need to go after his father, he's the leader of the templars, can't exactly leave him be
@@alecmanst629 but he could work with his father to end the war between the assassins and the templares but achilles stoped him, also haytham could kill conor many times but he didn't.
@@tisla5232 I disagree even if tempary truce was inacted, the chances of that truce contining after thier death is minuscule. I agree a temporary truce could have occurred but that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme and would have zero chance of ending the assassin's/Templar war
Assassin's creed Rogue is extremely stupid game, cuz everything happened bc of fcking misunderstanding. If Shay didn't yell and listened, if Achilles had a talk with Shay instead of kicking him out. It's stupid. The purpose of the game stupid too. Ubisoft made 2 games at once. Wanted more money and didn't even care much about this game
@@АндонВасилев-к8ю Ubisoft will probably reveal which one it is either through a statement or a comic/novel like they did for which character you play as is canon Alexios/Cassandra, Male Evior/Female Evior
The Assassins and Templars are two sides of a similar coin. I wish Rogue was more fleshed out, cause it does do a good job in showing how doggedly stubborn the Assassins can and showed that the Templars are more than just musta he twirling aholes.
I kind of hoped the games would touched on how both groups are making the world worser off A big point in AC3 was the ancient civilization expected people to work together to prevent the apocalypse, but nope the two groups controlling the world spent 5000 yrs killing each other
The problem with rogue in my opinion is that the assassins are antagonists not because of a flaw in their ideology, but just due to their sheer stupidity and incompetence. Given that the entire plot could have been prevented through a calm conversation I can’t help but feel Rogue has major wasted potential.
@@horatiosans4208 There IS a flaw in their ideology, or at least their mentality towards it. When Shay or Templar points out some inherent hypocrisy or paradox, the Assassins' standard response is "You don't understand...", "Do not question our leader's judgement" or some philosophical bullshit like "tasted sour grapes". Which, frankly, sound more like something an asshole Templar would say. The Assassins, like every other human ideology, have been lulled into the false idea that they're unquestionably incorruptible or infallible just because they believe in something. Just like the Templars with their "New World Order". It's amazing across the games just how many times Assassins and Templars accuse each other of being blinded, brainwashed or enslaved by beliefs, their own or their benefactors. Two sides of the same coin, indeed.
@@DeathMessenger1988 Not really. "The Assassins, like every other human ideology, have been lulled into the false idea that they're unquestionably incorruptible or infallible just because they believe in something" Except the entire assassin ideology asks people to question everything. I mean, literally "nothing is true, everything is permited". Assassins can make mistakes, can be corrupted, can be extremist, but their ideology is not, unlike the templar one, inherently evil. And that is the problem with AC Rogue. The writers basically tried to force a situation that would portray assassins in the wrong, by making lots of characters being stupid. That still doesn't change the fact of what templars are or do
I think you need to consider that in some instances the Templars we're lying/gaslighting/embellishing the truth. In many instances Shay was straight up being manipulated by them telling him what he wanted to hear. Early on Shay was just so focused on redemption that "saving" people was an afterthought. Also, you have to take into account this was an Abstergo product, most likely made to sway people to their side.
You’re not wrong about the Templars being manipulative toward Shay, but I don’t think the version of events in Rogue is being manipulated by Abstergo since you’re playing as an analyst behind the scenes researching those memories before Abstergo publicly releases a product.
The reasons why the Templars seemed so evil in earlier games was mostly because of the Borgia in the modern day at least their rule was thought of as the dark age of the Templar Order, I wish this game was the focus in 2014 with Unity pushed back another year or two
They weren't evil because of Borgia, they are just evil people . They started the French Revolution because Connor rebuilt the brotherhood in America and to avenge the grand master, they started WW2 to capture parts of Eden and exterminate the Assassins
The solid black outfit was always my favorite. I thought of it as, "I may have turned my back on the Assassin's, but I still believe in the core tenets of the creed." I felt as though it fit his personality.
I'd really like a game where either an assassin or a Templar realizes the wrongs of his brotherhood/order but still recognizes the other side as enemies. I think it'd be great to play as this middle ground force that thinks neither group should exist and does everything in their power to destroy them both. Maybe even recruiting other disenfranchised members of both the Templars and Assassins. A character whose hands are rated E for Everyone is an automatic badass in my eyes.
I've always had an idea for an AC get set in the Civil War (America) where the fight is actually a civil war in of itself, where the divided assassins and templars must work together.
@Nnnnm Hughuuhhjiijj No clue, maybe you working together with the enemy to dismantle both groups, like say the assassins are meddling with precursor sites again.
id kill for a spinoff where you play as a templar and try not to get assasinated, build something like an inquisition to hunt assasins or a spy network to find their identities, how badass would be in medieval times busting an assasin bureau with your buddies in full plate armor and armed to the teeth kicking ass xD
@@twinzzlers didnt say anything about skill trees or rpg, they could make it the combat like arkham games and by armor i mean like chainmail and shit, actual medieval armor, not item pieces with different stats and collors, if they made it like in ac unity but only cosmetic it would be something
@@twinzzlerstrue, but maybe for the personality part, AC should learn from Fallout, one if the best rpg franchise, i really enjoy skill trees and grinding its fun imo
So, a pretty major thing being missed here is that the Templars in AC Rogue are the exact same group from AC3. It’s just earlier in the timeline and we focus on different members, not counting Haytham. They all directly report to Haytham though. And he’s the leader of the Colonial Rite of the Order, having officially founded it at the end of his playable sections in AC3. His goals are their goals. And remember that he came to the Colonies to begin with to get into the Grand Temple and use whatever he found their for Templar interests. Juno showed this to Connor as well. Things only go differently because he couldn’t get into it at the time, but he never stopped trying, which is why he passes the key on to Charles Lee and why Connor getting the key is his main mission from Juno across the game. The Templars, via Haytham, also want Precursor sites and to use whatever is in there as a weapon, just as they did in AC2, Black Flag, etc. So, when we wonder why Achilles and the Brotherhood are making such a big deal of finding Precursors sites and boxes, and keeping them away from the Templars that’s not really a valid question. It’s already been answered for us in AC3. Because, again, this is the SAME group of Templars from AC3. They’re just placed in a different light because we see that the Assassins, under Achilles, blindly chasing after the precursor sites is now having negative consequences. But that’s what makes Rogue so damn good. Because the Assassins aren’t actually doing anything different than what they’ve always done. And the Templars aren’t doing anything different either. They’re both fighting over the remains of the Isu. Ezio and Altair spent many years chasing after and protecting Apples of Eden. In AC3, Connor (and by extension Desmond) is chasing after the Grand Temple. In AC4 it’s the Observatory. In AC Syndicate it’s the Shroud. Etc. Different stories just place more or less emphasis on different artifacts and include more or less dialogue on peace or freedom Vs security. The Assassins in Rogue are only “wrong” because the artifacts that everyone is chasing in this game are things that hold the earth together instead of apples which you can toss around as you please without harming anyone, or shrouds you can wear to keep yourself from dying. Replace the temples in Rogue with an Observatory and you have the same basic plot as Black Flag. And, again, that’s why Rogue is so good Imo. Neither side is really acting any differently (even down to the Assassins setting up dens and working with thieves in cities). It’s what they’re all chasing after that’s different, which makes the Assassins the antagonists. And this leads to Achilles words to Connor in 3 about not being so willing to save the world that he ends up destroying it. Achilles had good intentions, but because he didn’t think, because he didn’t listen, he ended up causing more harm than good.
Actually if you play and listen to ac3 ,haytham tells Connor he abandoned his search for precurser sites to focus on fixing america ,also it was Washington who killed Connors family ,not the templars ,also haytham gave the key to charles lee to prevent anyone else from getting it,haytham only seeked knowledge not power
@@jonnyhill1155 Haytham doesn’t say that and he has his Templars looking into precursor sites at the time of AC Rogue, which is 10 years before AC3. At best he stopped looking because they failed to find anything. But he still kept the grand temple key instead of, you know, just burying it and forgetting about it. I didn’t say that the Templars killed Connor’s family. So I’m not sure why you’re mentioning that. Haytham came to the Colonies searching for WHATEVER was in the Temple and before he leaves Reginald Birch literally says it might be knowledge or a weapon. Neither of them cared, they just wanted to get it. Which is why I said they wanted to use what was in it specifically for Templar interests. Had it been a Sword of Eden they would’ve used it. Had it been a Shroud of Eden they would’ve used it. Knowledge or power is irrelevant, they would’ve used whatever they found to benefit their group. Saying he only wanted knowledge is absolutely incorrect.
@@jonnyhill1155 Washington may have killed Connor' s family but wasn't it Charles Lee who carried out his orders? Why didn't Haytham make Lee pay as he did to the Templars who sold his sister into slavery? Or was Haytham aware of what was going to happen to Connor's village? If so why didn't he find a way to prevent it?
@@Niani23455 no it wasn't Charles lee and them ,if I remember from what I saw ,Charles and the 3 other templars where there to negotiate hence why they grabbed Connor and told him run back to the others and tell them Charles needs to speak to them ,but Washington burned it down before Charles could negotiate
The Assassins were meddling with something they didn’t understand, that doesn’t necessarily make the wrong but it does make them flawed. The Templars being in opposition to the Assassins motivations in Rogue would put them in the better light by comparison. But honestly the game completely fails to delve into the ideology and philosophy of either group, and in particular why Shay would join the Templars after defecting from the Assassins. If they had made it clear he was just using them as a means to an end and actually hated his time with the Templars, or on the flip side if they had shown Shay grow to truly believe in the Templar order and their way of going about achieving peace, then Shay would have felt like a much more dimensional character. Alas this is not what we got and all we know about Shay is he makes his own luck
the game already did dwelve into the ideology and philosophy established by previous games, shay didn't join automatically he questioned them or doubted and thats were the game shouldve been longer because shay have been working with monroe and gist for a whole year that the game quickly skips which is a shame but what made shay appreciate templars like monroe was how they made him feel equal unlike the the assassin's
the first tenet says 'stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent' but that isnt the main reason for shay to defect but one of the reasons because shay says this in the beginning of the game but i think that the main reason is holding the assassin's responsible for causing such chaos as youve seen with previous assassin's especially ezio who caused an explosion that suffocated innocents just because he thought it was necessary to kill a templar which in rogue shay basically causes something far worse and basically stayed true being an assassin than any other assassin except for connor even though shay betrayed the assassin's but later on as shay got older hes got more ruthless and said that the templars are going to start a revolution of our own which implies the french revolution and see so many people think that the whole assassin's vs templars are good vs evil which is not especially when people who review rogue say that the 'AassAsSiNs aRe lIke tEmPlars aNd tEmpLaRs aRe lIke aSsAsSInS' which is it was never the case at all and i can name many ac youtubers who think rogue was like this but their mouth is always gawking on ezio every nanosecond
yep torres hates how sad and corrupted empires are also later templars hate the borgias/renaissance because they didn't follow the proper ideals because they were too corrupted plus the very first game shows how horrible the assassin's can be as well as the main protagonist who purposefully broke all three tenets and ill argue that the brotherhood in 1 are more corrupted than the colonial plus the renaissance brotherhood aren't all that good but compared to the templars they were seen as good vs evil but later ezio shows when assassin's show their flaw which is chaos and with that chaos ezio causes an explosion that suffocated innocents underground and in the novel ezio felt bad but he said that it was necessary
origins fucked up the lore for AC in which they couldve made the order of ancients interesting instead they made them evil like that's not what the templar philosophy is like especially since they're supposed to be the origin of templars but i think odyssey fixed this by adding origin of the order of ancients who are the cult of cosmos and they're all evil just like the order of ancients and this is where templars come in fixing their philosophy and trying to fix the world in their own way but obviously some would get corrupted like many templars in the games but there are lot of templars who follow the proper ideals like grand Torres from ac4, all templars from ac1, the colonial rite rogue - ac3. the whole assassin's vs templars war was always grey and not black and white
it ain't shallow because rogue was added to the templars from previous games especially if you compare them to the renaissance templars who are too corrupted and dont follow the proper templar ideals which is why later templars hate the renaissance/borgia templars
There is no right or wrong in this imo, which was made quite clear since AC3. The best I could put is that Templars’ methods was more acceptable at that time
I think that Mirabue and De La Serre were pretty interesting and I wish we could have seen their debates in full. What caused the Grand Master and Mentor to see eye to eye and form a truce between the two orders?
Would you make a video comparing AC 3 and AC 4 as which one is the better game? It would really surprise some people but, as someone who played not only those two, but almost all games in the saga, I really like AC 3 cause it has way more variety in terms of stuff to do around the world (like the underground tunnels, god I loved that, and the little lockpicking sequences) the homestead missions, the Boston brawler challenges, that is one of my FAVORITE things on AC 3, and of course the most wonderful open world missions. And there's so much more to talk about!
I've only picked up the series recently, I watched Storyline breakdowns on the first 4 games and I've played through the full main story of 3, Black Flag, Rogue, and have about 10 hours into Unity, and honestly it feels like I'm missing something. Sure some of the templar ideas are a bit crazy, but it seems well intentioned 99% of the time, even as you're killing people in AC3 you can't tell if they're lying to you to make Connor mad or if Connor is just actually wrong. It seriously feels like The templars have a whole list of ideas and how to achieve what they want and the Assassin's really only have "Templars bad" as an ideology.
as you yourself noticed, you lack context, if you play all the games, do side activities, etc., you will learn that 95% of the largest conflicts, plagues, etc. are ploys by the Templars to gain power, parts of Eden, or kill the Assassins
i love the story of the american colony assassins and templars how the templars actually were better than the assassins during rogue but later connor brought the assassins back to how they should be and revived the creed in america
i’ve always felt that templars are a cult bc we mostly look at them from the outside…..but i just realised that “cult” is a word that can describe the assassin brotherhood too 😭
Bruh, sometimes my disappointment for Ubisoft really comes out, when I read comments like that. The stuff, you mentioned about Assassins and Templars being two morally-ambiguous 'cults' was literally explored in AC1 a lot and by the end of AC1, Altaïr grown to understand both sides and how similar yet different, they are (also Altaïr's wife was literally a ex-templar) they just drop that sh*t in AC2 for literally no reason.
@@nnnnmhughuuhhjiijj9457facts, ive told this million times, play ac 1 for the lore ONLY, because its story and conversation is very interesting. i knew from the very start this Al Mualim dude is bad news, and very cunning. from the memory corridors conversation i came to realization that the templar aint that bad
I believe that at the beginning the ancient ones had a good idea that simply disappeared with time. Of course some of the grandmasters tried to bring peace, but usually their only target was to kill as many assassins as they could. And the assassins in order to prevent it would butcher the templars. I think, that taking free will completely isn’t the best way, in the end as you said world doesn’t really need assassins nor templars. There never will be peace if two sides are always fighting.
I always thought that was the joke Both groups are just finding excuses to play god. Honestly if the series was gonna end want that to be the main theme of the last game
Has there ever been a time where an assassin and a templar were good friends? I mean as much as they are depicted to be these brute forces wanting to reclaim the land I can’t help but think a few are willing to align themselves with some of the assassins beliefs.
One of the best AC game ever. Storyline is amazing. Compared to Unity and Syndicate. I didn't think this game would be this great. I played AC rogue just to get a continuation.
I’m reminded of the saying of historian Will Durant, who said that history could be seen as a swinging like a pendulum between periods of freedom and periods of discipline. Looked at this way, and acknowledging that either extreme can be unhealthy, the Assassins and the Templars would each be correct to act as a counterbalance to the other at different political/historical periods.
Their views deviated from the Borgia and D'Pazzi conspirators sure but Monroe and Haytham were building a fully templar controlled new rite of the order. Dueth being not as black and white as the previous games monsieur Assassin
5:50 that has always been my private theory, that we're seeing an edited version of the conflict between Shay and the Assassins. The Creed seems nothing like any other version of the Brotherhood before or since. I believe we're getting a sanitized version to put the Templars in a good light, similar to Assassin's Creed Liberation.
Although in most games I don't agree with the Templars ideologies Rodrigo and Cesare are straight up villains but I definitely understand Al Mualims perspective. However I definitely agree with Haytham and Shay. Shay is a genuinely good person he joins the Templars not to spite the Assassins who treated them badly but to save people and make sure the what happened in Lisbon never happens to anywhere again. He shows remorse for killing Hope and Adewale and you can straight up see how distraught and conflicted Shay is when he kills Liam someone who's he's been friends with for years.
The moral of the story is that neither are right or wrong. The Assassins of Shay's era were extremists who harmed innocents. The Templars of the Renaissance were extremists who wanted power for the hell of it, something the modern Templars reject.
I think it's just that after thousands of years, the assassin's had some bad branches but were made better by Connor, whereas the templars became slightly better over the years, until Unity I guess.
The Templars were never evil. They want the same thing that the Assassins want: Peace. But their methods of doing it are wrong by taking away the free will of people and maintaining order.
The thing about the assassins is that unlimited unadulterated freedom is pure anarchy. It would turn the world back to a state of might = right. It kinda leads the good Templars to be champions of the weak.
It’s hard to say. Yes in Rogue I agree with you, but there’s something else. The conflict is interesting as Haythem explains their goals, but how it’s done is what I question. Each side is different and has different ways of achieving their goal.
I love Rogue, but I wish the ending lived up to that name. Shay defecting to the Templars made sense, but by the end of the game he had started to see the ugly of both sides, and still threw in with templars. I REALLY wish Shay had decided he was done with both groups at the end and just became a, well, rogue. Shay just traded one set of lies for another. It would have elevated the game so much if instead he said screw you to both groups and took the Morrigan to do things his own way. Missed opportunity IMO.
The reason Haytham became a Templar is because Edward's then best friend raised him. He just happened to be a Templar, and never knew his father was an assasin.
@@morgang5666 in thr beginning yes, but towards the end of the game hes genuinely invested in the cause and is initiated into the brotherhood through the tainos.
AC3 and Rogue changed my opinion on the Templars. While not all of the are good people, it does not mean that just because they are a Templar, it mean they are a bad person. You have to remember most Templars were born into their creed and didn’t have a choice sometimes. And even if they did, a good amount of them while small only did it for the greater good of the country.
It should be noted that Haytham ran the Colonial Rite differently than most Templars would do and recruited potential members who were loyal, competent, and had a sense of morality (Charles Lee was loyal but too ruthless for Haytham's tastes). For Thomas Hickey, he was corrupt but he was very, very loyal to Haytham and was willing to kill Washington in public to make the Templars' plan successful. The Templars are complex and nuanced and many joined for different reasons. Regarding the French Revolution, I believe Shay supported Grandmaster De La Serre and Mirabeau's alliance to create a peaceful revolution and Shay likely had a hand in the two's alliance.
2:10 That mighta been Ubisofts intention... but that certainly wasnt the reception at the time... Though yeah. Rogue is very much a mission pack sequel in gameplay (borrowing a lot of elements from black flag and 3), and a bit on the shorter side... Woulda been interesting with a larger budget, i can agree with that.
The way I see it none of the factions are right. But any one assassin can be right. Like Ezio whom has seen what artifacts can do. Altair's journey was about this.
No. But okay more in depth, I couldn't enjoy rogue because they didn't really flesh out Templars better but just switched the two factions around. It wasn't like Haytham in AC3 who made a valid point himself, just assassin traits in templar characters and vice versa.
The assassins want free will, unless that free will goes against them. The assassins kill anyone who goes against them, it's like their only way of solving things, even innocents. In Black Flag Mary Read pretends to be hurt to lure two soldiers away from the gate, she then proceeds to murder them for the crime of doing their duty and caring about the safety of a woman, when she could have let them live as Conner could have easily slipped in when their backs were turned, and they had done nothing to deserve death.
the Templars have some good points, especially Hatham Kenway, during his conversation on the rooftop beside Connor, freedom can be an invitation to chaos, but this is why we have laws and a constitution in this country that we are ruled by that use liberty and justice for all, without these things, Hatham would be correct about the chaos that would ensue. in many ways i agree with Haytham as in many ways right now currently we have too much freedom to the point that there is currently lots of chaos within civilization, but does this mean Haytham is right when it comes to how the templars want to rule over everyone with an iron fist to control everyone? to me it sounds like Haytham wants to justify the Templar order as an excuse to control people, meaning they will become the ruling class and everyone else their slaves. Absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. and that's the Templar order's true goal in their plans to control the population, they sound a little more like another group of people who want to force society into a Great Reset, which means they will achieve "order through chaos", to usher in their New World Order. simply put. the Assassins are fighting for freedom and liberty. the Templars are fighting for slavery and control.
Now after mirage is out, I find it similar between rogue and mirage that the assassin seems not entirely understand what the isu objects do, besides the apple of Edens
Free will without knowledge and guidance creates chaos. And order can become disorder without proper conviction and a heart that seeks peace, understanding, compassion, and true unity though love for your fellow people that you seek to serve.true order is not to control but rather guide present and future generations to a brighter path. And free will is what we choose good or bad but we do not get to choose the Consequences of those actions. Both free will and order can co- exist in Harmony as long as the balance is maintained and not Corrupt in the case of order and used for a the right reasons in the case of free will
This is where Rogue fell complete flat for me. They just made the Assassins the Templars and the Templars the Assassins. The Templars are the ones sacrificing people for the greater good, which is why the Assassins try to stop them. For Achilles to just have entire cities collapse in search of some artefact and the Templars to go "no, no, you can't do that" is utter nonsense. Even more so, looking at how all the Assassins under Achilles were totally cool with this and only Shay objecting. I thought it was a complete cop out and a missed opportunity to explore a gray area, where the moral high ground gets muddled. There was nothing complex or subtle about the plot in Rogue however. The Assassins were wrong and the Templars right.
From my perspective the history is changing sometimes the templats are right and sometime the assassin's depend on the time period. And the conflict between them is making balance. And they're coexistence is necessary.
I think the precursor artifact rush actually is explained a little. Adewale tells Achilles that the Templars beat them to an artifact, causing mass destruction similar to what Shay later causes. Achilles merely believes the Templars must have done something specific and intentional, which it soon becomes clear to the player that both cases were accidents.
Someone should mak a full fledged "Templar Order" game within the AC universe. But please not Ubisoft, and make the franchise go back to it roots instead of this RPG crap. But this will sadly probably never happen.
I think it all depends on leadership If the Borgias led the templar side then I'd say they're evil If Haytham led the templar side then I'd say they're good Same goes for the assassins, some are better leaders than others
Templars: take out criminal gangs that terrorize the citizens, renovate homes, businesses and churches, want to prevent another devastating earthquake that killed 1000s Clueless Assassins: "This is such unbearable evil!"
I actually like Templars's position and their philosophy. That's because assassins never actually tried to make their visions come true. All they (and we as players) did is to conflict with Templars or to hunt for the artefacts, while Templars actually tried to make their position right. After all, Abstergo became very and very powerful cuz they put the order's principles in a first place, not hunting and killing assassins
But what about abstergo and the morden day Templars? They are clearly depicted to be the villains even in the movies. I feel like it's easy for the producers to make the assassins the "good guys" because it's what sticks. When you take a deeper look though the Templars aren't all that bad. If you look at the storyline of unity, Arno goes out to revenge the death of his foster Templar father. When it comes to who's right and whose wrong I would agree in saying nether. Both factions want control over something. One faction carries red crosses and the other faction specialises in parkour, fancy hoodies and hidden blades. It's easier to make the assassins the protagonist because it makes for easier recognizable game play.
I do believe that the Templars were right in AC Rogue but then it is my fav AC game and yes I was brought up with AC right from the start and all through the Ezio trilogy but to finally play on the other side was a breath of fresh air. I miss the combat system used in Black Flag, Rogue and AC III remastered. I would love for Ubisoft to make some sideline games with the same graphics as the remastered Rogue and III games for a budgeted price range and same controls but imagine if AC 3 could be entirely played from Haytham’s point of view or even continue Shay’s story, after all it was left open with no deaths scene etc. nothing in the franchise has been as good as those titles since they were released.
I would even argue that the only real evil Templars are the Borgia. The others is a matter of perspective. But in all honesty both sides create problems in their own way.
In the lore Hittler , Stalin , Churchill , Roosevelt .etc were Templars and WW2 was just a ploy to kill Assassins and take ISU artifacts + Shay's purge murdered entire villages just for the chance to kill one assassin ... so I wouldn't agree
@@dangi6516 yeah I’m gonna concur in the fact that the WW2 arc is stupid. It would have been a better story if the Assassins and Templars were to unite against the Nazis. Neither faction approves of what they did.
Honestly; I think there should be an AC MMO where people choose their faction and play their story. Like SWTOR. Unity, Odyssey and Valhalla seem like prerequisites to a multiplayer RPG mmo where we could potentially choose to either be an assassin or Templar in a certain period of time. And we can choose the story we want to follow. And if not, it’s certainly an idea for someone more talented to consider. That’s just my take.
The Brotherhood didn’t know any better in the Americas vs the ones in Italy and I forgot where Altair is from. If Achilles had took Shay’s word for it, I think Shay would’ve stayed.
Rogue embodied the 3 ironies Altair once wrote: “The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.” They meddled with the Precursor Sites and murdered thousands of innocent lives. “The Assassins seek to open the eyes of men, but require obedience to rules.” Much like the Templars they also have a Master Assassin in which every member should follow no matter how questionable their ideals were. “The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.” This third irony is pretty much applicable to every Assassin in Rogue. Despite Shay already proving that the Precursor Site destroyed Lisbon. Liam, Hope, Kesegowaase, and Chevalier blindly followed Achilles til the end.
Rouge is the worst at showing the conflict as grey. In rouge they don’t show the issues with the assassin’s and Templar’s ideologies at all. All they do is show that when the assassins do the opposite of what their creed instructs them to do they are in the wrong which is pretty fucking obvious.
I feel like what their trying to achieve, especially told by haytham seems admirable, but the ways that their using to get to it makes them look like complete evil villains. I also wanted to say that it also depends on who’s leading the organization( saw on another comment that’s a good point)
I've always been really interested in the Templars and I like when they're portrayed as more than one dimensional cartoon villains. Ultimately I disagree with their goal but there are some of them I wouldn't necessarily call evil.
If the Assassins's had an ISU sage who understood the Isu artifacts. Now we have Basim/Loki and Alethia helping the modern day Assassins. If they are still wanting to help the cause.
1:19 while I agree overall, this statement is kinda disingenuous because we know that Haytham was basically groomed by Reginald Birch since he was a child.
Haytham really fucks with me. After playing Rogue and going through 3 right now, Haytham makes a shit-ton of sense. Even I am starting to see the advantages of their ways, n how the assassins may be doing more harm than good, even if things MAY be better in the long run. Thats just it, they MAY be, not that they for sure will, n if things don't go the way they are supposed to, shit could get bad. I thought the storytelling of Rogue was lazy, just making them villains for no damn reason and the Trmplars as the actual good guys, but now I see that is literally how the groups see each other. The assassins may not actually be as bad as portrayed in Rogue, or maybe Achilles was the real fucker here, but from our Templar point of view thes shits are evil and dangerous. I kinda still super hate that they use street gangs for thei business dealings n what not, but meh whatever. After all this, I'm starting to see the Templars as not the enemy, but as an obstacle. It's a race, on who can save the world first.
Ask me Shay made a mistake had he calmed down and told Achilles what happened in Lisbon. He could of asked Shay to take him to Lisbon so he can see the distruction himself. He might of confirmed it with Adewale if the last spot also had the same issues. After confirming they might of destroyed the book and box. Of course Achilles made a similar mistake going straight on the attack and not talking things through with Shay before acting and throwing him out the window and having the Assassins attack Shay. As for Shays error breaking in after a argument wasnt wise. He could of simply said i wont do any more assassinations without being debriefed first by Achilles about Lisbon. When someone acts with a cool head they wont regret that decision later on. The Templars were able to recruit Shay because they listened to him.
I think Edward said it best when he killed Torres: You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, but dulled beyond reason and sapped of all spirit.
Well that's just Torres, all of the Templars have different beliefs about how their goals should be accomplished and how order should be brought about.
Said the fucking pirate mass mirderer hahaha
@@twinzzlers I absolutely agree. George Monro made a lot of good points when he told Shay that he doesn’t wanna control people he wants to supply them with what they need so that they don’t want anything.
The Templar's ultimate goal is the subjugation of mankind in the name of peace. They are not the good guys. But doesn't mean the Assassins are always right. They had to be reformed a lot of times during their History because they made a lot of miatakes.
@@darthnater9731Is that not as bad? To want for nothing, to never know the meaning of struggle or challenge, which gives life the ability to hold meaning? That we might be pigs in some pen, simply waiting for the next round of feed to be poured into our troughs?
Altair and shay are somehow similars, because both of them tried to stop a madness and fighted back their crazy mentors
Thank you for this
I Literally was thinking the same thing!
Only difference is Altair actually ended his mentor, Shay basically made it clear that the Templar Order he spent this entire game building upon is in squanders because of Connor, who was trained by Achilles
@@Cruddy129tbf you could argue that Shay was acting in the interests of the creed by dismantling it. This allowed the North American brotherhood to course correct from their previous arrogance and incompetence through humbling Achilles and temporarily neutering the brotherhood. Shay probably upheld the values of the creed better than the rest of the brotherhood given that he got shot in the back for trying to stop the deaths of more innocents.
Altair still stayed loyal to the Brotherhood whereas Shay abandoned it.
I like how a bunch of People hate The templars because of The game series but never learned about their irl story lol
fr.
i just did and im shocked a specialy as an israeli
@@baldwinivofjerusalem47My guess is that you may be a little biased around that subject...
@@m._ridiska8823now im curious, can you explain a bit further?
@aceliious my english isnt so good but you can read everything here he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_(%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%94)#%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%98%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C
The Templar philosophy is logical in its ideal state, but by it’s nature would almost definitely lead to some of the most immoral forms of control imaginable. It essentially ignores the will of mankind.
While the freedoms that the Assassins typically promote can be problematic, they’re usually just fighting oppression which is more moral than the Templars imposing theirs will on humanity, so I'd usually pick Assassins over the Templars. But as AC Rogue shows, it really depends on what place at what time honestly. If I experienced what Shay did, I'd probably leave the Creed as well. Not really sure I'd join the Templars though.
The Templars ideally want control, but not oppression. In 4 we learn that Torres is anti-slavery, so the order doesn't appreciate all forms of control.
@@jossebrodeur6033 yep torres hates how sad and corrupted empires are also later templars hate the borgias/renaissance because they didn't follow the proper ideals because they were too corrupted plus the very first game shows how horrible the assassin's can be as well as the main protagonist who purposefully broke all three tenets and ill argue that the brotherhood in 1 are more corrupted than the colonial plus the renaissance brotherhood aren't all that good but compared to the templars they were seen as good vs evil but later ezio shows when assassin's show their flaw which is chaos and with that chaos ezio causes an explosion that suffocated innocents underground and in the novel ezio felt bad but he said that it was necessary
shay was also hesitant to join the templars but what I believe converted him was the fight against bandits and others who seeked to harm innocent like assasins did in rouge through their ignorence to the earthquake and attempts at taking other artifacts even when they knew the consequences
@@stanisawkubsik5769 i wish the 'bandits' or 'gang members' were assassin's because rogue originally had assassin's who wore white robes but fitting for their time period and it was shown in concept art when shay still had the hood on his templar outfit also one theres a YT thumbnail of doing a execution move with his rifle well shotgun at the time against an assassin and the assassin has brown armor over his white robe to show rank
Shay wasn’t really a full Templar. But what the Order did for New York at that time was for a good cause. Increasing the average standard of living for the citizens.
It depends on leadership because a bad organization can be good later in time while a good organization becomes bad. People like Cesare Borgia used the Templars for selfish reasons. Jack the Ripper used the Assassins to get revenge for his mothers by using his learnt skills against the Frye twins who were like family to them. Edward did join the Templars briefly while disguised as Duncan for coin. People like Mister De la Serre, Haytham and Maria tried to bring peace to the world by uniting both sides but failed due to vendettas.
I tell can that The master assassin is obsessed with rogue since he’s been talking about it so much which I do agree it’s an awesome game
Straight up amazing for 6$ on the ongoing Steam Sale.
@@TheBuster0926 MINE
i mean its the only game that offers some kind of explanation for the templars, albeit a bit shallow, so i get why he'd always use that as a point of reference
@@smileyent.3055 it ain't shallow because rogue was added to the templars from previous games especially if you compare them to the renaissance templars who are too corrupted and dont follow the proper templar ideals which is why later templars hate the renaissance/borgia templars
@@stealthmaster94 dutch
Haytham deserves a game about his origin.
He and shay are the the few templars whose actions wasn't only for their personal gain.
Its really pity Connor had to kill his father. I hope in future to see more content with templars who fight for the right cause.
I agree, but I doubt it will actually happen knowing Ubisoft
that’s why connor was a shit assassin he knew his father was in the right and only killed his father due to achilles hating haythem for ruining his terrorist plans in assassins creed rogue
Theres a comic that kind of serves as a wnding to edwards story and kinda a prigin for haytham wont spoil it but yea a lot hate certain aspects of it (they killed edward off in a disrespectful way)
@@chris_elkins2093 How was that dang-infested templar in the right?
His origins......It is not a very nice story. I don't even understand how he remained with the templars after he found out his recruiter sold his sister into sexual slavery in the Ottoman Empire, got Edward killed, and lied about his role in all of it
I was really hoping for more games from the Templar perspective with new gameplay mechanics and a story that explores their views.
Agreed, instead of another assassin's creed about Basim i want a templar assassin's creed, another assassin that become templar or another shay story
Idk how possible it would be, especially in the current state of these games, but I'd love to see a rivalry kind of story where you play two different protagonists from the Assassins and Templars perspectives that intertwine in the story.
ACIII Kinda did that with Haytham and Connor, but the game leaned more towards Connor's story of course.
My opinion: none of them was right, the assassins wanted to keep the artifacts safe but they had no idea that kind of miracle would happen. After the earthquake in Lisbon the templars thought the assassins were wrong. And so Shay was totally pissed at the brotherhood.
Edit: thanks for this much likes, have a wonderful day :D
[I did]
i did
the Assassin side would have an excuse to doubt Shay (not that it isn't the far more logical thing to do to proceed with caution in case Shay is right) if not for the fact that Lisbon _wasn't even the first time_
Thanks to everyone who read this comment
@@natchu96 you are right
I don't think I will ever get tired of that run from AC 3 to Unity; the Creed and the Assassins vs Templar angles felt important and we were finally able to get true nuance with different shades of both groups being on display.
A Connor, Edward, Shay, and Arno sequels have so much more room for story potential, but we likely won't true sequels to stories ever again from Ubisoft unfortunately.
Edward and Shay not so much but Connor and Arno holy shit yes
Rogue is 🐐ed
I hope we get another game where we play as a Templar, Shay was such an awesome character
They should really should make another game to extend Shay story because his game is so short
Unless it's an obvious moral choice like it was in Rogue, Ubisoft would never agree that the Templars are right. The Templars are similar to conservatives in that some degree of control is necessary, because they reject the idea that man is naturally good and society is what makes them bad (what leftists basically believe, and probably the Assassins too).
I won't even touch on which irl historical figures mentioned in AC2 are considered good and bad.
Real. Maybe a faceoff with Connor, some kinda plot twist to get him interested in the colo- American templars or with Armo since he's in France. I truly hope Shay kills the templars in France after the events in Unity
@@Beencheeling Shay would be in his 80ths if Arno would find Shay. But still. Would've been amazing.
While playing Assassin's Creed 3, I got the feeling that Achilles was a selfish person especially when he wanted to pit Connor against his father Haitham. He also wanted to instill in Connor the idea that tumblers are always bad.
But when I played Assassin's Creed rogue, I was sure that the Assassins were wrong and my feeling was right
They are bad. Bad people can do good things, just like good people can do bad things. Also of course he would need to go after his father, he's the leader of the templars, can't exactly leave him be
@@alecmanst629 but he could work with his father to end the war between the assassins and the templares but achilles stoped him, also haytham could kill conor many times but he didn't.
@@tisla5232 I disagree even if tempary truce was inacted, the chances of that truce contining after thier death is minuscule. I agree a temporary truce could have occurred but that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme and would have zero chance of ending the assassin's/Templar war
Assassin's creed Rogue is extremely stupid game, cuz everything happened bc of fcking misunderstanding. If Shay didn't yell and listened, if Achilles had a talk with Shay instead of kicking him out. It's stupid. The purpose of the game stupid too. Ubisoft made 2 games at once. Wanted more money and didn't even care much about this game
@@will1929 I think rouge is good just needed a longer story and a better reason for shay to defect
It’d be cool if there’s an AC game with multiple endings with the plot being who’s side do you (the player) chooses. Templars or Assassins
I'd choose the templars
Since Ubisoft is sticking with the RPG stuff, might as well. Sounds like a concept that'll satisfy both casual and hardcore fans.
But It will start the problem of the playersbase not knowing which one is cannon
@@АндонВасилев-к8ю Ubisoft will probably reveal which one it is either through a statement or a comic/novel like they did for which character you play as is canon Alexios/Cassandra, Male Evior/Female Evior
@@treytheriot825 as much as I remember Eivors last name when translated comes out as the daughter of someone (can't remember) so yeah
The Assassins and Templars are two sides of a similar coin. I wish Rogue was more fleshed out, cause it does do a good job in showing how doggedly stubborn the Assassins can and showed that the Templars are more than just musta he twirling aholes.
I kind of hoped the games would touched on how both groups are making the world worser off
A big point in AC3 was the ancient civilization expected people to work together to prevent the apocalypse, but nope the two groups controlling the world spent 5000 yrs killing each other
The problem with rogue in my opinion is that the assassins are antagonists not because of a flaw in their ideology, but just due to their sheer stupidity and incompetence. Given that the entire plot could have been prevented through a calm conversation I can’t help but feel Rogue has major wasted potential.
@@horatiosans4208
There IS a flaw in their ideology, or at least their mentality towards it.
When Shay or Templar points out some inherent hypocrisy or paradox, the Assassins' standard response is "You don't understand...", "Do not question our leader's judgement" or some philosophical bullshit like "tasted sour grapes". Which, frankly, sound more like something an asshole Templar would say. The Assassins, like every other human ideology, have been lulled into the false idea that they're unquestionably incorruptible or infallible just because they believe in something. Just like the Templars with their "New World Order". It's amazing across the games just how many times Assassins and Templars accuse each other of being blinded, brainwashed or enslaved by beliefs, their own or their benefactors.
Two sides of the same coin, indeed.
@@horatiosans4208 That and the fact that Shay's character is stupid. The writers didn't do a good job.
@@DeathMessenger1988 Not really.
"The Assassins, like every other human ideology, have been lulled into the false idea that they're unquestionably incorruptible or infallible just because they believe in something"
Except the entire assassin ideology asks people to question everything. I mean, literally "nothing is true, everything is permited". Assassins can make mistakes, can be corrupted, can be extremist, but their ideology is not, unlike the templar one, inherently evil.
And that is the problem with AC Rogue. The writers basically tried to force a situation that would portray assassins in the wrong, by making lots of characters being stupid. That still doesn't change the fact of what templars are or do
I think you need to consider that in some instances the Templars we're lying/gaslighting/embellishing the truth. In many instances Shay was straight up being manipulated by them telling him what he wanted to hear. Early on Shay was just so focused on redemption that "saving" people was an afterthought.
Also, you have to take into account this was an Abstergo product, most likely made to sway people to their side.
in AC 1, Al Mualim is also very manipulative and cunning.
You’re not wrong about the Templars being manipulative toward Shay, but I don’t think the version of events in Rogue is being manipulated by Abstergo since you’re playing as an analyst behind the scenes researching those memories before Abstergo publicly releases a product.
The reasons why the Templars seemed so evil in earlier games was mostly because of the Borgia in the modern day at least their rule was thought of as the dark age of the Templar Order, I wish this game was the focus in 2014 with Unity pushed back another year or two
They weren't evil because of Borgia, they are just evil people . They started the French Revolution because Connor rebuilt the brotherhood in America and to avenge the grand master, they started WW2 to capture parts of Eden and exterminate the Assassins
Shay best dressed protag. For a rushed game they gave Shay some amazing outfits
The solid black outfit was always my favorite. I thought of it as, "I may have turned my back on the Assassin's, but I still believe in the core tenets of the creed." I felt as though it fit his personality.
Agree. Characters on Templar side have great outfits btw.
I'd really like a game where either an assassin or a Templar realizes the wrongs of his brotherhood/order but still recognizes the other side as enemies. I think it'd be great to play as this middle ground force that thinks neither group should exist and does everything in their power to destroy them both. Maybe even recruiting other disenfranchised members of both the Templars and Assassins.
A character whose hands are rated E for Everyone is an automatic badass in my eyes.
I've always had an idea for an AC get set in the Civil War (America) where the fight is actually a civil war in of itself, where the divided assassins and templars must work together.
@@twinzzlers Interesting idea, how do you think that plotline would work?
@Nnnnm Hughuuhhjiijj No clue, maybe you working together with the enemy to dismantle both groups, like say the assassins are meddling with precursor sites again.
id kill for a spinoff where you play as a templar and try not to get assasinated, build something like an inquisition to hunt assasins or a spy network to find their identities, how badass would be in medieval times busting an assasin bureau with your buddies in full plate armor and armed to the teeth kicking ass xD
we can only dream and hope.
That sounds like fun, we need another rpg with a hundred different skill strees and a protagonist with no personality.
@@twinzzlers didnt say anything about skill trees or rpg, they could make it the combat like arkham games and by armor i mean like chainmail and shit, actual medieval armor, not item pieces with different stats and collors, if they made it like in ac unity but only cosmetic it would be something
Isn’t that already AC Rogue?
@@twinzzlerstrue, but maybe for the personality part, AC should learn from Fallout, one if the best rpg franchise, i really enjoy skill trees and grinding its fun imo
So, a pretty major thing being missed here is that the Templars in AC Rogue are the exact same group from AC3. It’s just earlier in the timeline and we focus on different members, not counting Haytham. They all directly report to Haytham though. And he’s the leader of the Colonial Rite of the Order, having officially founded it at the end of his playable sections in AC3. His goals are their goals. And remember that he came to the Colonies to begin with to get into the Grand Temple and use whatever he found their for Templar interests. Juno showed this to Connor as well. Things only go differently because he couldn’t get into it at the time, but he never stopped trying, which is why he passes the key on to Charles Lee and why Connor getting the key is his main mission from Juno across the game. The Templars, via Haytham, also want Precursor sites and to use whatever is in there as a weapon, just as they did in AC2, Black Flag, etc.
So, when we wonder why Achilles and the Brotherhood are making such a big deal of finding Precursors sites and boxes, and keeping them away from the Templars that’s not really a valid question. It’s already been answered for us in AC3. Because, again, this is the SAME group of Templars from AC3. They’re just placed in a different light because we see that the Assassins, under Achilles, blindly chasing after the precursor sites is now having negative consequences. But that’s what makes Rogue so damn good. Because the Assassins aren’t actually doing anything different than what they’ve always done. And the Templars aren’t doing anything different either. They’re both fighting over the remains of the Isu. Ezio and Altair spent many years chasing after and protecting Apples of Eden. In AC3, Connor (and by extension Desmond) is chasing after the Grand Temple. In AC4 it’s the Observatory. In AC Syndicate it’s the Shroud. Etc. Different stories just place more or less emphasis on different artifacts and include more or less dialogue on peace or freedom Vs security.
The Assassins in Rogue are only “wrong” because the artifacts that everyone is chasing in this game are things that hold the earth together instead of apples which you can toss around as you please without harming anyone, or shrouds you can wear to keep yourself from dying. Replace the temples in Rogue with an Observatory and you have the same basic plot as Black Flag. And, again, that’s why Rogue is so good Imo. Neither side is really acting any differently (even down to the Assassins setting up dens and working with thieves in cities). It’s what they’re all chasing after that’s different, which makes the Assassins the antagonists. And this leads to Achilles words to Connor in 3 about not being so willing to save the world that he ends up destroying it. Achilles had good intentions, but because he didn’t think, because he didn’t listen, he ended up causing more harm than good.
Actually if you play and listen to ac3 ,haytham tells Connor he abandoned his search for precurser sites to focus on fixing america ,also it was Washington who killed Connors family ,not the templars ,also haytham gave the key to charles lee to prevent anyone else from getting it,haytham only seeked knowledge not power
@@jonnyhill1155 Haytham doesn’t say that and he has his Templars looking into precursor sites at the time of AC Rogue, which is 10 years before AC3. At best he stopped looking because they failed to find anything. But he still kept the grand temple key instead of, you know, just burying it and forgetting about it. I didn’t say that the Templars killed Connor’s family. So I’m not sure why you’re mentioning that. Haytham came to the Colonies searching for WHATEVER was in the Temple and before he leaves Reginald Birch literally says it might be knowledge or a weapon. Neither of them cared, they just wanted to get it. Which is why I said they wanted to use what was in it specifically for Templar interests. Had it been a Sword of Eden they would’ve used it. Had it been a Shroud of Eden they would’ve used it. Knowledge or power is irrelevant, they would’ve used whatever they found to benefit their group. Saying he only wanted knowledge is absolutely incorrect.
@@jonnyhill1155 Washington may have killed Connor' s family but wasn't it Charles Lee who carried out his orders? Why didn't Haytham make Lee pay as he did to the Templars who sold his sister into slavery? Or was Haytham aware of what was going to happen to Connor's village? If so why didn't he find a way to prevent it?
@@Niani23455 no it wasn't Charles lee and them ,if I remember from what I saw ,Charles and the 3 other templars where there to negotiate hence why they grabbed Connor and told him run back to the others and tell them Charles needs to speak to them ,but Washington burned it down before Charles could negotiate
@@Niani23455 also after Connor tells haytham what Charles apparently did haytham investigates and finds out that Washington did it
The Assassins were meddling with something they didn’t understand, that doesn’t necessarily make the wrong but it does make them flawed. The Templars being in opposition to the Assassins motivations in Rogue would put them in the better light by comparison. But honestly the game completely fails to delve into the ideology and philosophy of either group, and in particular why Shay would join the Templars after defecting from the Assassins. If they had made it clear he was just using them as a means to an end and actually hated his time with the Templars, or on the flip side if they had shown Shay grow to truly believe in the Templar order and their way of going about achieving peace, then Shay would have felt like a much more dimensional character. Alas this is not what we got and all we know about Shay is he makes his own luck
the game already did dwelve into the ideology and philosophy established by previous games, shay didn't join automatically he questioned them or doubted and thats were the game shouldve been longer because shay have been working with monroe and gist for a whole year that the game quickly skips which is a shame but what made shay appreciate templars like monroe was how they made him feel equal unlike the the assassin's
the first tenet says 'stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent' but that isnt the main reason for shay to defect but one of the reasons because shay says this in the beginning of the game but i think that the main reason is holding the assassin's responsible for causing such chaos as youve seen with previous assassin's especially ezio who caused an explosion that suffocated innocents just because he thought it was necessary to kill a templar which in rogue shay basically causes something far worse and basically stayed true being an assassin than any other assassin except for connor even though shay betrayed the assassin's but later on as shay got older hes got more ruthless and said that the templars are going to start a revolution of our own which implies the french revolution and see so many people think that the whole assassin's vs templars are good vs evil which is not especially when people who review rogue say that the 'AassAsSiNs aRe lIke tEmPlars aNd tEmpLaRs aRe lIke aSsAsSInS' which is it was never the case at all and i can name many ac youtubers who think rogue was like this but their mouth is always gawking on ezio every nanosecond
yep torres hates how sad and corrupted empires are also later templars hate the borgias/renaissance because they didn't follow the proper ideals because they were too corrupted plus the very first game shows how horrible the assassin's can be as well as the main protagonist who purposefully broke all three tenets and ill argue that the brotherhood in 1 are more corrupted than the colonial plus the renaissance brotherhood aren't all that good but compared to the templars they were seen as good vs evil but later ezio shows when assassin's show their flaw which is chaos and with that chaos ezio causes an explosion that suffocated innocents underground and in the novel ezio felt bad but he said that it was necessary
origins fucked up the lore for AC in which they couldve made the order of ancients interesting instead they made them evil like that's not what the templar philosophy is like especially since they're supposed to be the origin of templars but i think odyssey fixed this by adding origin of the order of ancients who are the cult of cosmos and they're all evil just like the order of ancients and this is where templars come in fixing their philosophy and trying to fix the world in their own way but obviously some would get corrupted like many templars in the games but there are lot of templars who follow the proper ideals like grand Torres from ac4, all templars from ac1, the colonial rite rogue - ac3. the whole assassin's vs templars war was always grey and not black and white
it ain't shallow because rogue was added to the templars from previous games especially if you compare them to the renaissance templars who are too corrupted and dont follow the proper templar ideals which is why later templars hate the renaissance/borgia templars
Shay was definitely a good guy only cared for the people so he killed his brothers and sisters to protect them
There is no right or wrong in this imo, which was made quite clear since AC3. The best I could put is that Templars’ methods was more acceptable at that time
I think that Mirabue and De La Serre were pretty interesting and I wish we could have seen their debates in full. What caused the Grand Master and Mentor to see eye to eye and form a truce between the two orders?
Correct! There is no right or wrong, just two sides of every coin. It just depends on which side landed up for you.
We should be able to choose which we want to pick, and based on each choice we would have a different storyline and ending to the game
1:08 FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE TEMPLARS ARE EVIL!- Connor Skywalker
Would you make a video comparing AC 3 and AC 4 as which one is the better game? It would really surprise some people but, as someone who played not only those two, but almost all games in the saga, I really like AC 3 cause it has way more variety in terms of stuff to do around the world (like the underground tunnels, god I loved that, and the little lockpicking sequences) the homestead missions, the Boston brawler challenges, that is one of my FAVORITE things on AC 3, and of course the most wonderful open world missions. And there's so much more to talk about!
I made one already back in January if you'd like to check it out. Thank you and have a good rest of your day!
you like lockpicking? that's some unpopular opinion
AC 4 still has more to do with all the unlockable armor and ships to take down
@@arghosen9036 LMAOOOO YEAA
@@peculiar3529 Taking down ships over and over again isn't what most people would call "fun", it's just busy work.
The Templars are technically in more of the games than the assassins are.
How?
@@peculiar3529 idk probably rogue and black flag
You right😂
@@peculiar3529 I'm assuming it's because we fought "Templars" in Odyssey but there were no Assassins.
@@johnmarston9262 those had assassins and Templars
They need to do a templar turned assassin type story that’ll be interesting. We kinda saw that in black flag but Edward wasn’t really a templar
I agree it would be an interesting take.
whats the title for that? im thinking Assassin's Creed Redemption (that sounds like RDR ngl)
I've only picked up the series recently, I watched Storyline breakdowns on the first 4 games and I've played through the full main story of 3, Black Flag, Rogue, and have about 10 hours into Unity, and honestly it feels like I'm missing something. Sure some of the templar ideas are a bit crazy, but it seems well intentioned 99% of the time, even as you're killing people in AC3 you can't tell if they're lying to you to make Connor mad or if Connor is just actually wrong. It seriously feels like The templars have a whole list of ideas and how to achieve what they want and the Assassin's really only have "Templars bad" as an ideology.
as you yourself noticed, you lack context, if you play all the games, do side activities, etc., you will learn that 95% of the largest conflicts, plagues, etc. are ploys by the Templars to gain power, parts of Eden, or kill the Assassins
Haytham and Adewale face off would've been great 🔥
i love the story of the american colony assassins and templars how the templars actually were better than the assassins during rogue but later connor brought the assassins back to how they should be and revived the creed in america
i’ve always felt that templars are a cult bc we mostly look at them from the outside…..but i just realised that “cult” is a word that can describe the assassin brotherhood too 😭
Bruh, sometimes my disappointment for Ubisoft really comes out, when I read comments like that. The stuff, you mentioned about Assassins and Templars being two morally-ambiguous 'cults' was literally explored in AC1 a lot and by the end of AC1, Altaïr grown to understand both sides and how similar yet different, they are (also Altaïr's wife was literally a ex-templar) they just drop that sh*t in AC2 for literally no reason.
@@nnnnmhughuuhhjiijj9457facts, ive told this million times, play ac 1 for the lore ONLY, because its story and conversation is very interesting. i knew from the very start this Al Mualim dude is bad news, and very cunning. from the memory corridors conversation i came to realization that the templar aint that bad
I believe that at the beginning the ancient ones had a good idea that simply disappeared with time. Of course some of the grandmasters tried to bring peace, but usually their only target was to kill as many assassins as they could. And the assassins in order to prevent it would butcher the templars. I think, that taking free will completely isn’t the best way, in the end as you said world doesn’t really need assassins nor templars. There never will be peace if two sides are always fighting.
I always thought that was the joke
Both groups are just finding excuses to play god. Honestly if the series was gonna end want that to be the main theme of the last game
Has there ever been a time where an assassin and a templar were good friends? I mean as much as they are depicted to be these brute forces wanting to reclaim the land I can’t help but think a few are willing to align themselves with some of the assassins beliefs.
One of the best AC game ever. Storyline is amazing. Compared to Unity and Syndicate. I didn't think this game would be this great. I played AC rogue just to get a continuation.
It’s really nice to see both perspectives
Amazing video!
I’m reminded of the saying of historian Will Durant, who said that history could be seen as a swinging like a pendulum between periods of freedom and periods of discipline. Looked at this way, and acknowledging that either extreme can be unhealthy, the Assassins and the Templars would each be correct to act as a counterbalance to the other at different political/historical periods.
Their views deviated from the Borgia and D'Pazzi conspirators sure but Monroe and Haytham were building a fully templar controlled new rite of the order. Dueth being not as black and white as the previous games monsieur Assassin
May the father of understanding guide us
5:50 that has always been my private theory, that we're seeing an edited version of the conflict between Shay and the Assassins. The Creed seems nothing like any other version of the Brotherhood before or since. I believe we're getting a sanitized version to put the Templars in a good light, similar to Assassin's Creed Liberation.
Although in most games I don't agree with the Templars ideologies Rodrigo and Cesare are straight up villains but I definitely understand Al Mualims perspective. However I definitely agree with Haytham and Shay. Shay is a genuinely good person he joins the Templars not to spite the Assassins who treated them badly but to save people and make sure the what happened in Lisbon never happens to anywhere again. He shows remorse for killing Hope and Adewale and you can straight up see how distraught and conflicted Shay is when he kills Liam someone who's he's been friends with for years.
The moral of the story is that neither are right or wrong. The Assassins of Shay's era were extremists who harmed innocents. The Templars of the Renaissance were extremists who wanted power for the hell of it, something the modern Templars reject.
I think it's just that after thousands of years, the assassin's had some bad branches but were made better by Connor, whereas the templars became slightly better over the years, until Unity I guess.
The Templars were never evil. They want the same thing that the Assassins want: Peace. But their methods of doing it are wrong by taking away the free will of people and maintaining order.
Free will can be given extent but extreme freedom is not always good. Look at the modern world for example
The thing about the assassins is that unlimited unadulterated freedom is pure anarchy. It would turn the world back to a state of might = right. It kinda leads the good Templars to be champions of the weak.
It’s hard to say. Yes in Rogue I agree with you, but there’s something else. The conflict is interesting as Haythem explains their goals, but how it’s done is what I question. Each side is different and has different ways of achieving their goal.
Love your video man
The Templar ideology is always correct.
May the father of understanding guide us.
Cringe bro
I love Rogue, but I wish the ending lived up to that name. Shay defecting to the Templars made sense, but by the end of the game he had started to see the ugly of both sides, and still threw in with templars. I REALLY wish Shay had decided he was done with both groups at the end and just became a, well, rogue. Shay just traded one set of lies for another. It would have elevated the game so much if instead he said screw you to both groups and took the Morrigan to do things his own way.
Missed opportunity IMO.
The reason Haytham became a Templar is because Edward's then best friend raised him. He just happened to be a Templar, and never knew his father was an assasin.
He wasn't an assassin though. Not really. Just opportunist
@@morgang5666 in thr beginning yes, but towards the end of the game hes genuinely invested in the cause and is initiated into the brotherhood through the tainos.
Finally someone talks about Shay "I make my own luck" Cormac 😂
AC3 and Rogue changed my opinion on the Templars. While not all of the are good people, it does not mean that just because they are a Templar, it mean they are a bad person. You have to remember most Templars were born into their creed and didn’t have a choice sometimes. And even if they did, a good amount of them while small only did it for the greater good of the country.
It should be noted that Haytham ran the Colonial Rite differently than most Templars would do and recruited potential members who were loyal, competent, and had a sense of morality (Charles Lee was loyal but too ruthless for Haytham's tastes). For Thomas Hickey, he was corrupt but he was very, very loyal to Haytham and was willing to kill Washington in public to make the Templars' plan successful. The Templars are complex and nuanced and many joined for different reasons. Regarding the French Revolution, I believe Shay supported Grandmaster De La Serre and Mirabeau's alliance to create a peaceful revolution and Shay likely had a hand in the two's alliance.
2:10 That mighta been Ubisofts intention... but that certainly wasnt the reception at the time...
Though yeah. Rogue is very much a mission pack sequel in gameplay (borrowing a lot of elements from black flag and 3), and a bit on the shorter side...
Woulda been interesting with a larger budget, i can agree with that.
The way I see it none of the factions are right. But any one assassin can be right. Like Ezio whom has seen what artifacts can do. Altair's journey was about this.
I read AC forsaken a while back, that further shows the Templars perspective. None of them is totally wrong or totally right
No.
But okay more in depth, I couldn't enjoy rogue because they didn't really flesh out Templars better but just switched the two factions around. It wasn't like Haytham in AC3 who made a valid point himself, just assassin traits in templar characters and vice versa.
The assassins want free will, unless that free will goes against them. The assassins kill anyone who goes against them, it's like their only way of solving things, even innocents. In Black Flag Mary Read pretends to be hurt to lure two soldiers away from the gate, she then proceeds to murder them for the crime of doing their duty and caring about the safety of a woman, when she could have let them live as Conner could have easily slipped in when their backs were turned, and they had done nothing to deserve death.
the Templars have some good points, especially Hatham Kenway, during his conversation on the rooftop beside Connor, freedom can be an invitation to chaos, but this is why we have laws and a constitution in this country that we are ruled by that use liberty and justice for all, without these things, Hatham would be correct about the chaos that would ensue.
in many ways i agree with Haytham as in many ways right now currently we have too much freedom to the point that there is currently lots of chaos within civilization, but does this mean Haytham is right when it comes to how the templars want to rule over everyone with an iron fist to control everyone?
to me it sounds like Haytham wants to justify the Templar order as an excuse to control people, meaning they will become the ruling class and everyone else their slaves.
Absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. and that's the Templar order's true goal in their plans to control the population, they sound a little more like another group of people who want to force society into a Great Reset, which means they will achieve "order through chaos", to usher in their New World Order.
simply put.
the Assassins are fighting for freedom and liberty.
the Templars are fighting for slavery and control.
Master assassins content just hits different 💯
AC Rogue Assassins remind me of Star Wars prequel Jedi Order, too blind in arrogance that they’re in the right…
Now after mirage is out, I find it similar between rogue and mirage that the assassin seems not entirely understand what the isu objects do, besides the apple of Edens
Free will without knowledge and guidance creates chaos. And order can become disorder without proper conviction and a heart that seeks peace, understanding, compassion, and true unity though love for your fellow people that you seek to serve.true order is not to control but rather guide present and future generations to a brighter path. And free will is what we choose good or bad but we do not get to choose the Consequences of those actions. Both free will and order can co- exist in Harmony as long as the balance is maintained and not Corrupt in the case of order and used for a the right reasons in the case of free will
This is where Rogue fell complete flat for me.
They just made the Assassins the Templars and the Templars the Assassins.
The Templars are the ones sacrificing people for the greater good, which is why the Assassins try to stop them.
For Achilles to just have entire cities collapse in search of some artefact and the Templars to go "no, no, you can't do that" is utter nonsense.
Even more so, looking at how all the Assassins under Achilles were totally cool with this and only Shay objecting.
I thought it was a complete cop out and a missed opportunity to explore a gray area, where the moral high ground gets muddled.
There was nothing complex or subtle about the plot in Rogue however. The Assassins were wrong and the Templars right.
Achilles really can't think straight after his son died
Assassins creed is somehow a fun video game series and also a complex moral debate
From my perspective the history is changing sometimes the templats are right and sometime the assassin's depend on the time period.
And the conflict between them is making balance. And they're coexistence is necessary.
I think the precursor artifact rush actually is explained a little.
Adewale tells Achilles that the Templars beat them to an artifact, causing mass destruction similar to what Shay later causes.
Achilles merely believes the Templars must have done something specific and intentional, which it soon becomes clear to the player that both cases were accidents.
The older I get, the more I side with the templar’s principles
I haven't seen it yet, but I know it's a good video.
When I get bored:Master uploads
To save the world 🌎 yes .
May the father of understanding guide us .
✝️
Do a video on who’s the best Templar grand master
The Templars are so right, so in my opinion, I choose to be a Templar, and may the father of understanding guide us.
Same and shay is our master
Im with u brothers,May the father of understanding guide us 🙏
based
Someone should mak a full fledged "Templar Order" game within the AC universe. But please not Ubisoft, and make the franchise go back to it roots instead of this RPG crap. But this will sadly probably never happen.
I think it all depends on leadership
If the Borgias led the templar side then I'd say they're evil
If Haytham led the templar side then I'd say they're good
Same goes for the assassins, some are better leaders than others
Templars: take out criminal gangs that terrorize the citizens, renovate homes, businesses and churches, want to prevent another devastating earthquake that killed 1000s
Clueless Assassins: "This is such unbearable evil!"
I think you should do a gaming news show where you talk about rumors and news about video games
I actually like Templars's position and their philosophy. That's because assassins never actually tried to make their visions come true. All they (and we as players) did is to conflict with Templars or to hunt for the artefacts, while Templars actually tried to make their position right. After all, Abstergo became very and very powerful cuz they put the order's principles in a first place, not hunting and killing assassins
No they don't , they just learned how to push their goals forward while killing assassins
@@dangi6516 it's been two years wtf 😭
But what about abstergo and the morden day Templars? They are clearly depicted to be the villains even in the movies. I feel like it's easy for the producers to make the assassins the "good guys" because it's what sticks. When you take a deeper look though the Templars aren't all that bad. If you look at the storyline of unity, Arno goes out to revenge the death of his foster Templar father. When it comes to who's right and whose wrong I would agree in saying nether. Both factions want control over something. One faction carries red crosses and the other faction specialises in parkour, fancy hoodies and hidden blades. It's easier to make the assassins the protagonist because it makes for easier recognizable game play.
I do believe that the Templars were right in AC Rogue but then it is my fav AC game and yes I was brought up with AC right from the start and all through the Ezio trilogy but to finally play on the other side was a breath of fresh air. I miss the combat system used in Black Flag, Rogue and AC III remastered. I would love for Ubisoft to make some sideline games with the same graphics as the remastered Rogue and III games for a budgeted price range and same controls but imagine if AC 3 could be entirely played from Haytham’s point of view or even continue Shay’s story, after all it was left open with no deaths scene etc. nothing in the franchise has been as good as those titles since they were released.
Sour grapes was reference from the bible
I would even argue that the only real evil Templars are the Borgia. The others is a matter of perspective. But in all honesty both sides create problems in their own way.
true thats the most messed up family
In the lore Hittler , Stalin , Churchill , Roosevelt .etc were Templars and WW2 was just a ploy to kill Assassins and take ISU artifacts + Shay's purge murdered entire villages just for the chance to kill one assassin ... so I wouldn't agree
@@dangi6516 yeah I’m gonna concur in the fact that the WW2 arc is stupid. It would have been a better story if the Assassins and Templars were to unite against the Nazis. Neither faction approves of what they did.
@@Novelist1029 actually for me what we have is better because it explain how templars gained all that power they have in modern times
Honestly; I think there should be an AC MMO where people choose their faction and play their story.
Like SWTOR. Unity, Odyssey and Valhalla seem like prerequisites to a multiplayer RPG mmo where we could potentially choose to either be an assassin or Templar in a certain period of time. And we can choose the story we want to follow.
And if not, it’s certainly an idea for someone more talented to consider.
That’s just my take.
Rogue deserved to be fleshed out and be a full game, not an overpriced DLC for AC4.
The Brotherhood didn’t know any better in the Americas vs the ones in Italy and I forgot where Altair is from. If Achilles had took Shay’s word for it, I think Shay would’ve stayed.
Nice content!
Rogue embodied the 3 ironies Altair once wrote:
“The Assassins seek to promote peace, but commit murder.”
They meddled with the Precursor Sites and murdered thousands of innocent lives.
“The Assassins seek to open the eyes of men, but require obedience to rules.”
Much like the Templars they also have a Master Assassin in which every member should follow no matter how questionable their ideals were.
“The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves.”
This third irony is pretty much applicable to every Assassin in Rogue. Despite Shay already proving that the Precursor Site destroyed Lisbon. Liam, Hope, Kesegowaase, and Chevalier blindly followed Achilles til the end.
Rouge is the worst at showing the conflict as grey. In rouge they don’t show the issues with the assassin’s and Templar’s ideologies at all. All they do is show that when the assassins do the opposite of what their creed instructs them to do they are in the wrong which is pretty fucking obvious.
Mereka ini (templar dan assassin) layaknya 1 buah koin yang berbeda sisi, walaupun terlihat beda, namun tetap sama.
I feel like what their trying to achieve, especially told by haytham seems admirable, but the ways that their using to get to it makes them look like complete evil villains. I also wanted to say that it also depends on who’s leading the organization( saw on another comment that’s a good point)
Most that play AC Rouge: Hey this is pretty cool.
Me: Holy shit I can kill people with no consequences lets go!
I've always been really interested in the Templars and I like when they're portrayed as more than one dimensional cartoon villains. Ultimately I disagree with their goal but there are some of them I wouldn't necessarily call evil.
Don't say haytham or shay 😂
If the Assassins's had an ISU sage who understood the Isu artifacts. Now we have Basim/Loki and Alethia helping the modern day Assassins. If they are still wanting to help the cause.
1:19 while I agree overall, this statement is kinda disingenuous because we know that Haytham was basically groomed by Reginald Birch since he was a child.
If Altair and ezio where in the assassin's creed 3 time era the would be really disappointed in what assassin's have became
Haytham really fucks with me. After playing Rogue and going through 3 right now, Haytham makes a shit-ton of sense. Even I am starting to see the advantages of their ways, n how the assassins may be doing more harm than good, even if things MAY be better in the long run. Thats just it, they MAY be, not that they for sure will, n if things don't go the way they are supposed to, shit could get bad. I thought the storytelling of Rogue was lazy, just making them villains for no damn reason and the Trmplars as the actual good guys, but now I see that is literally how the groups see each other. The assassins may not actually be as bad as portrayed in Rogue, or maybe Achilles was the real fucker here, but from our Templar point of view thes shits are evil and dangerous. I kinda still super hate that they use street gangs for thei business dealings n what not, but meh whatever. After all this, I'm starting to see the Templars as not the enemy, but as an obstacle. It's a race, on who can save the world first.
Ask me Shay made a mistake had he calmed down and told Achilles what happened in Lisbon. He could of asked Shay to take him to Lisbon so he can see the distruction himself. He might of confirmed it with Adewale if the last spot also had the same issues. After confirming they might of destroyed the book and box. Of course Achilles made a similar mistake going straight on the attack and not talking things through with Shay before acting and throwing him out the window and having the Assassins attack Shay. As for Shays error breaking in after a argument wasnt wise. He could of simply said i wont do any more assassinations without being debriefed first by Achilles about Lisbon. When someone acts with a cool head they wont regret that decision later on. The Templars were able to recruit Shay because they listened to him.