Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-28601337-20160602221928/@comment-948787-20171213025711

The way Ubisoft writes them, Templars are usually the bad guys because the game needs one.  That said, because both sides are only human, whether somebody or some group is good or bad depends on who they are.

Templars can be nice when they're focused on helping people be fed, healthy, prosperous, and content.  The best Templars want human beings to be happy and fulfilled, they just want to limit choice and control people to prevent crime and disorder.

Assassins want freedom, but sometimes they can go to far, potentially allowing things like anarchy, crime, and poverty, and even doing very Templar-like things just to keep up with the Templars in the arms race between the two.  Universal warrantless surveillance, relying on organized crime for funding and recruiting (let's face it, law abiding average Joes probably don't have the skillset to be good Assassins, whereas lawless rogues like Edward Kenway are more likely to) killing anyone that gets in their way (including innocent guards who're just doing their job) and taking control of or heavily influencing corporations and governments...

Sometimes I feel that Assassins and Templars are so similar in their methods (due to the reality of the logistics of gaining and maintaining money / power / resources) that the differences in their actual ideology are the only real point of contention, and that even those might be less different than either side might think.  It may be that the feud may continue more out of habit than anything else.