Talk:Assassins

This is the discussion page for Assassins. Here, you may discuss improving the article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. This talk page has archives. 1	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

No title

I have a great quote of Niccolo Polo's from Oliver Bowden's novel, 'Assassin's Creed: The Secret Crusade.' The quote is from Part One, page 6, paragraph 6, and reads, Assasseen, as you know, represents "guardian" in Arabic - the Assassins are the guardians of the secrets, and the secrets they guard are of knowledge... 77.97.9.135 14:07, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

MentoreOfTheOceanicRite (talk) 05:49, October 31, 2013 (UTC) Can we please fix up grammatical errors?

Partial merge

I propose the merging of the known victims section to be placed on the Assassination targets page.

Yay

1. Yar. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 23:24, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
2. Ditto. nucl3arsnake (talk) 00:24, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
3. As nominator. Slate Vesper (talk) 00:28, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
4. --Fragment ^-Animus- 00:30, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
5. --ACsenior (talk) 05:29, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
6. Assuming the Assassination targets article gets padded out so that it actually contains more detail than this section currently does (as opposed to how it is now), I support the move. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 09:23, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
7. ^ O'course! -- AgentG231 (talk) 09:28, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
8. ._. ~ GI Auditore ^{Comms Channel} 12:25, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
9. (Arabian411269 (talk) 13:46, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think it's fair to say that we have reached a consensus. nucl3arsnake (talk) 14:08, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Usually we leave open a poll for a week to be sure :) In this case, it seems everybody who cares has voted though. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 14:12, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

It has been well over a week now, so can we get on with this merger? nucl3arsnake (talk) 23:25, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

The target article is still woefully under-populated with information, so until that is sorted, I would say no. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 17:38, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

Assassin's Religion

I don't think the Assassin's believe in any kind of religion. Almost all of the game's protagonist's ,like Altair and Ezio, present their belief's throughout the game. To the pages of Altair's codex, The Order is meant to open-minds of people. Although they are spiritual.Lucassassin (talk) 05:53, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't locate anywhere in the article that specifically refers to the Assassins as religious unless you are referring to the infobox where it denotes their "Religion" as various. If that is indeed what you are referring to, then I would explain that whoever added it likely meant that individual Assassins throughout the ages professed to different religions. I agree, however, that in the infobox, it would be more correct to label the Assassins as irreligious because although individual Assassins did from time to time adopt a religion, the Assassin Order itself is inherently a secular entity. As such, I will change it accordingly now. Thanks for pointing it out. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:12, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm happy to contribute the wiki. 103.14.62.163 11:04, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Members

The page says that Edward Kenway and Adewale had joined the assassins by 1715 for less than traditional purposes. We now know this isnt true.

PS Shouldnt we add the legendary assassins like Darius to the infobox?--188.180.174.234 19:51, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

No. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Victims

The list of victims doesnt have Baltasar de Silva in it.--188.180.174.234 14:30, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of victims who are not on the list. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:11, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Edward Kenways list should be longer. Even though he wasnt really an Assassin before 1720, he was an Assassin in the end, and many of his assassinations served the interests of the Brotherhood.--188.180.174.234 19:08, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

No, because he was not an Assassin, just a murderer. Those deaths served his interests, not the Order's. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:16, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be ONE list of victims? It seems rather odd having seperate lists, especially considering the fact that some of them are very short.--Bovkaffe (talk) 14:43, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

12/13th century 'allies'

"Allies also included various individuals, such as Adha, Qulan Gal, and even former Templars like Maria Thorpe.Others included Dante Alighieri, Maffeo, Marco and Niccolò Polo, and Domenico Auditore, the founder of the Auditore Villa."

Most of these are assassins. Qulan Gal, Dante, Maffeo, Marco, Niccolo, Domenico are all assassins. They should be named as such, not as the Brotherhood's allies. 2.220.253.155 22:18, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're reading it incorrectly, though to be fair it's not the clearest bit of grammar. The list of names that includes Dante Alighieri is in a different sentence to those listed as allies, so technically it is correct. That being said, I have tweaked the sentence to make it clearer. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:45, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Known Guilds

I'm thinking we should add a section to this article called known guilds. What do you guys think? --Raghava Shah 16:00, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

You do know that the trivia fact isn't accurate I will check my facts and present why they really are called assassin.Hutchy01 (talk) 16:06, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I think if you had any facts to the contrary, you would already present them, rather than dramatically declare the intent and shake fist at us. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 16:29, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that anyway ... The assassin are thought by modern scholars to be named for the Arabic word Asasiyun which meant 'those who are faithful' (to the Shi'ite/Nizari) and that name comes from the figure Rashid ad-Din Sinan (who the series referred to as Al Mualim). I hope this was clear and again sorry about my previous lack of fact. Hutchy01 (talk) 18:46, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Era icons

I think there are way too many era icons on this article. Given that the Assassins appear in every entry throughout the entire series, is there really any point in having them? --Crimson Knight _Intercom 16:30, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Whilst you are correct that the Assassins appear in every single entry, the whole point of the eraicons is to show which media the article subject appears in. Removing them from the article defeats the point of having them in the first place. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:40, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I have a brilliant idea that nobody but me could possibly think of - make a single universal icon that corresponds to the entire AC series. Unconceivable alternative to keeping n+1 icons on the page, right? --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Considering this is an AC wiki, what would be the point in having a single icon stating that the article subject appears in the AC series? We'd be better off using a method similar to the Fallout Wiki; or even having tiered icons - only the parent icon (e.g. "Colonial era") shows until hovered over, then we see "AC3", "AC4BF", "ACRG". That would take a lot of coding, however. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:17, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Not for the purpose of "it appears in the AC series". For the purpose of "it appears in every installment and side media iteration of the series". Get the difference? It's neater to just have one icon signify that it appears throughout the series, than code a glorified tabber just for icons themselves. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:04, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Sicarii Group older then the Hashashin Possible connection.

I recently came across information that i was studying for a class that Mentioned a group called the Sicarii it is mentioned going back before the formation of Islam. The Sicarii was formed acording to history book in around 30 or 40 CE and lasted well up until 80 or 90 CE. Islam in which the Hashashin is based began in 570 CE. The word Sicarii means "Dagger men" as well them being known as skilled Assassins who would blend in with the crowd and disapear back into them. This got me to thinking if the Assassins in the Assassin's Creed Universe trace there roots back atleast as far as Adam and Eve just like the Templars and they started in through the Romans then could it be possible that before the Assassins were known as the Hashashin they were known as the Sicarii. I would like others opinions on the matter im a huge fan of the franshise and found this highly interesting.

Templar - Romans - Caninites

Assassins - Hashasins - Sicarii

Thoughts?

The Story of Masada which was their main base of operations sounds very much like the Masyaf castle as well as the siege of Masyaf from the Templars.  - AndyC89

Pirates

I was wondering if pirates should be added to the related organizations. Or maybe the crew of the jackdaw and the crew of the Experto Crede.Hugues de Payens (talk) 23:49, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

Pirates were indeed a related organization, in the exact same era-specific sense as the vigilantes of Altair's time (recruitable in the Middle Ages), the thieves of Ezio's time (recruitable in the Renaissance), or the Rooks of the Frye twins' time (recruitable in the Victorian era); i.e. they were a faction whose members could be hired and were recruited by Assassins in a particular era. Seems quite logical to add them as a related organization. klad (talk) 00:18, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Revision

I am about to substitute a few sections with major revisions I have been working on. These revisions are in response to several issues that I brought up in 2013. Most notable is the misinterpretation by many fans that the Assassins' ultimate goal is freedom, and that its conflict with the Templars is little more than freedom vs. order, or that the Assassin maxim of "nothing is true, everything is permitted" meaning is simply to do whatever you want with no moral restraints or discipline on your behavior whatsoever.

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgment of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll."

―Arno Dorian

"To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted. That laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."

―Altaïr ibn-La'Ahad

• Kidd: "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." This is the world's only certainty.
• Edward: "Everything is permitted?" I like the sound of that. Thinking what I like, and acting how I please.
• Kidd: You parrot the words... but you do not understand them.

There are other issues about the article that I mean to address, but for now I will start by making my revision. Initially, I was hesitant to do so, namely because the ideology of the Assassins and Templars are in a way, subject to interpretation. However, I was told previously to feel free to edit it as I wish if I think there are issues to be corrected in the ideology sections. Because of the nature of the ideology sections, there is some risk that I am applying my own personal interpretations. This is by the way, heavily already the case with the "Criticisms" section, which is a major issue I will address later. In any case, I have done my best to shorten my revised description of Assassin philosophy, cutting out any parts I think are "my own" interpretation and only keeping those that were original to characters themselves. Appropriately, I have done my best to be thorough with citations.

I am not entirely finished with the revisions. I took a hiatus from my work, and forgot much of what I wanted to expand upon, especially with the "Liberalism" section, and will likely be adding to it later.

Also: I have no even started Assassin's Creed: Syndicate :( just as a heads-up.

As it is a major revision, I am leaving this message here to introduce it. So anyone that have any questions or wish to discuss it, please ask or do so of course! :) Sol Pacificus (talk) 06:55, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I think my quote choices perhaps should be shortened, or perhaps better ones could be used. Sol Pacificus (talk) 07:11, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Sol
While I think it's great that you want to revise this page (it kinda needs it), Sima had already been working on some kind of revamp for it in one of his sandboxes. Granted, it's been a while I think since he's updated it, but you might want to check in with him anyways. Otherwise, good luck on your revision :) Crook ^{The Constantine District} 07:14, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Great so far, however shouldn't it also deal with the corruption and extremist views in it? Same for the Templar page. Cover every use of their ideologies while also explains things like, what separate a Moderate Assassin from and Extremist or Corrupt Assassin? What separate a Moderate Templar from and Extremist Templar? And of course how all use the ideology and the ideology by itself. Like the Assassins is a positive view of humanity while the Templars view is negative, that's standard wether corrupt or not. The core of their ideologies. --ACsenior (talk) 16:00, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Great point, I know I had already intended to fit in François Mackandal's example somewhere. He accused all the other Assassins of being too moderate, pretty much went rogue, and instead interpreted that the creed was a call to unrestrained power. One issue though is that honestly, the Assassins' beliefs beyond Altaïr and Ezio aren't always as fleshed out. Ah Tabai and Mary Reed echoed their philosophies, but Connor seemed to have spent much of his own story so focused on liberty and protecting his people that it was never shown at all how much he understood the deeper aspects of Assassin ideology. Achilles Davenport is a weird territory. On one hand, Shay blaming him for the destruction of Lisbon isn't justified. Letters by Mackandal heavily imply that Achilles had never planned to use the Piece of Eden for power and actually even to hide or destroy it before the Templars reached. It's a complicated scenario, since the disaster occurred from sheer ignorance, and I think that we can't say much about Achilles' ideology because not enough was explained about what he believed. However, some of the Assassins' actions in the Rogue if even just Louis-Joseph Gaultier's attitude probably warrants some mention. But in Unity, again too little is given about the Assassin council's beliefs, only that Arno at the very end echoes the words of Altaïr and Ezio. And then I haven't played Syndicate yet >_<. In summary, much of our information from Assassins beliefs come from Altaïr, Ezio, and scattered pieces in other games that echo them, but for Assassins whose actions that deviate from the standard (esp. those in Rogue), it's difficult to understand what exactly was their thinking. The clearest example of Assassin corruption would be François Mackandal, Pierre Bellec, and Louis-Joseph Gaultier. br />

But more importantly, I'm not sure where best to fit this information. I'm thinking I might have to expand on the ideology section even more. Should we include a whole section on Assassins whose views are unorthodox, or should we just note at each ideological point where a character acted otherwise? Sol Pacificus (talk) 20:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Mackandal is a great example of both a Fanatic Assassin seeing as we have no evidence of an attempted truce and Extremist Assassin because he intended the poison the Colonists like Achilles and is known for having a brutal brotherhood. Not really an issue seeing as both Altaïr explained what makes Assassins corrupt with his struggle against Abbas as he "corrupted everything we stand for". Abbas method was like Jack The Ripper's, a coup and then oppression once in power. And Ezio is a Fanatic Assassin in Revelations seeing as he said no to an offer of truce by Ahmet who's a Moderate Templar, plus Extremist Assassin since he started a riot and smoked a city with a bang. The best way to look for Corrupt and Extremist Assassinsis by looking at how much of their actions that align. Like Achilles who like Jack used gangs to oppress, like Makandal tried to poison Colonists and more. As said look for similarities and then apply the ideology since Altaïr clearly stated harming innocents is curry tigon and Eseosa called Makandal a disgrace. I could try to write it myself but it would end up more like a summary than an analysis.

I'd suggest a corruption and extremist section. What's already there is the ideology used the traditional way. --ACsenior (talk) 11:08, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on the "Corruption" section at the moment, and I apologize that it's taking longer than I would wish (especially given that it's a short section) due to outside commitments. One concern I have that is slowing my progress is the effort to maintain neutrality. This was an issue that I had with some previous edits on the Assassin and Templar articles. Neutrality can be a touchy subject when dealing with ideology and corruption. I have striven very hard in describing Assassin philosophy to withhold from adding my own extended interpretations, but it's even harder in this section

I struggle a little in deciding what to mention and what not to mention. For example, I personally would like to make a mention of Vérendrye's bullying attitude towards Shay, not as a point, but as a side remark. To be exact: "His harassment of Shay aside [...]" I think this adds a little more detail, but I'm not sure if it's necessary or entirely relevant. There are jerks in every group in the world regardless of what their ideology is. I'm not sure if I should mention Vérendrye bombarding the Homestead to kill Shay, risking murdering many Assassin allies because I feel that this is a very forced plot point (and possibly even for gameplay purposes), and it wasn't noted by any other characters, but to me personally, I think it's a significant detail. I'm really wary of adding in "fan interpretations" not "character interpretations" because I know Wikipedia itself is strictly opposed to the former. For example, Wikipedians almost certainly not permit adding in any mention of Ezio causing innocent deaths in Cappadocia with his explosions, because though I think it quite obviously violates Assassin policy, this would still be my own interpretation. I will certainly be adding the Sack of Albany because I think this was meant to be a clear, citable example. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:46, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I just read, for "misunderstanding" the creed. Well the creed itself says there is no "true" answer and that you should always question. The interpretations of the creed is in line with the creed despite it not being used traditional that's considered the "true" way by the traditional Assassins. Now for this, "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with Templar ideology altogether." Correct for people like Al Mualim who's willing to enslave the world but not Achilles Brotherhood as all their plans revolve around destroying any authority and the way his Brotherhood acts even reflect that. Achilles Brotherhood is Nihilist/Anarchist, they create chaos. And I'd take away the arguing that they are corrupt part as they are corrupt. Plus I'd call the section "Corruption and Extremism"

That side remark can work as a point of the lack of respect the corrupt tend shown unlike the traditional Assassins, other than that it's trivial among everything else, his words like following "without question" however are far more important. True there are. Vérendrye bombarding the Homestead to kill Shay is worth mentioning as it shows how far the corrupt Assassins are willing to go and it was mention by Assassins in the mission itself as you run away. Another example is Bellec saying he's willing to burn Paris to find Élise and "save" the brotherhood. So it's an important part, it shows how extreme the corrupt can get. However Vérendrye isn't the only corrupt Colonial Assassin. We'll what gets a pass and what don't, if anything is a problem in can be discussed here. Old Ezio does have a lot of traits related to corrupt Assassins, as an example he refused Ahmet's offer of truce. A Moderate like Connor or Mirabeau would't do that.

Corrupt Assassins tend to have a few things in common, power hunger(rear), against unity, are fanatics, slaughter innocents, oppress innocents, following without question. That should be it, I'll update it if I remember anything else.--ACsenior (talk) 12:08, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, your comments are helpful. On the "some would argue corrupt" part, as much as I think we could all agree that they are corrupt, I still worry that at the end of the day, no matter how unanimous the agreement, it is still an opinion, not a fact. Then again, to keep that phrase invites the question "well then who argues that they are corrupt (other than Templars)?" which may pose a problem as well, and to not mention that they are corrupt at all, well that just makes it hard for me to describe them. I suppose I am being unrealistic of the extent of perfect neutrality.

By the way, can you elaborate on Ezio's refusal of Ahmet's offer of truce? I totally have no recollection of that whatsoever or when it occurred. Sol Pacificus (talk) 15:34, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome, glad to help. Well I could list everything his Brotherhood did and then compare it smaller corrupt Brotherhood and the facts would be there. Unless of course there are people who argue neither the Borgia or Germain is corrupt, same case, it's just that the Assassins have a far more sympathetic view by the fans since we play them most of the time. As for who that argues, fans with colored glasses as they only argue about the accidental earthquake while ignoring everything else his Brotherhood did. The difference is that none defend the Borgia or Germain because none view them with colored glasses.

Ahmet says they are grown men looking for a library, they they should be friends instead of enemies. Followed by him saying he will find the library. Ezio responds with ignoring Ahmet's offer of truce and gives him a death threat for looking for the library by saying "Not in this life Ahmet". This happened once Ezio and the Ottoman Assassin had an full scale attack on the Arsenal after the death of Yusuf and the kidnapping of Sofia. --ACsenior (talk) 16:40, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I think some of the best examples of corruption in Achilles' branch lies in the Assassin Interception missions. The reason is because some of the targets seem like ordinary civilians who indirectly assist the Templars and so are quite arguably innocent or not truly accomplices. I am not certain of any of them though. Information is vague.

For example: "Scott Lawson - Contrary to our expectations, this newly-promoted overseer works against the Brotherhood's interests. Take care of him in public. That should shock the population and bring them back in line." In what way was he working against the Broterhood's interests? This could be anything. Overseer means slave owner right? So I suppose he was not freeing the slaves? Of course, I would have to play these missions or watch them to get the most information, and I have not yet. Regardless of whether they're "justified" or not by non-corrupt Assassin standards, such as the target Lewis Johnson who is cited to have killed many Assassins, a few of these sound like mere civilians to me. And the final lines accompanying some of them, like in the example, sounds like blatant terrorism, though the Sack of Albany already was a case. In any case, I will get around to these missions, but if you have the time, feel free to check them out and narrow them down. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:13, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find the dialogue you refer to. I'm assuming it should be found in this mission: "Discovery", set immediately after Ezio discovers Yusuf's corpse.

• Ahmet: Of course. And when things fall apart, and the lights of civilization dim, Ezio Auditore can stand above the darkness and say proudly, "I stayed true to my Creed." I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. And with the power that is hidden there, I will destroy the superstitions that keep men divided.
• Ezio: Not in this life, Ahmet.
• Ahmet: Bring the seals to Galata Tower when you are ready. Do this and Sofia will be spared. My brother's army will be here soon, Ezio. After that, everything changes.

I do not see any instance of a proposed truce at all, only a ransom and an assertion that he will be the one to accomplish his goals. Sol Pacificus (talk) 17:39, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

True but hardly the best, the best would be their gang lead by Hope who oppress the Colonies, simply look up anything her gang does. Or the Colonial Assassins attempt at poising the populace and the Colonial Authority with poisonous gasses. The first claim is confirmed by Le Chassure and he said it was an order by Achilles himself. The second claim is by Monroe after having captured and interrogated a gang member who "spoke of an intimidating woman", seeing as Shay never told him about Hope, it has a lot of value. And you have the Native Assassin holding a native village hostage, attacking surrendering soldiers and his attack on Albony. And of course Achilles leading everything, giving missions, ordering them around. So yes, the Assassin Interception missions are just as much part of it, despite some being vague.

• Conan Brown is a Templar Ally selling them fur, he got targeted by the Assassins but by traditionalist Assassin standards it's okay to kill Templar Allies.

• Marla Capps has been using political influence and manipulation to undermine the Colonial Assassins war efforts, she has no Templar connection other than being saved by Shay. So despite being a manipulator with influence she seems innocent, a politician fighting corruption. That's President material.

• Philippe Beaubien was a former supplier of the Assassins. After quitting he's been fishing a lot and the Assassins not wanting him to spill their secrets orders him killed. So he's a former Assassin Ally, so I don't think he can be qualified as innocent as he had worked with them and that makes him part of their war. The Assassins was tying up a loose end, despite him not being the treat they believed as he gave no new intel about them to Shay, who's a Templar. His case is complicated.

• David Borgen provides support to remote settlements to help them grow. However the only reason they target him is because he also helped the Templars. So he's a Templar Ally and by traditionalist Assassin standards can be killed.

• Rachel Plourde was an Assassin undercover that had returned, the Assassins are curtain she had become a double-agent(working for who?) and ordered her killed and she knew who Shay was. Seeing as she's an Assassin or rather was one, she can't be qualified as innocent but we know very little.

• Randall Gordon is a spy(working for who?) inside a French fort and the Assassins ordered him killed. This guy is part of the Seven Years War. So if he's innocent or not depends on if you qualify guards/soldiers innocent.

• Michael Crawley is another former Assassin but unlike Rachel they tough he was dead and once they found him alive they tried to kill him. Killing traitors is nothing new among the Assassins, corrupt or not but I'd say Micheal went rogue, he didn't join the Templars after all. But seeing as he was an Assassin he can't be qualified as innocent.

• Maria Gurley is a very charismatic political agitator was gaining too much influence in Albany and they send her several warnings. They say they can't loose more allies so she's been doing a good job against the Colonial Assassins. She says she have gotten dozen of threats and saying that the last woman who stood in their way was burned alive, like a witch. She's an innocent politician who's lucky to still be alive.

• Franklin Greear is an arms dealer that has been a fraud since the start since he never delivered any weapons but took every payment. By traditionalist Assassin standards it's okay to kill arms dealers but this guy has also been cheating them. So it's nothing wrong here, a typical assassination contracts bad guy.

• Lewis Johnson is a war veteran that has killed several Assassins and they want to kill him for that. Again okay by traditionalist standards as for example the Caribbean Assassins wanted Edward dead after killing many of their brothers and sisters in Havana. Plus he's a war veteran, a solider, soliders is okay to kill. The Assassins kill more soliders and guards then Templars in their hunt for them, it's standard, corrupt or not.

• Kelly Snider is a pamphleteer from NY that's been stalking their HQs of our allies and eavesdropping on conversations. An innocent woman who got cough sniffing around.

• Scott Lawson as said already is an overseer. By his own words, "I just watch over these laborers, trying to keep them safe. I am as fair as I can in deciding whom they hire and when they work." Just some guy hiring people, the reasons for the him being targeted is because some is against the Brotherhood's interest. Thats every mission for ya, do as you please.

Ahmet: If you think you are in a position to negotiate, kill me and be done with it! I am sorry it had to come to this. Two men who should be friends, quarreling over the keys to a library. We both strive for the same end, Ezio. Only our methods differ. Do you not see that? Peace. Stability. A world where men live without fear. People desire the truth, yes, but even when they have it, they refuse to look. How do we fight this kind of ignorance?

Ezio: Liberty can be messy, Ahmet. But it is priceless.

Ahmet: Of course. And when things fall apart, and the lights of civilization dim, Ezio Auditore can stand above the darkness and say proudly, "I stayed true to my Creed." I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. And with the power that is hidden there, I will destroy the superstitions that keep men divided.

Ezio: Not in this life, Ahmet.

Does't change the point, he ignored it. "Two men who should be friends, quarreling over the keys to a library. We both strive for the same end, Ezio." Ezio could easily said yes there, worked with him from that point and gotten Sofia on a golden plate but don't since he's a fanatic. When Haytham said they had similar aims and was chasing the same guy Connor ask what he propose and Haytham responds with a truce. Ezio didn't or even consider it. --ACsenior (talk) 18:05, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

You've also forgotten Abbas who corrupted the Assassins for decades as he enforced corruption and oppressed Masyaf. All started with a coup to get revenge that developed to power hunger as he wanted the Apple Of Eden. And you have Jack The Ripper who also used a coup to get in power and purged any resisting traditionalist British Assassins sent after him. He used the Rooks to oppress a part of London and was working on reforming the Assassins to his image with his twisted use of the Creed and planned to recruit more people, proven by his offer to Evie. Although some might argue he's an Assassin turncoat but if he is for useing a coup and fighting traditionalist, then so is Abbas who isn't categorized as an Assassin turncoat. --ACsenior (talk) 22:38, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I have not forgotten Abbas. I have yet listed every example I mean to note although specifically with Abbas I was thinking of saving this for someone else to explain until I have finished reading The Secret Crusade because I am not confident that my knowledge of him is thorough. I did not read the part about Jack the Ripper because I have not played Syndicate and am wary of spoilers.

By the way, that quote is not explicit enough in proposing a truce to Ezio. His line suggests that they should (or might've) been friends, but in the context, it can entirely be hypothetical rather than a serious proposal especially since he stops short of explicitly asking for peace in the midst of his monologue. Upon Ezio's response, which is not a threat at all, but only an expression of his perspective, Ahmet's next words only refer to himself: I will open that library, and I will find the Grand Temple. He speaks only of his impending victory, without offering anything, and so Ezio's next remark "Not in this life, Ahmet" is another way of saying "you will not be victorious." I think what points to a lack of serious peace proposal most of all is the fact that Ahmet's next line is to explain the ransom. Note that Sofia was already being held hostage, so even if Ahmet had proposed a truce, without referring to the captive Sofia, I don't see how it's fanatical at all to refuse. Declining an offer of peace is a basic part of diplomacy, where terms have to be weighed. If both parties really are fine settling for peace without any conditions whatsoever, then what was the reason behind their conflict in the first place? Supposing that Ahmet's methods are evil, which is arguable, partially because they weren't very fleshed out, but let's hypothetical say that it is undeniably heinous, would then the very action of refusing a truce be outright immoral? There are nuances. Allying yourself with one that has just killed your friend and kidnapped your lover isn't quite intuitive or immediately reasonable from my perspective. How can you trust him? Or if you do trust him, still do you consider him a good person? And of course all that aside, Ahmet never went ahead and proposed the truce. His words deviate after mentioning how they could have been friends, which makes those lines not an offer of peace, but rather purely rhetorical. Sol Pacificus (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I was looking forward to citing Kesegowaase's massacre after the Battle of Fort William Henry, his raid on the Oneida, and his assault on Albany as examples. However, I'm hesitating a little because I now remember why I had dismissed them when I first played the game. I had interpreted that Kesegowaase, as much as he was an Assassin, still held allegiance to his own tribe, and that the raid on Oneida, for example, was based on duty or orders from his own tribe rather than the Assassins. And while I personally think that soldiers can be considered innocent, it's possible that Kesegowaase didn't think this. I still think that the attack on Albany definitely applies, even though in that case, I'm also not sure if there were any innocent casualties. By default, I will be mentioning all three since I think they are all noteworthy. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:13, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, just tough I'd mention it since you hadn't written anything about Abbas and true The Secret Crusade does go more in detail about Abbas decades of corruption and the build up to the coup to become Mentor. I know some of it but I havn't gotten the time to read it so I'd rather not write it. Sorry, didn't know. Hopefully I don't spoil anything then.

Yeah, proposal might be bad word to use, I should have used hinted or suggested because that quote shows he's open for unity and he even apologized it become the situation it is, finding the fight ridiculous as they could solve it like grown men. It might not be a proposal but he's still serious about what he means. Ad the we he uses in the last question as well and it's even clearer. He didn't want to fight, which is how he allied himself with the Byzantine Templars as well. Because unity is a Templar goal and Moderate Templars like him don't want to fight but talk, even if they farce to act by their counterpart.(Ezio) Now Ezio ignores it and simply preaches liberty. The rest is the goal of both and with Ezio not being open for unity, Ahmet changes the we from the last question to I since it's obvious Ezio isn't as moderate as him. Although him smoking a city, started a riot and destroyed the remaining Byzantines who was defending themselves from the Ottomans and was trying to get their city should have made Ahmet see he's a fanatic. Well Ahmet was serious despite not offering it directly. Yes declining a hinted or suggested offer with a preach of liberty might be diplomacy but as said by Ezio himself, they fight to end the fighting and peace between both orders would allow that. A Moderate wouldn't decline it with a preach of liberty but would have tried to unity the orders. We know why, the Masyaf Keys. As I've said before a Moderate Assassin would, Haytham first hinted/suggested they had the same goals and Connor took the bait instead of preaching freedom, he asked what he'd propose and then Haytham offered the truce. Ezio didn't take the bait. There are more weigh on Ezio side has he smoked a city, started a riot, and killed an Ally(on the assumption that he was Templar, killing people for being a Templar is a fanatical Assassin trait) and was destroying a falling empire that had already lost a city. How can Ahmet trust him? Yet he tried to bait him for a truce.

We know that those events was an order from Achilles as well since Kesegowaase says: "Achilles wants you dead" He and Monroe and both targets. Monroe is a Target for simply being a Templar, a trait among fanatics, especially corrupt ones as they heavily oppose unity between both orders since their not open for a truce. The Colonial Assassins where allied with the French and the tribe he held hostage was being forced to be allied with them as well, it is Assassin work, no need to dismiss anything he have done. So mention all those events as planned. And you should mention common traits among the corrupt and goals, their ideology, how they think and act is all important as it ties everything about together. --ACsenior (talk) 15:29, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think that that particullar interpretation was explicitly supported or verified. It is an interpretation; it an be valid, but we have to be really careful with imposing our own interpretations. It's too much of a stretch. How do we know that he is serious about what he means? Did Ezio really ignore it? His response that "liberty can be messy, but it is priceless," is a fairly neutral expression of one's perspective. Ahmet made a point, Ezio responded with his. Expression of an opposing perspective doesn't necessarily mean fanatical rejection of any possibility of an accord (especially as I said, it wasn't explicitly offered & Sofia was to be ransomed). Honestly, when I first encountered that scene, my interpretation was that Ezio was calmly expressing his position, almost like a person who wanted to share his own personal teaching. That is to say, a more formal way to say "aw come-on man, don't be like, even though freedom can be messy, it's still priceless" rather than "NO! Freedom is absolute!" He was acknowledging Ahmet's position, "that freedom can be messy," and then the next clause explains "even so, it is still worth it." We also must remember that a major plot point in Brotherhood and in Ezio's general development is that he spared Rodrigo Borgia's life, in spite of Rodrigo being the central focus of his vengeance and the Grand Master Temmplar, for so many years. He justified it to Machiavelli that "killing one man won't change everything," which created much tension between them until resolved later in the game. There's too many variable interpretations of that scene.

I can analogize it to how for example, in connecting the dots with the prequel, I firmly believe that Altaïr's arrogant attitude in Assassin's Creed stems from disenchantment with the Assassins, especially after he had to kill a Templar spy that was the Assassin second-in-command then leave them because he couldn't trust them to understand (although evidently they did afterwards), and then his lover he meant to leave with was killed. He came back broken, and the bitterness inside expressed itself as arrogance and defiance to the creed at the start of AC1. That's my interpretation, and while the lines connect quite closely, the most I would describe is "Altaïr after the loss of Adha, returned to the Assassins, and the following year was really arrogant" etc. without going into how it was likely because of the bitterness from the previous year, only describing what happened. He was a jerk and disregarded the creed the year after Adha died, but I would stop short of elaborating with my interpretation that it was directly related to the events the year before (and not, say, how he's always been). Similarly, I heavily believe that Shay was irresponsible ("immature") in that he subconsciously directed all blame from himself to the Assassins, in how he blames them repeatedly for the miscommunication and how "he had no choice" but to kill them without thinking about how some of his own mistakes contributed to this turn of events. Even so, I've tried to keep it at "he blamed them for not listening, though he only made one attempt that was a temper tantrum and communication broke down because both sides were incensed" that is, as factual as I can. He really didn't try warn them more than once, and much of it was just burst of accusations, but while I personally judge that a lot, I try to withhold that from my edits. (Although admittedly I think I need to double-check in my draft.) Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:23, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am almost finished with the section. I will try to be done by tonight. I really apologize for the delays. I needed to review Rogue and Assassin's Creed 1. There are actually a number of issues I was uncertain about in my edit, but I maybe Im being too fastidious. I haven't added in Abbas yet because I didn't read The Secret Crusade and wasn't confident in my knowledge of him. If you want, feel free to write it in once I'm done. Jack the Ripper too, although once you do, I will avoid the section entirely until I have finished Syndicate xD.

My main concern is the length of this section. I'm surprised it became this long, and I also fear that since there is a history section, I might even have basically repeated a summary of certain events, especially in regards to Al Mualim. I will be expanding on the other ideology section though probably. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:29, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, it's all about perspectives. So let's work together on this instead of arguing. As for Shay, he tried to explain it twice, the second time he was calm but eventually they argued again before being attacked. Shay's case is complicated, so much more to consider than simply accusing him of being angry for no reason. But we can review the entire thing once where done with it.

Now for the corruption section I can go over the memories of each and leave quotes that explains their ideology that you afterwards can merge with their actions to make it one big article like the for example your Relativism section that go in the traditionalist Assassins use of the Creed. But I think it should be cut it half as we got two kinds of corruption, Totalitarianism(Assassins like Al Mualim that are closer to the Templar ideology) and Anarchism(Assassins like Achilles or Bellec). The article itself is too messy if you get what I mean, sure it mentions corrupt Assassins and a lot of their actions but little of their ideology that align with it. As a small example you have Bellec(who's from the Colonial Brach) that tells Arno to not ask questions. I could go deeper but give some time to collect the quotes so you can clean it better and keep it all under two corruption sections. It's very specific although a lot of them do the same like Makendal and Achilles. The main problem with writing about them is that most corrupt Assassins preach traditionalism as well. So we have scrub the dirt and go after things that isn't traditional wether it's actions or words.

I havn't read The Secret Crusade either so I'd recommend the ask the person that have written the most of his page, perhaps that user is qualified or wait until you've finished reading The Secret Crusade. I look at myself more of an assistant now, willing to help from the side but not write, don't think I'm qualified. So I'd rather not. So I'm not writing about Jack either. The length isn't a problem but if you fell it's too similar and might have repeated things from the history section I'd recommend to reword it, something that will be easier once the quotes is collected and can be aligned with their actions to explain and analyze their ideology. Showing what separate the corrupt from the traditionalist. We'll figure it out. --ACsenior (talk) 13:14, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about organizing it as two discrete forms of corruption: totalitarianism and anarchism. The reason is because I'm concerned that there may be nuances to each where such concrete labels may be inadequate. For example, François Mackandal was basically a power-monger. Like the Sith from Star Wars he believed in unrestrained power and free will to do as whatever he personally wishes (like anarchism), and yet probably expected utmost obedience and discipline from his followers. Louis-Joseph certainly argued that an Assassin obeys without question, and yet as we know his branch activities were like terrorism. Moreover, although some of these corrupt Assassins' methods are like terrorism, it doesn't necessarily mean that their political ideology is anarchism per se. Extremist groups from all over the political spectrum engage in terrorism or "purges." I came to the conclusion that the simplest way that does not risk imposing a label that may not be entirely correct is to just organize by people or group. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:09, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

I have moved on to the "Methods" section by the way, though I have yet edited in the Corruptions section. I also seek to expand and refine the previous sections I wrote also. My schedule is generally that I work on this every Saturday. Please let me know if you think progress is too slow. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:09, February 20, 2016 (UTC)