Talk:Assassins

This is the discussion page for Assassins. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	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)

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

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)

Nay

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 isn't true.

PS Shouldn't 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 doesn't 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 Kenway's list should be longer. Even though he wasn't 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 separate 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,^[18] Qulan Gal, and even former Templars like Maria Thorpe.^[5][16] Others included Dante Alighieri, Maffeo, Marco and Niccolò Polo, and Domenico Auditore,^[5] 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 according 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 disappear back into them. This got me to thinking if the Assassins in the Assassin's Creed Universe trace there roots back at least 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 imp a huge fan of the franchise and found this highly interesting.

Templar - Romans - Caninites

Assassins - Hashasins - Sicarii

Thoughts? —unsigned comment by AndyC89 (talk · contr) 03:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

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)

You're 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 whom?) 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 Michael 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, soldiers is okay to kill. The Assassins kill more soldiers 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. That's 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.

Doesn'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 whether 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)

I am considering removing the second paragraph of the section on the Colonial American Branch altogether, the paragraph where you noted that Shay actually attempted to explain twice. By the way, I maintain that factually, he only attempted to explain once, and I can give an analysis of it if you want (I actually already did but I removed it xD), but either way, I fear that that paragraph is far too loaded in my extrapolations, even with the sentences not in dispute. I'm also concerned about length still, but I'm afraid cutting that paragraph out would make the two above and below it transition weirdly. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:19, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Revision (cont.)

Hey again, sorry for the late reply. I'll go trough it from the top down all over again and reply to your previous message.

1. "As aforementioned, much of this owed to a basic misunderstanding of the creed in itself, or sheer ignorance." I'd replace misunderstanding with "extremist", while the corrupt views aren't traditional it's still one if many interpretations one could have of it. Rewrite: "As aforementioned, much of this owed to an extremist interpretation of the creed itself, or sheer ignorance." Example: Bellec or Jack.

2. "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with Templar ideology altogether." While true I'd rewrite it to something like this: "In some instances, Assassins even came to align themselves closely with the corrupt interpretation of the Templar ideology altogether used by key figures like the Borgia and Germain or anarchism, however most corrupt ironically advocate traditionalism." It covers both Assassins similar to the Templars and some of the anarchistic Assassins while explaining what kind of version of the Templar ideology along with the fact that most advocate traditionalism. It's explains how they work and think.

3. Al Mualim, he is never stated to be a Templar despite sharing some of their ideals, although since he didn't want to share power he's closer to the Borgia. He's a Templar Ally that betrayed them at some point before sending Altaïr after the AOE. He was their ally in secret until his betrayal and he betrayed the Assassins in the end of the game. As for Harash, he betrayed the Assassins before Al Mualim, however I'm not sure why he's even there. Sure he betrayed them but he never did anything bad as an Assassin, at least that we know of. I'd remove his part... Unless you want to mention every traitor in the series.

4. Bellec, I'd add the fact that he's originally from the Achilles Colonial Brotherhood and I'll look up some of his quotes that you missed that do cover corruption.

Arno: "What's the mission?"
Bellec: "The mission is get your arse in position and don't ask questions, pisspot."
Arno: "I live to serve."

He wants obedience and control, the fact that he'd be willing to purge the leadership speaks for itself, he like Abbas was planning a coup and was going to enforce corruption once in charge. Him after Arno killed Lafrenière: "The next time you circumvent the Council, I'll rip you a new arsehole!" He's part of the Council so he does have the right to order people around but he's not the Mentor as he wish and Arno acted without talking with the Council. When Arno brings Élise to the Council: "Parlay" my arse. This is a trick to make us lower our guard. I say we kill her and send her head back as a warning." Like the Achilles Brotherhood he's willing to go to extreme just to send a message, like ripping arseholes or send heads. For last: Bellec: "Do it. If you've got an ounce of conviction and you're not just a love-addled milksop, you'll kill me now. Because I won't stop. I will kill her. To save the Brotherhood, I'd see Paris burn." He's willing to destroy a city for just one Templar. It's at the same length of extremism as Makendal and Achilles with their plans to poison cities. As a note he's willing to kill anyone who don't agree with him and like all but Shay from Achilles Brotherhood you can't talk things out. With him you can't solve things peacefully.

5. The Colonial Assassins. This one is really complicated.

5.0 Paragraph 1: "His disenchantment was fostered by a poor understanding of Assassin motivations and goals"(Shay). He wasn't a dedicated Assassin and really laid back person, it's along with doubt, regret and harassment made his choice to take the Manuscript and run away easier. He never planned on joining the Templars.

"the conviction that the Assassins had knowingly sought the devastation of the city in their mad pursuit for power." The reason he tough that was because of the earthquake in Haiti that the Assassins also did by accident, Shay overheard the discussion Achilles and Adéwalé had about Mackandal sending Vendri to a place pointed out by the Box and Manuscript. He says what happened in Lisbon happened in Haiti once he returned. As for the power part, that's because Achilles didn't want to listen to his two warnings.

"the heated miscommunication that followed nevertheless exposed some severe defects in the management of this division of Assassins, as well as an element of extremism. Neither side in this dispute proved capable of committing to a calm, civil dialogue on the incident, in spite of perspectivalism being a traditional corollary of the creed. After the initial dramatic quarrel, no further attempt was made by either party to discuss the matter again, as Shay concluded it was futile and that the only way to prevent further earthquakes was to steal the Voynich manuscript from the Assassins altogether. In catching Shay in this act, the Assassins reacted with relentless punitive fury."

It wasn't miscommunication, yes they where shouting but they understood what they where saying. It was disbelief. It starts with Shay being sarcastic asking which city to destroy next, then he connects the dots for them by saying what happened in Haiti also happened in Portugal. Then for the nail in the coffin when he says it is the earthquakes and it's all thanks to the Manuscript. So Shay, despite being traumatized, full of regret and anger was able to lay it out for them. After all that Achilles says it cannot be, followed by Hope saying a person can't start an earthquake. Shay says a person messing around with Precursor tech could, so as an example he mentions the power he and Hope saw the Box had. He said it was "bursting" with that kind of power. Ending with him raising his voice louder and screaming that Achilles made him slaughter innocents. Hope don't like the accusation and as how he dare say that. Liam comes in asking what's going on and demands it to stop. Shay says Achilles sent him in like Mackandal sent his guy. Followed by Achilles attempting to blame Shay for doing something wrong while Shay simply spills it out and says they are shifting the earth itself. So he ask who he is to decide what city to fall next. Achilles orders them to get him out. That's Shay first attempt at explaining it, it's the most heated but also the most detailed explanation he's given to them.

After all that Shay is thrown out in the cold while they plan to continue looking for Isu Temples, so his only option -since they didn't believe it- is to take the Manuscript and just run. That was his goal but not joining the Templars, he was was busted by Achilles and he comes in angry while saying he had so much hope for him. Shay uses this moment to warn Achilles again, calmly this this time. He starts my saying he have to do it(they didn't listen after all). Achilles who's as ignorant and as much in denial as before as what Shay is actually doing, he simply ask if he's betraying his brothers and him. Seeing as they didn't listen Shay reply with that someone has to make amends, that someone is him. Achilles puts a question mark on him making amends while going as far as to say Shay has no idea of what he's doing(how ironic). He says the future of the continent and maybe the world depend on the Manuscript. Shay having seen what it leads to say they don't have the right to decide that future. Then Achilles starts screaming that they have the responsibility. Shay nails it again by screaming back that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities. Smoothing it out by saying Achilles mad grab for power ends now. Followed by Achilles saying he won't let him destroy everything they have build and attacks him. Shay escape but is chased to the end of a cliff while surviving several assassination attempts by every member along with the gang the Assassins use. Once at the end Liam says it's enough while having him at gun point, Hope despite their attempts at killing him try to say that he should give the Manuscript back and and that Achilles might... (Interrupted by by Shay) and Shay replies with saying he won't let it happen again and saying one list soul won't matter as he jumps of the cliff with intentions of killing himself while getting shot in the shoulder by Chevalier. There you go, I've covered the first paragraph and based in this you can rewrite it instead of taking it away because as pouted out by you, diplomacy is a key factor separating corrupt Assassins from traditionalist Assassins.

75.1: Paragraph 2:

"Even Shay, himself, in assuming that Assassins sought to obliterate cities, rather than more mild interpretations such as that poor intel was to blame, displayed a single-minded mentality. He presumed, after merely a single failed heated exchange, that the Assassins were utterly beyond persuasion, leading to his sudden defection. He did not seem to take into account how his enraged approach factored into the miscommunication of his attempt to convince the Assassins of the peril of tampering with the sites." The reason he tough that was because he overheard the discussion between Achilles and Adéwalé regarding Mackandal sending Vendri to after a location pouted out in Haiti pointed out by the Box. It's not an assumption he pulled out of his ass. I've dealt with how many attempts he made, how he approached each along with how he explained it. I'd recommend you rewrite that part as well.

6. Old Ezio. What you should add is the riot he started at the market outside the Arsenal, yes he protected them but he also got a lot of innocents killed just to eavesdrop on a discussion in there.

7. Have you played ACC: Russia. Considering the things the Russian Assassins already have done and how much further ACCR pushed it they can't be qualified as traditionalists either. I won't mention examples since it might spoil things for you if you havn't played it. 8. Finished the The Secret Crusade yet? Or the Jack The Ripper DLC? There you go, I've gone trough the entire thing and each point in your reply. --ACsenior (talk) 21:34, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

1) Extremism and misunderstanding the creed is essentially the same thing. Extremism is strictly prohibited by the creed. It's one of the most fundamental precepts of it.

3) I think I mentioned not including him or removing him earlier when I said it may be too long. I wasn't sure if he's the best choice, but he's a prominent example. I think this goes back to #2 as well, where I wasn't necessarily meaning to write "dark-side" "evil" Assassin per se (as that would be taking a position and violating policy), but rather that these Assassins went against Assassin beliefs and codes, which is why earlier I said I was hesitant to title it "Corruption."

4) I'm rather confused as to your point here about Bellec. Did I not already cover all this?

5) "The reason he tough that was because of the earthquake in Haiti that the Assassins also did by accident, Shay overheard the discussion Achilles and Adéwalé had about Mackandal sending Vendri to a place pointed out by the Box and Manuscript. He says what happened in Lisbon happened in Haiti once he returned." Yes, that is a factor to his analysis on how tampering with the sites is what caused the earthquake, and his analysis was correct. This is aside from the point and there's nothing in disagreement in regards to this.

His first attempt to explain it is most detailed explanation, but it wasn't an optimal explanation. I think you might be misunderstanding that I'm saying that Achilles and Hope were not at fault (as many do when I explain that Shay was also at fault). They are. They should've considered it then and there, but at the end of the day, such an argument is typical of many common arguments you can find between teachers and students, bosses and subordinates, and parents and children. And in each of these arguments, I blame those in authority for shutting off their ears more than I blame the minors for being impassioned. But this is all aside from the point.

The point is that he made only 1 attempt. Although I do believe it was a poor attempt, note that I didn't call it a poor attempt, only described it as a "dramatic quarrel" and that it was not a "civil, calm" dialogue. I did not say who was at fault, who was in the right, only described it as what it was: drama, and that neither party in that drama was capable of being calm. Whether or not their inability to be calm in that exchange is excusable, is aside from the point. One may argue that given Achilles' traumatic loss of his wife and his child, the suddenness of Shay bursting in the room, and Shay's trauma from destroying a city, that they were all excusable for not being calm in that argument. One can argue, as you do, that one party is excusable, the others not. But that would be leaning too close to siding with one side over another (violating neutral point-of-view policy), and so I worded it specifically as it was drama, and neither side was capable of calming down in that drama, as that is what happened, period. I did not explain whether they had understandable reasons or not because that can be debated. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:12, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

I think in general when a quote can be disputed or it is quite obvious that different interpretations can be had of it, we should simplify the wording such that it becomes more ambiguous as to which interpretation is favored. I'm not sure if this is official Wikipedian or Wookieepedian policy, and I inherited it from them, or it is my personal policy, but that is what I suggest. This is partially why I'm against the inclusion of any interpretation unless it is explicitly undeniable. Obviously, we should always strive as much as possible to be state purely the facts. (e.g. Ezio did set off a firestorm in Derinkuyu) Was Shay being irresponsible and played the blame game throughout the game? Honestly, from my perspective, yes. Would I mention it? Certainly no. However, that he did not try to explain it the second time is factual. The complexity behind the situation is very much why I intend to also write my review of Rogue and the various interpretations that can be had of it soon (hopefully soon). But here is the exact dialogue: Achilles: I had such hopes for you, Shay.
Shay: Achilles. I have to do this.
Achilles: And what is it you're doing exactly? Stealing from your Brothers? Betraying me?
Shay: Someone must make amends.
Achilles: Make amends? You have no idea what you're doing. The future of the whole continent, maybe the whole word, is tied up in that Manuscript.
Shay: Perhaps. But we don't have the right to decide that future.
Achilles: The right? We have the responsibility!
Shay: WE are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities! This... mad grab for power. It ends now.
Achilles: I will not let you destroy everything we have built!

Compare that to this:
"Well, I know both the Assassins and Templars are looking for Pieces of Eden. Powerful weapons, mind-controlling Apples, but this time it's different. We haven't found an apple, but... a tree. These Temples hold the earth together like roots. Disturb them, and Haiti falls or... Lisbon. Or any other place the Manuscript shows."

His second confrontation with Achilles was an argument from the start, filled entirely with words that can be interpreted by either side in multiple ways, hence the miscommunication, particularly when it went over to "responsibility." Shay's contention that the Assassins are recklessly destroying cities because they will not listen is the reason why this second confrontation even happened, because he has already made up his mind that they are beyond persuasion, and he has to steal the manuscript. Their responses to one another are vague, set-up for miscommunication, like heated exchanges between my friends and I back in elementary school. In those days, I had plenty of experience of how words such as these leads to massive miscommunication.

Now, I can go into variant interpretations of this exchange (and I accidentally did before deleting it :P), but interpretation is inconsequential. The point being that nothing that Shay said in the second confrontation explicitly explains his analysis of the nature of the sites and the danger of tampering with them. He only mentions that he has to steal the manuscript. He says someone has to make amends, but he does not give Achilles an explanation of why he believes that, what he means by that, what he intends, why he felt that the Assassins are responsible for the Lisbon earthquake, etc. He argues that we "don't have the right to decide that future" without understanding nor questioning Achilles' intentions for searching for the artifacts, when "responsibility to decide that future" can in general even just mean "saving the world," which heck, Assassins, Templars, Shay, everyone believes, hence the miscommunication. He affirms that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities, which is true (unintentionally), but there still isn't any technical explanation regarding the site or an attempt to convince Achilles the logic behind his conclusion that they were more responsible than it being just a mere accident or coincidence. You may argue that Achilles should have asked, and he should have tried to discuss it as well. It was on both of them to do so, but the point here is that on Shay's end, there was never the kind of explanation he gave to the Templars. He ends with "This...mad grab for power," another accusation and assumptions of power-mongering. Therefore, he only gave one explanation during his first tantrum, and even had he given a second, I still do not believe it is enough to play the blame game, but again my interpretation is beside the point. Factually, his words did not express a technical explanation in this second encounter the like he gave to the Templars.Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 22:16, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

On how it was a miscommunication. In the first heated exchange when he bursts in the room, while Shay did mention his belief that tampering with the sites caused the earthquake, and Hope expresses her disbelief, I think in this case, we have to remember that miscommunication can go beyond just mere comprehension of each other's words. Miscommunication I think can also describe an inability to negotiate meaningfully and failure to weigh in each other's words even in spite of comprehending them. Their tempers contributed to that, but the Assassins failed to weigh in Shay's words, and Shay, as revealed in the next argument where he accuses them of intentionally destroying cities for power, fails to weigh in that the Assassins were just ignorant and in disbelief.

The second is more clearly miscommunication. We do not know Achilles' real intentions in the game as they were never explained. But let's hypothetically pretend that Achilles' motives were in line with the motives of Connor and Ezio.

Achilles: I had such hopes for you, Shay.
Shay: Achilles. I have to do this.

• Shay believes that he has to steal the manuscript to ensure the Assassins never destroy a city again because he feels that they are beyond persuasion.

Achilles: And what is it you're doing exactly? Stealing from your Brothers? Betraying me?

• Achilles failed to understand Shay's intentions. He might possibly even think that Shay is stealing it for the Templars, which is just as presumptuous as Shay's belief that the Assassins are after power. Achilles is too focused on the act, rather than considering the reasons behind it or trying to negotiate.

Shay: Someone must make amends.

• Shay means he has to ensure that no more cities are endangered, as a way to redeem themselves for the tragedy.

Achilles: Make amends? You have no idea what you're doing. The future of the whole continent, maybe the whole word, is tied up in that Manuscript.

• Achilles, if we go by Connor and Ezio's motives and beliefs, means that the entire world can be endangered if the manuscript falls into the wrong hands. He does not believe that visiting the sites causes earthquakes (even though he should that is aside from the point, the point is that he doesn't). Because he does not, from his perspective, he is doing his duty to humanity and the Assassins by following by the policy that Ezio and Connor and Anko and Edward all did: to try to prevent the sites from being abused, but this from his perspective, would necessitate going to the sites to seal or to investigate or retrieve the artifact and hide it elsewhere or else to destroy. We do not know that this is what Achilles' intentions were, but it was the intentions of the Assassins for many generations. The point is that this is a probable perspective of Achilles and his words can mean exactly just that.
• Shay, however, interprets that Achilles wants to retrieve the artifacts to acquire the power to control the world. He interprets Achilles' words as an attempt to justify this by explaining that if the Assassins are in that position, they can help guide the world to a better tomorrow.

Shay: Perhaps. But we don't have the right to decide that future.

• Hence, Shay's response that "we don't have the right to decide that future." He believes that even if our intentions is to better the world, we don't have the right to dictate the lives and future of the world (that is, control the will of all).
• Achilles thinks that Shay means that "we don't have the right to [fight the Templars' attempt to abuse the Pieces of Eden and control the world].

Achilles: The right? We have the responsibility!

• So, Achilles replies that "we have the responsibility!" He means that each human being has a responsibility beyond themselves, for humanity at large, to not be a bystander, and save it. He therefore means that we have the responsibility to, again, fight against the Templars' attempt at world domination, by going to these sites, retrieving the artifacts to hide or destroy before the Templar reaches them.
• The idea that we are responsible for society and humanity, not just ourselves is also a Templar belief. This belief isn't what makes Assassin and Templars. This belief is shared by most activists. When we protest against human rights violations or for awareness of environmental issues, we are exercising this belief. It merely describes altruism. But here, in this context, in the context of Shay's presumption that Achilles wants to use the Pieces of Eden to acquire the power to use Assassins to control the world, he thinks that Achilles means what the Templars' traditionally mean: that we have the "responsibility" to control the world for the "betterment of humanity" even though Achilles' words here can refer to anything, any method to achieve the idea that we have the responsibility to help more than just ourselves.

Shay: WE are responsible for killing innocents and destroying cities! This... mad grab for power. It ends now.

• As a result, Shay lashes back that the Assassins are responsible for killing innocents. He believes that the Assassins' reckless pursuit of the artifacts led to this catastrophe. He believes that it is the Assassins' intentions that led to it, not that the particular errors in the mission is what led to it. This isn't too bad of an analysis, but at the end of the day, his interpretation of the Assassins' motives are probably misplaced, if we go by the motives of other Assassins we know of. He accuses them of a mad grab for power because this is his conclusion of the Assassins: they want to grab the Pieces of Eden to obtain the power to dominate the world and guide it in their vision (ironically the Templars' traditional methods).

Achilles: I will not let you destroy everything we have built!

• Achilles' at this point just breaks, exhausted by the exchange, and attacks Shay. He does not continue the argument further, he only accuses Shay of destroying everything the Assassins have built. This is not a corrupt line at all. Anyone can say this to anyone that threatens to dismantle a group's progress. (A Wikipedian could say this to a vandal, lol though vandalism would never be so out of control to warrant it).
• Shay just thinks that this is line with Achilles wanting to preserve the Assassins' power.
• I do want to point out that the real OOU reason behind this is sloppy writing. In all previous games (except II and Brotherhood maybe), Templar targets are given dying words in their own defense, to grey the otherwise black-and-white games, to balance out our playing the Assassins as heroes. In Rogue the developers were so focused on trying to make it "grey-and-gray" that they instead switched the labels around to make it white-and-black, then the Assassin targets do not have any dying words in their defense, rather saying trite taunts like "you are a monster! "soo do you still think that the Templars are right?" "you will fail. Achilles will see you dead. Monro is already dead..." often words that completely ignore what Shay just said, that does not even flow in a natural conversation that well.

The Assassins' motives are never explained, but none of what Achilles says contradicts the scenario where the Assassins actually meant to pursue the artifacts to destroy or hide. Shay misplaces the very action of visiting the sites as the crime, rather than the ignorance that leads to tampering with the sites (these 2 conclusions can blur, and it's possible that Shay did wisen up to the latter later on by the time he's hunting them). The very action of sending an agent to the sites is not in itself a wrongdoing. If it were, no real-life archaeologist should send a worker to visit an ancient tomb or site lest that worker accidentally triggers an earthquake. What was wrong is that the Assassins failed to wisen up to the nature of these sites, but it was miscommunication (and stupidity) that led to this. It usually takes two to miscommunicate, not always, but usually. Achilles and Shay were speaking about two different things the entire time, if we presume that Achilles' motives were the same as other Assassins we know of in past games. They incorrectly assumed that each other understood their position.

Actually I'm not quite sure what specific issues you were pointing at, and what you thought needed revision, and I may have misunderstood. From what you want revised, it sounds identical to what I've already written, with the exception that I called it a miscommunication and said that Shay only made one attempt. I tried to word my writing very precisely so as to be as descriptive and objective as possible without actually endorsing a particular position. As a result, I had actually all along been thinking of removing the second paragraph or half of it. Although, of course we favor revision, I just don't think that can be revised. It is an extrapolation, an extended analysis, either way. It is by virtue that it is an extended analysis that I fear that it is too subjective in nature. I'm really not sure what you meant needs to be revised in that first Colonial Assassins paragraph, and the Bellec one. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 23:27, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Assassin Religion (revisited): Atheism?

If you refer to above, I had changed the Assassin religion to irreligious because they are a secular entity, but it has long since reverted back to "various" (ironically by the same user above that first brought up the issue). I don't think this is necessarily correct as the Assassins are a secular entity, that its members at times professed to various faiths does not describe the organization's religion as a whole. It is like how Christianity is by far the dominant religion of the United States, but it has no official religion.

However, two quotes have since made me wonder whether the Assassins were decidedly atheistic.

"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

"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

What do you guys think? They seem to suggest that the Assassins explicitly reject the notion of divinity or the existence of a deity altogether, rather than just being agnostic. I'm actually quite hesitant to pronounce them as atheists outright, especially since if I remember correctly, Luis de Santángel was Jewish. Given the skepticism fundamental to their creed, they are almost certainly agnostic. Agnosticism is compatible with atheism and theism, so for the timebeing, I will change it to agnosticism. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 00:15, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Perspectivism vs. Perspectivalism?

Throughout the edited page, the text mentions something called "perspectivalism". Does it mean to say perspectivism? Or am I just missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism  Aclarke9913 (talk) 02:20, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting it! :) It was my bad, for some reason my mind kept forgetting whether it was "perspectivism" or "perspectivalism", and every time I double-checked, it seemed as though I was getting different results even though the only explanation for that would be the clumsiness of my mind. Sol Pacificus^Telepathy 03:52, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

Rashid ad-Din Sinan or Al Mualim?

The admin Master Sima Yi changed the page name to "Al Mualim" and wrote "The reason he's not called Rashid ad-Din Sinan is because of a copyright. I've been asked to move the page back by a Ubisoft representative", so...why you insist on keeping that name ? Marcos Martín (talk) 23:02, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, it is because Ubisoft, on his blog, referred to Al Mualim as Rashid ad-Din Sinan. Link: http://blog.ubi.com/en-GB/assassins-creed-movie-leap-faith/ TheCreedX (talk) 23:14, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

"proved the strength of his army to an opponent by telling one of his own men to leap from the top of a castle. The man did, and was dashed on the rocks below." It's implied that they're talking about the historic figure, because in AC1 there were more than one man performing the leap of faith and neither of them died. Also they wrote this: "Fortunately for the in-game Assassins, Ubisoft’s level designers have usually placed convenient hay carts below Leap of Faith-appropriate jumps to break their fall." Marcos Martín 23:22, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

It's true. Well, I think it really does not need discussion about this, just add the link to the motion of the Master Sima. TheCreedX (talk) 23:30, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Is the Pacifism section needed?

Is a pacifism section really required? To me it seems that what this brief section conveys is already covered in the Goals & Motivations and Methods sections. Additionally, Google's translation of pacifism states: "the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means." Going by this definition, the Assassin's are not technically pacifists, since they kill people, something that the Paradoxes & Misconceptions section points out using Altair's quote: "What follows are the three great ironies of the Assassin Order: (1) Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means." Aclarke9913 (talk) 00:19, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

• So glad you brought it up :D. I was thinking the same, but I didn't remove it because I felt bad that I might've been watching the page too closely and not allowing other users to make contributions. To be exact, Assassins might be called martial pacifists in theory although if so, they resort to the last resort very readily o_____o, so that's heavily debatable. Anyways, they certainly aren't absolute pacifists. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:03, January 10, 2017 (UTC)
  • I totally understand where you're coming from. My opinion is that if we are going to keep this section, then we'll need to edit and clarify by what is accepted under the definition of pacifism, which as you pointed out becomes heavily debatable. As the section currently stands, I think it adds very little, since it only reiterates what previously created sections claim, as I stated before. In my own opinion, I think we should not have it. Update: I've deleted it, and gave my reasoning as referring to this topic. Aclarke9913 (talk) 22:18, January 10, 2017 (UTC) 

Adam and Eve

The book "Into the Animus" confirms that Adam and Eve were members of an ancient branch of the Assassin Brotherhood. Is that enough to add them to the "Notable Members" list? Cristophorus35 (talk) 19:29, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Good question. The Glyphs of Assassin's Creed II had formerly heavily suggested that the Assassins began with Abel and the Templars with Cain though, as it marked Abel with the Assassin insignia and Cain with the Templar cross. Can you be more explicit as to what the book actually says though? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:45, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

That's one way to interpetate the Glyphs. What it could also mean is the origin of the Templars and the way between bity factions. Them bring marked with different insignias does't directly say anything. It only suggest. As for the book, when it mention Adam and Eve, it also says they are the first Assassins.--ACsenior (talk) 21:12, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ACsenior, the Glyphs are awesome, but they don't confirm anything at all. That happened with Joan of Arc, Napoleon and his Apple and... now with Adam and Eve. Sorry Sol Pacificus, I don't have the book. I learned from the wikia when I just read the articles of Adam and Eve and when I saw the word "Assassins" I was like... WTF?. As for my question. Is that enough? Because they freed mankind. Cristophorus35 (talk) 03:54, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

Separate article for History

Would anybody be against the idea of creating a separate "History of the Assassins" article and completely moving the History section from this article into it? I suggest this because this section contains more than enough content to warrant its own article, and removing it would certainly help speed up loading times and allow us to repurpose some of the images and texts for other sections of the Assassins article. I also believe that separating this section would allow editors to improve upon the quality of the remaining sections, without fear of duplicating text already found in the History section.

Assuming this went ahead, and assuming it was successful, we could then see to it that the other faction articles are split accordingly if there is a desire to do so. Thoughts, anybody? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:47, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Ezio Corruption?

Considering the extreme circumstances involved with the Constantinople incident, is it accurate to compare it to Mackandal and Jack the Ripper? Or even the first colonial brotherhood?

Master Shannara (talk) 01:45, March 14, 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the destruction of Derinkuyu, I would say not at all. :-/ Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:56, March 14, 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think it fair to compare him to the likes of Pierre Bellec or Abbas Sofian. Unfortunate as that debacle turned out, even Durinkuyu was a sheer technicality. A stark contrast to their willful transgressions.

Master Shannara (talk) 16:44, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

To be exact, I had a long debate with another editor above on this matter. The section has been left in as a compromise, and we decided to postpone work on this article for the timebeing, though my main proposal is that certain stark contradictions against Assassin principles that are not explicitly written as examples of corruption (i.e. on the likes of Abbas, Mackandal, Jack the Ripper, and Bellec) should be placed in the Trivia section if editors really want it to be mentioned. I didn't want editors to be arguing over their interpretations of characters and fighting for their inclusion in the Corruptions section if it's not clearly presented as a central plot point, as Jack the Ripper, Abbas, and Bellec were. Kind of also the reason why I didn't want the Corruptions section in the first place. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:14, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Notable members list

The "Notable members" list in the infobox has been the source of some contention before with editors adding and removing characters that they think should or should not make the list. Due to a lack of clear criteria for inclusion, whether or not an Assassin is notable enough became an arbitrary affair, and it was not constructive for editors to edit war it out. Another issue with the list is that it was becoming far too extensive, especially if we decided to include every main protagonist of a game.

The list has been revised based on my discussion with Master Sima Yi, and so for reference I am laying down our thoughts on the matter.

• Notability is determined from an IU-perspective not an OOU-perspective. Not every major character in the series to us is the most impactful in the lore itself. The vice versa is also true.
• Whether or not the individual is famous or prominent to public society is not a factor (e.g. Honoré Mirabeau being a hero of the French Revolution to the common people)
• Individuals will not be included simply for being the main protagonist of a game
• There's not necessarily a hard limit on the list; notability is the primary criteron. However, we used 5 members as a reasonable length.
• Individual should have "spearheaded some kind of Templar overthrow or won a major event"
• EDIT: Individuals who changed the Brotherhood with a tremendous impact

The last two might still seem a bit vague, and we did decide on a more case-by-case basis. Our reasoning is as follows:

1. Bayek: created the Creed and laid the foundations of the Assassin Brotherhood
2. Hassan-i Sabbah: while not significant to us, in the lore itself he is responsible for reorganizing the Assassin Order into a public state in a role that parallels that of Hugues de Payens for the Templars.
3. Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad: a legendary Mentor that enacted extensive revolutionary reforms in the Brotherhood's ideology, techniques, and equipment; his final act was to disband the Brotherhood across the world, forming the Guild system that would last until the 20th century
4. Ezio Auditore da Firenze: explicitly cited by several sources as a legendary Assassin also responsible for wide-reaching reforms that refined Assassin ideology; Ezio and Altaïr together are credited as two Assassins who really defined the mainstream ideology of the Assassins whereas there were many Assassins like Pierre Bellec, Achilles Davenport, etc. who were more divergent. His influence on the Assassins spread throughout Europe, and he was renowned even by Chinese Assassins.
5. Connor: Connor, restoring the Colonial Brotherhood, aided the foundation of what would become the world superpower of the 20th and 21st century.
6. Desmond Miles: saved the world from the Second Disaster.

Of these, Connor was the one suggested by Sima Yi I was less sure about. I had initially asked about Shao Jun, as she pretty much single-handedly revived the Chinese Brotherhood after it had been purged down to one Assassin. China itself is a major country and one of the leading powers throughout all of its history. I personally thought Connor wasn't necessarily more significant than her because the United States didn't become a superpower until later, and I believe that the Americans probably would've won the revolution without him anyways (though that might just be because they did in real-life... in AC, maybe not so due to Templar interference...). Ultimately, I'm fine with including Connor but not Shao Jun, Shao Jun but not Connor, including both, or even including neither.

These were our thoughts. If you guys have any questions, suggestions, or disagreements, feel free to discuss them here. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

This does not work, it is unorganized and only shows Assassin’s who changed the brotherhood with impact or won a major event. (Whitefire1337) —unsigned comment by Whitefire1337 (talk · contr)

Whitefire, the entire purpose of a "notable members" list is not to be exhaustive but to note only the most prominent members in history. I also do not see any issue with organization given that it is only a short list of six people. 14:29, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Corruption" section

After a discussion on Discord regarding the section "Corruption and fanaticism", Amnestyyy, The Crimson Eagle, Abelzorus Prime, Alientraveller, Cristophorus35, and I have decided to "torch this to the ground" (exact words) remove this section. The reasons given were many, including but not necessarily limited to:

1. Debate over the exact definition of corruption and finding it to be a subjective label.
2. The section's history and origins as a "Controversy" section written solely by a heavily pro-Templar user whose explicit mission was to demonize the Assassins and to recast the Templars in a heroic light, thereby equalizing the moral ground of the two factions; his original version consisted purely of his own personal opinions, was unsourced, and violated standard wiki policies of NPOV, no original research, and sourcing.
3. Though there are valid points to the section and details are based on facts, at the end of the day, despite my best in overhauling it, it still reads like an opinionated "high school essay"
4. The fact that the section remained controversial after my rewrite, which was evidence that the revamp had failed to solve the problems of the original version
5. There was an initial suggestion to instead overhaul the section while splitting it up between "Corruption" and "Fanaticism" was dropped. My argument was that since an overhaul had already been attempted and evidently had failed, this implied that the section was in essence irreparable. (see the points directly above) Other users simply thought it best that it be "axed" because...
6. "A criticism section is about as useful and unbiased as a praise section." The nature of such a section invites edit wars and original research.
7. The section grew way out of proportion to the rest of the article
8. The section, for its gargantuan size, was repeating events already discussed in other parts of the article and in corresponding characters' articles
9. And finally: the mere fact we had such a long discussion on it exposed how problematic it was

Too short, did read version below! (actually not all points above are explained below & vice versa)
For the record, I was the sole author of the section in its state just before its removal. I was one of the first proponents that the entire section be "obliterated", as far back as in 2013, but during my revamp of the article, I was compelled to compromise with ACSenior—who did have honest intentions and was not the same user cited above who originated the section—to keep it and instead rewrite it.

The objective of my rewrite was to revise it as a section dedicated solely to listing instances of "corruption" of the Assassins rather than editors' own disagreements with the Assassins all while removing any wording that would come out as biased. Criteria for inclusion into the section as cases of corruption depended on either of two factors: the character is expressly cited as a case of corruption by mainstream Assassins or the character's corruption is a major, driving plot point of the media he or she appears in. I did not refer to official definitions of corruption, and using those, others argued against the use of the term or that certain people listed, while immoral, did not qualify as corrupt.

As a matter of fact, one of my initial suggestions for the section was instead that it should be titled "Criticism" and consist purely of criticisms of the Assassin Brotherhood by its detractors from an in-universe perspective. All controversies should be stated as stemming solely from the word of in-universe characters, in a practice inspired by that encountered in Wikipedia. In this way, the controversies could be discussed as factual statements (e.g. "Haytham said the Assassins are like this..." which is true rather than "The Assassins are like this..." which is a personal assessment).

However, after an exhausting (though thrilling and adventurous!) discussion on the matter, we realized that the very fact the section was so troublesome exposed its underlying fundamental flaws which either could not be remedied or was not worth the trouble to rectify.

In fact, I should confess here that I am actually pro-Assassin, and yet even I, in an attempt to remove all hints of bias failed so utterly in my rewrite of the section that Amnesty called it a "political manifest, telling us that the Assassins are evil". If even a pro-Assassin, for all his best efforts, could not rewrite it in such a way that it does not sound like it was biased propaganda against the Assassins, this may be an indicator that the premise of the section may be biased in principle. :-/

We had one dissenter in the discussion, which was Cristy. After subjecting us to an unbearable moment of suspense the likes of which no Game of Thrones cliffhanger could ever match, he gave us a resounding, impassioned speech that put legendary orators like Maximilien de Robespierre and Martin Luther King, Jr. to shame as they watched, captivated, from the afterlife—neverminding that Cristy was aided by a dictionary. said that he thought the section posed valid points that should still be addressed by the wiki. Nevertheless, we pointed out that it sufficed that these were covered in corresponding characters' articles where they better belonged, and he was satisfied (I think :P).

Originally, he wanted the torch himself, but against my worse judgment, I agreed to Nesty's suggestion that I do it instead as I wrote it and therefore could better explain the context of it. In any case, I am leaving these notes here explaining the removal in case anyone is alarmed by the sudden and drastic excision of 16,868 characters. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:59, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

That's disappointing and of will further spread of the misconception that the Assassins are always the good guys as for now. Since it doesn't acknowledge that the Assassins can get both radical and corrupt. Similarly to not having a corruption section on the Templars page gives the impression that Templars that are corrupt isn't going against what the Templars stands for.

1. That was simply poor sourcing on our part and the description of corruption and radicalism lacked a proper explanation of their beliefs and interpretation of the Assassin's creed and philosophy. Regarding corrupt itself, the onlu source we have that defines it is Revelations where Altaïr says Al Mualim was corrupted by the Templars and that Abbas "corrupted everything they stand for". If I'm righ, the novel explain further what actions of his brotherhood that's part of that. Beyond this source, any other interpretations of corruption however is subjective.
2. That may be for the original version but not the one we worked on. Our version was better because it was sourced on each case with distinctions between each also being mentioned in each example because the corruption was on different levels in each case. As all wasn't as extreme.
3. It was the best writing about the topic we had, because as you said. It was based on facts. Not surprised it's gone considering most here are pro-Assassins and therefore a section dedicated to the dirty history of the Assassins will feel bad being acknowledged because it goes against what most thinks of them. So calling it "propaganda" at the end of this because of all that isn't a surprise either, especially since you did tell how doubtful you was about it and it's length from the start.
4. It didn't fail and would be a controversial section regardless of how good or bad it's written anyway because of the topic itself. Some reasons for that was addressed in the previous point.
5. Well corrupt and radical Assassins is very much alike but what seems to separate them is that one version cares for the Assassins goals while the other don't. It's only methods that they are very much alike on. But considering it a "failure" for the sole reasons of it being discussed isn't exactly a good reasoning behind it because the entire point of Talk pages is to discuss anything that may or may not need to be improved further. Why bother doing it if something as simple as a discussion making it a "failure".
6. That should be irrelevant. What that should dedicate if it's a success or failure is how factual it is, not how people feel about it or want it to be. By removing it, the issue is ignored rather than acknowledged.
7. It being long isn't relevant if everything is sourced and factual, that is a decision based on feelings over the section itself rather than its sourced materials.
8. Should have been rewritten then to talk more about the corruption itself in each case rather than be a section that repeated what's already written. The philosophy section is an example.
9. That's done to discuss further improvement of the section, the length of the discussions are also irrelevant.--ACsenior (talk) 13:59, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

I'll chime in and add my opinion on this issue. The Corruption section, unequivocally, portrays a very biased impression on the matter which goes against the intended aim of the wiki. I believe that this article could benefit from a section similar to the Ethical and Unethical Practices on the Templars page, even though the tone is a bit subjective there, a section with similar content, encompassing the questionable practices and events involving the Assassins could be added to it. It could be a bit broader and can have the 'Corruption' section included within it, albeit a rewrite of it. Xangr8 (talk) 18:12, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

ACSenior, I have gotten this impression from you in the past, so I am reiterating here in case this still applies. Neutrality doesn't dictate that we choose how to present facts such that we ensure a more popular faction has more unsavory points to neutralize its moral ground and vice versa. For instance, my impression is that if we had two characters, one endorsing slavery another not, you would argue that we need to give a huge discourse on the latter's flaws so as to "balance" out his higher moral ground from not endorsing slavery. This is, in fact, why the Corruption section reached the length that it did; you felt that that extent was necessary to counteract the Assassins' greater popularity.

Your very premise of trying to ensure that the audience do not see the Assassins as the good guys is flawed and hence why the section was not working. It's flawed because we as a wiki should not be deciding what the audience thinks or try to manipulate our presentation of facts so that we steer the audience to a particular position, even if that is one of "neutrality". Instead, we should be presenting all facts as they are, objectively, and let the readers decide for themselves. But the way we were going about this section is to deliberately add a disproportionate weight of negative facts in your hopes of ensuring a particular perspective from the audience. Neutrality works by presenting facts objectively without a goal to influence the audience. If one faction supports genocide and another doesn't, the fact that the former would be perceived less favorably by most people is not the fault of the writers merely stating these facts; it's the natural result of people's own ideas of morality.

The reason why at the end of the day the section still sounds like a "high school essay" or a "political manifest" is because even though I tried to rewrite it with only facts, your premise I was working with, is at the end of the day still to make a point or argument, so the facts were being used to argue for a particular position. Save that for a blog entry. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:45, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is:

1. Criticisms of both Assassins and Templars be moved to the Assassin-Templar War which has lain in disrepair for years and needs a major revamp. That way, the criticisms definitely have relevance because we can portray them as an explanation of the background of their conflict. As well, we would also clearly be presenting the criticisms as the viewpoints of in-universe characters rather than our own.
2. Meanwhile, expansion of individual cases of corruption can be explained in corresponding characters' articles, such as in the "Personality and traits" section of Pierre Bellec or François Mackandal.
3. These instances do deserve some mention in the main Assassin and Templar articles, but they should not be given undue weight. Rather, they deserve some mention in the history sections and as Xangr8 said, in a smaller subsection where they are summarized.

I do want to point out that I think the Templar article should be revised too, but it stands in a better state. I would not support an entire Corruption section in the Templars article either.Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:45, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with this momentous moment in the hallowed history of Assassin's Creed Wiki to delete what has already been deleted. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 15:09, September 18, 2017 (UTCb)

Bad idea to remove it, these members of the Brotherhood betrayed the Assassins, out of different reasons. One of worse ideas ever made (Whitefire1337) —unsigned comment by Whitefire1337 (talk · contr)

There is no disagreement that these members of the Brotherhood committed controversial—in some cases traitorous—deeds. If you find this to be one of the "worse [sic] ideas ever made", please refer to the above explanations for why it was removed and address those points accordingly. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:36, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Founders after AC:Origins

Now that Assassin's Creed Origins has been released, in fact even since before its release, we know that Bayek and Aya laid the foundation for what becomes the Assassin Brotherhood. Adam and Eve were perceived to be the founders of the order all this time, but now with the inclusion of Assassin's Creed Origins storyline, shouldn't that be revised? I think it would be more appropirate to say now that Beyek, Aya, and their allies were the founders of the order, not Adam and Eve. Adam and Ever were actually the founders of the rebellion against the First Civilization rather than the Assassins. What does anyone else say? SkyGuy-Let's chat! 17:15, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find it anywhere on the wiki that Adam and Eve are ever stated to be Assassins or their founders. It's never stated that they founded the Order, only some connection to the Assassins is implied. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 00:53, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Then why does the infobox on this page state that they were the founders? The first lines on the Adam and Eve pages also state that they were "one of the first Assassins". Unless someone made a mistake, that information needs to be deleted or clarified. SkyGuy-Let's chat! 00:58, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Because people keep adding information that shouldn't be there. I don't recall any source stating that they founded the Brotherhood, and if there is, it's probably one of these secondary mediums written by external people. In any case, they were merely proto-Assassins, people fighting for free will that later gave rise to various incarnations of the Assassins, ultimately leading to what we know it to be now. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 01:03, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, Adam and Eve being two of the first Assassins was stated in Assassin's Creed: Into the Animus. However, it doesn't appear to explicitly say that they were the founders. Labeling them as Proto-Assassins seems accurate. The Wikia Editor (talk) 10:43, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Notable Members

I think we should include Edward Kenway, Arno Dorian, and the Frye twins to the list Mitt Campbell (talk) 22:30, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

From the Templars will

In the article Assassins says that the Templars will save the Earth from the free will but the Assassins will save the world from the Templars will —unsigned comment by Theassasinmentor2020 (talk · contr)

Specialization

Should the section about the Spanish Brotherhood be framed as how Abstergo divvied them up within the Mobile Animus session? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:31, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Related groups

With several back-and-forth counter-edits to the list of "related groups" in the infobox, I think we should have a discussion on how we each interpret criteria for inclusion in this list. Hopefully, it doesn't evoke too many memories of the former "notable member" list :D.

My main concern is the inclusion of related groups who only briefly cooperated with the Assassins as well as a lack of distinction between an individual cooperating on behalf of their group and an individual who does not represent a group they belong to. My primary cause for this concern is just that it may be misleading for our readers, and I have seen this problem recently in the "Templars" article as well. For instance, a lot of groups which have worked with the Assassins or Templars have oscillated in their alliance with either. I think the clearest example might be the choice to list the KMT in the Templar article, I am not entirely comfortable with listing the KMT because that Chiang Kai-shek rejected the Templars is a significant lore detail. On the other hand, Sun Yat-sen, who founded the KMT, was a Templar Grand Master. The KMT is definitely related in this way, but I wonder if listing them based on this technicality makes a misleading, generalized statement for the KMT being necessarily Templar-affiliated. This problem in this particular case might be solved through the addition of a date range, as Sima has just done with the items he added to the Assassin list, but I don't think this sufficiently patches the issues for other cases.

With the Republic of Pirates, Edward ended up cooperating with the Assassins incidentally at first. As I understand it, Mary Reed was only affiliated with the pirates as an infiltrator, spy, or informant. Even if Mary’s involvement with the pirates was genuine, which is unlikely given how critical she was of Edward’s lifestyle, I think to list the Republic of Pirates as related to the Assassins would suggest some common foundation between the two groups or a conscious alliance. Yet Calico Jack, Charles Vane, Stede Bonnet, Blackbeard—none of these individuals were allies of the Assassins nor were they even aware they exist. Edward becomes acquainted with the Assassins not on behalf of the Republic of Pirates but through his own individual adventures, and he and Adéwalé only join them when they leave their pirate lives behind. The Republic of Pirates not being a consolidated group complicates this, but I think the lack of association with and awareness of the Assassins by the vast majority of the pirates makes designating them as associates of the Assassins highly dubious.

The Jacobins is another problematic case. The Jacobin Club was a broad group of the radical wing of revolutionaries which included some allies of the Assassins, but it was also a stronghold of the Templars. Meanwhile, the Assassins supported individuals from across the political spectrum, including constitutional monarchists, Girondins, and the Jacobin Georges Danton. Do we list all of these groups? (Now, personally I won’t entirely mind adding the Girondins since I think they aligned the most with the Assassins).The date added “until 1791” actually raises a few more questions. Danton was evidently considered an Assassin friend right up until his execution in 1794 at the height of the Reign of Terror, but obviously extending the date into the Reign of Terror by which time the Jacobins had been completely co-opted by the Templars would cause more confusion. On the other hand, 1791 is quite early in the French Revolution and makes me doubt whether any Jacobin connection with the Assassins is significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox. Even if it is, the point remains that the Jacobin Club consisted of a diverse group of radicals. Robespierre, one of the leading Templars was already an influential presence among the Jacobins by 1791 and many of the extremists had been affiliated with the club from the start of the revolution.

The point I am trying to make is that just because a member of a group or several members of a group cooperate with one faction, it doesn’t mean that there’s enough to say that the group is collectively associated with that faction. I don’t think that just because some Jacobins were friendly with the Assassins, it means that the Jacobin Club as an organization was really related to the Assassins. I am more accepting of the Patriots being on this list because besides the close ties between Connor and George Washington, the Assassins he recruited were all active supporters of the revolution.

How do we determine that a group is actually associated with the Assassins or Templars? One easy answer might to look at the leadership of the group. The leaders of the Jacobin Club, after all, were predominantly Templars not Assassins, but even relying on leadership still may not be so simple. This leads me to another example: the Tang dynasty for the Templars. While it is true that the Golden Turtles were able to manipulate their way into controlling the court through the chancellorships, the Emperor himself was not a Templar. I am also wary of the implication in Dynasty so far that Wu Zetian, who had previously usurped the Tang dynasty, was the founder of the Golden Turtles, which also contributes to how listing the Tang as a group related to the Templars can be misleading.

What about listing the Ottoman Empire for the Assassins? Personally, I am more open to this because it was clear that the Ottomans’ alliance with the Assassins spanned for more than one generation. Despite the interlude of Selim I’s reign, both Bayezid II and Suleiman the Magnificent had close association with the Assassins. That Suleiman is commonly regarded as the greatest ruler in Ottoman history bolsters the case for the Ottomans’ inclusion in the Assassin list.

The danger, however, is treating centuries-long governments as monoliths. Not every Ottoman ruler supported the Assassins, as we know from the example of Selim. This is why I’m usually nervous about adding state governments to these lists because it is quite a generalization to make. As governments pass from one generation after another, its domestic and foreign policies shift and morph because former allies and enemies of Assassins and Templars die off and new ministers and rulers may have different positions.

Through these examples, I hope I have presented a clear idea of the care we need to make when we add to the “related groups” list. I would ask that we be more conservative with what we include. Personally, I think this is more problematic than the “notable members” list we had removed. With the “notable members” list, the worst is that we give a character more relative in-universe importance than others. With this list, we can mislead our readers about the affiliations of entire historical factions.

So I must ask everyone: what do you think the “related groups” list mean? To me, a related group is a separate group which has close links, whether historical, social, political, or economic with the subject organization in question. It does not include groups which fall entirely within the Assassin Brotherhood or Templar Order because I see these as subgroups. I therefore think that the list should exclude dynastic houses of the two organizations like the House of Auditore, but I am open to hearing any objections to this. The list should obviously also exclude subgroups, i.e. branches, which fall under “subsidiaries” field (although I’m not sure subsidiary is the correct term for non-corporations). By historical links, I think that the strongest case would be any group whose origins were directly connected with the Assassins or Templars in some way, such as sharing a common struggle, despite being a distinct group its own right. I don’t have an example of this off the top of my head though.

Above all, we should take care to identify cases where individuals or several members of a group cooperating with the Assassins and Templars might not necessarily be representative of the groups they are normally affiliated with. It is for this reason that, again, I strongly object to the inclusion of the pirates and Jacobins in this.

I also would recommend that the association be unambiguous. For example, inclusion of the Haitian revolutionaries is good in my opinion. Inclusion of Napoleon’s empire by virtue that Arno had some ties with Napoleon should probably be avoided. I would rather just err on the safe side. When necessary, I agree with using date ranges to clarify that the association did not necessarily extend beyond a certain period.

Aside from offering my own interpretation of this parameter, my alternative recommendation is to remove it altogether as we did “notable members”. It is possible that it is simply an outdated field.

But most of all, I am curious how others are interpreting “related groups”, so please feel welcome to provide your thoughts on this and these examples. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In my lowly opinion, I hate it and my vote is for removal. - Soranin (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In a less jokey answer, I really don't see the point of that section, the parts in an infobox are meant to be exact and for quick reference, however, like you brought up in the Great Text Wall of Wiki above, there's so much nuance in ascribing association between the Assassins/Templars and other groups that it's no longer exact nor useful for a quick reference. The very point of having that section in a infobox is lost. This is the reason why I support the removal of it altogether. - Soranin (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I too support the Great Culling. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(Soranin just wants me to be hampered from my projects, stuck removing more outdated infobox parameters, don't you?! XD) More seriously, I also think it should be removed. While it may have served a point earlier in AC with clear connections from, say, the Houses of Auditore/Pazzi, there's now too many organizations that meet and briefly ally with Assassins/Templars—whether aware of either group or not—but are ultimately unaffiliated with either Order's end goals and/or were only allies for a brief time, and sometimes just for convenience's sake, eg. Napoleon during the Revolution vs Napoleon's rule as Emperor. You summarized it perfectly using the Ottomans and the Pirate Republic, Sol. – Darman (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice the previous edit summaries on the page. The related groups on the Templars page did not seem to have gone through the same thorough removal as the Assassins page had earlier last month, so I assumed the previously listed groups were wrongfully removed from the Assassins page. As each group can require a discussion to warrant their inclusion in the list, it is preferable to just remove it altogether. On another note, I would also suggest getting rid of the "Date founded", "Date collapsed" and "Date reorganized". Replace it with something like a general "Active" parameter that will clearly show a timespan of activity instead of jumping back and forth between multiple parameters that list singular dates (like on Chinese Brotherhood of Assassins). The infobox parameters are at least a decade old and are due for a major overhaul. Perhaps this discussion is better suited for Template talk:Faction Infobox. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 13:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks. I thought it best to double-check if there are any objections to removing the "related group" field. As well, what do people think about Sima's suggestion to replace "date founded", "date collapsed", and "date reorganized" with a general "active" parameter? I am currently ambivalent on that. We might want to take this to Template talk:Faction Infobox, but I wanted to remind everyone of this discussion here first. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideals and Goals

The Ideals and Goals section, especially the Paradoxes and Misconceptions subsection, uses anarchism repeatedly (examples included below) and largely incorrectly. This is not a defense of the ideology, just that the word should be replaced with "chaos" for the most part.

The Assassins' devotion to free will and their assertion of moral relativism can indeed invite questions of whether or not they and their creed are nihilistic or anarchic. Their liberal belief system, along with their support of cultural expression and life, would indicate otherwise.

This fixation on freedom and compassion led many Templars by the American Revolution, notably Grand Master Haytham Kenway, to believe that the Assassins had abandoned their goal of peace in favor of freedom as an end, even accusing them of anarchism. This has shown not to be the case as Assassins support democracy, or governments that emphasizes individual liberty and choice as main principles, not the abolition of order and government in its entirety.

First, I caution about applying modern political labels to historical figures/fictional historical figures. The people who created liberalism or anarchism as philosophies were not born yet when Altair or Ezio were enumerating their beliefs about the Creed.

Second, anarchism is not a denial of order or even necessarily government, it is specifically a belief that hierarchies are inherently immoral and that people should seek to organize using direct democracy or consensus decision making. To quote the wikipedia article on Proudhon, the "father of anarchism"

In What Is Property?, published in 1840, Proudhon defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" and wrote that "[a]s man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy".

I think this can be very easily rectified by simply changing almost every reference to anarchy as a reference to chaos or lawlessness, as that is how the word is being used in the article.

Ellen-the-educator (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ellen, I am happy to revise the article for incorrect usages of liberalism and anarchism. What you see here really was just a first draft from before my college years, at a time when I did not have the most precise understanding of these terminology. So I also agree knowing what I know now that some of these terms are not correctly used. On Discord, you sounded like you had more disagreements about the content of this section beyond just misused terms, though? So is there any other issue?

Otherwise, I would add that even though our understanding of certain popular and philosophies today descend from a traceable lineage (e.g. liberalism to Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, anarchism to Proudhon), these ideas are not exclusive to them. People throughout history from around the world have developed philosophies with overlapping ideas. What can be described as realism was probably around since the beginning of human civilization, political ideologies which can be described as totalitarian, libertarian, socialist, or anarchist can be found in ancient China. So there is an argument to be made that the use of certain terms is anachronistic, but it's also important to keep in mind sometimes the way these terms have evolved, they can retrospectively be applied to ideas predating what we take to be their origin. It really depends if one is defining the term as an established school of thought with traceable lineage or as a description for a certain set of beliefs regardless of its origin to the individual or group. I don't think either way is wrong, but it's something to keep in mind. I think sometimes in academia, we take for granted that there is a "father" of every ideology without accounting for the reality that people discover and rediscover the same ideas across the ages and many cultures.

I think for the term liberalism, it is inappropriate to use it in contexts outside of the ideology originating in the Enlightenment because liberalism is a very specific package of beliefs, and it is still understood to almost always refer to this lineage of ideas. So that would be an example where the anachronism argument applies. Another example would be fascism. An example where I think that argument wouldn't apply would be terms like libertarian, authoritarian, and totalitarian, which I would argue are descriptors for types of regimes and political views. And I think that anarchism is one that sits somewhere in between, so I'm not sure how erroneous it is to use it prior to the term being invented. Another example I think would be feminism.

Anyway, if you can elaborate more on your understanding of anarchism, that would also be helpful. Because for even the concept of anarchy itself, it is defined differently depending on the field (I've noticed that anarchists don't seem to conceptualize anarchy the same way that it is defined in international relations). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to do some quick revisions first. Not exactly the full rewrite I had been planning to do, but it should resolve the most glaring issues. Please feel welcome to double-check them. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So to the first question - my disagreement is largely the misuse of the terms, and the way the article does seem to take sides, treating nihilism and anarchism not as ideas that the Creed doesn't agree with (though I really think the creed supports those ideals better than most anything) but as Bad Things that the Creed obviously cannot be because the Creed is about Good Things. Okay that sounded conspiratorial but bear with me - "Their libertarian belief system, along with their support of cultural expression and life, would indicate otherwise." This statement relies on the assumption that nihilism and anarchism are opposed to support for cultural expression or life, and that a libertarian belief system is different from an anarchic one, which it isn't. They are not always the same thing, though they often were - libertarian socialism is the original name for anarcho-communism, and the first people to call themselves libertarians were either anarchists or were friendly with them - but they have historically been ideologically aligned.

To the second question, I find this one of the most fascinating questions, and it is necessary and relevant to this situation, but is also broader than that, and would indicate the philosophy of an encyclopedia. Do we use words that make sense to us today, but have a specific history in terms of people using that word itself, to describe beliefs that do not descend from that theory but are closely aligned? I don't super have an answer to that question, because both answers leave something to be desired. If we say yes - we can't practically describe every belief, every idea without some kind of modern categorization - we run the serious risk of just assigning our beliefs to historical figures who would agree with some but not others. If we say no, then our ability to understand and connect to historical beliefs and people is through a complete education of their environment and sociopolitical climate, which restricts it to those with the time and money for that education. Like I said, I don't have an answer, but the precedent Wikipedia largely sets is to never call figures that were not part of the specific philosophical lineage that thing, but say that they were proto-that thing or were like modern people of that thing.

Some convictions and ideas deeply held by modern anarchists were first expressed in ancient Greece. The first known political usage of the word anarchy (Ancient Greek: ἀναρχία) appeared in plays by Aeschylus and Sophocles in the fifth century BC. Ancient Greece also saw the first Western instance of anarchy as a philosophical ideal mainly, but not only, by the Cynics and Stoics. The Cynics Diogenes of Sinope and Crates of Thebes are both supposed to have advocated for anarchistic forms of society, although little remains of their writings. Their most significant contribution was the radical approach of nomos (law) and physis (nature). Contrary to the rest of Greek philosophy, aiming to blend nomos and physis in harmony, Cynics dismissed nomos (and in consequence: the authorities, hierarchies, establishments and moral code of polis) while promoting a way of life, based solely on physis. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, who was much influenced by the Cynics, described his vision of an egalitarian utopian society around 300 BC. Zeno's Republic advocates a form of anarchic society where there is no need for state structures. He argued that although the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads humans to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct, namely sociability. Like many modern anarchists, he believed that if people follow their instincts, they will have no need of law courts or police, no temples and no public worship, and use no money—free gifts taking the place of monetary exchanges.

An incredibly cautious approach, it's one I think we could emulate if we want, but we don't have to.

Lastly, how do I define anarchism? Anarchist theory can go in a lot of places, but all of them stem from the same idea - that all hierarchies should be treated as unjust and unnecessary by default, and have to prove themselves to be absolutely necessary or impractical to remove, and even then should be flattened as much as possible. To put it more simply - no rulers, even if they've earned it, even if we voted for them, even if the law doesn't call them rulers. In the modern day, this includes both the de jure rulers of politicians and police, who legally have more power than ordinary citizens, and de facto rulers such as rich people, who have more power than everyone else. I actually hold that the Assassins do not believe in these things, but not because of their "libertarian beliefs" or "support for cultural expression and life" but because they do support democratically elected rulers, they do not openly advocate for the dissolution of private property or wealth redistribution, and they do not act against the state but against people whom they believe are doing the wrong thing. The creed, both as it literally is and how they teach it, is compatible with anarchism as defined by anarchists, and is almost perfectly aligned with optimistic nihilism.

But that's not actually the point of my Talk topic - that's a philosophical argument that I think would be best in the discord or similar. The point I was trying to make is that the article takes a side against anarchism and nihilism, and appears to do so without a firm grounding in those philosophies, and that there are more accurate words to describe the ideas in the article. Ellen-the-educator (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Really quick response to your first answer because I have to go get my second Pfizer shot: I think you may have missed that the section is explaining that the Creed itself is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. As it explains, it does not promote nihilism, anarchism, or even libertarianism because it does not prescribe any particular philosophy. It is merely, as Ezio explains, an "observation of reality" and strictly concerns epistemology. In the sentence that you were referring to "Their libertarian belief system...", this sentence, on the other hand, is referring to the Assassins' belief system but not the meaning of their actual Creed. The Creed itself does not endorse nihilism, anarchism, or libertarianism, but the Assassins, beyond the Creed, clearly do have their own ideology which has to be gleamed from their own actions and expressed values in the stories. As for libertarianism being a synonym of anarchism, it is true that anarchism is libertarian, but it is more specific. Every anarchist is libertarian but not every libertarian is an anarchist. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing on, based particularly on these last lines:

The creed, both as it literally is and how they teach it, is compatible with anarchism as defined by anarchists, and is almost perfectly aligned with optimistic nihilism. But that's not actually the point of my Talk topic - that's a philosophical argument that I think would be best in the discord or similar. The point I was trying to make is that the article takes a side against anarchism and nihilism, and appears to do so without a firm grounding in those philosophies, and that there are more accurate words to describe the ideas in the article.

The Creed is ultimately only an affirmation of the limits of acquiring knowledge, which necessarily hinges upon empiricism. I repeat again that it is a descriptive, not a normative statement. However, there are several philosophical attitudes that can logically be derived from this descriptive statement and among them are perspectivism, pluralism, and moral relativism. But chief among the normative corollaries is to guard oneself against extremism, false dualities, and upholding certain beliefs and values as absolutes. As discussed in the article and acknowledged by Altaïr himself, this would create a paradox if not for the fact that these are derived meanings, not the meaning of the Creed itself. The Creed is normatively-neutral; it is a revelation of reality which does not in and of itself tell you what you must do with that realization. (The Assassins do have a particular belief system that they teach their members, but it is separate from the Creed.)

This is why it is necessary to emphasize that it does not promote (moral) nihilism, which is a common misconception that fans have. If the Creed fundamentally endorses nihilism, it would fall back into the paradox described by Altaïr and also prove as epistemically problematic as any other ideology. True objectivity may be impossible, but it does not necessarily follow that human beliefs must be denied as valuable or meaningful. Nature may permit all values but that this negates the worth of all human notions of morality is just one possible conclusion to make of that.

When you define anarchism as a rejection of rulers "even if we voted for them", this is the reason why I was confused when you earlier referred to direct democracy as a way people may organize themselves under anarchism. I've never really thought of direct democracy as anarchism, and I daresay that if anarchism included it, then the term might be too broad. Another confusion I have is whether or not anarchism must necessarily promote the dissolution of government and the state anyways if it opposes hierarchy. While anti-statism is not its foundational belief, it would still be a necessary component, right? A third confusion I have is over the extent that anarchism aims to dissolve de facto hierarchies since unequal power relations inevitably arise even in the absence of official power and class structures. I personally believe in the minimization of hierarchies and elimination of coercion as much as possible, but I have always been apprehensive towards the viability of anarchism towards accomplishing this ideal (which itself parallels why Assassins share this goal but largely are not anarchists). But you're right this may be a philosophical discussion best saved for elsewhere.

I think I am definitely going to rewrite the entire section though lol. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll first say I think we have gotten off the topic a bunch, and I'll try and stick to just the discussion of what changes I suggest for the article here. Specifically, I think that when you refute the idea that the Creed endorses moral nihlism (which I agree you should do) it'd be best to write something like "the Creed does not endorse nihilism - nor does it endorse libertarianism, liberalism, statism, anarchism, communism, or federalism - because it does not endorse anything. It is an observation that nothing is true, and that everything is permitted, and the conclusions that individual assassins, or even groups within the brotherhood, draw from that are their own, and not the Creed's." I totally agree that you or someone else should rewrite the section - I'd volunteer, but I'm honestly not well-read enough on the series to do it - I was just trying to point out some issues I had with the phrasing and usage of certain words within the article as it was, and ideally suggest some of those rewrites. Ellen-the-educator (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I will take care of the initial rewrite, but I definitely appreciate your input as well as anyone else's in the meantime. Your suggestion here is a good one. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes on intro rewrite

I felt like leaving some editors' notes here for my rewrite of the introduction just for the hell of it and also in case if it would be useful information.

• First sentence ("The Assassin Brotherhood, also known as the Assassin Order, is an order of assassins") was kind of tautologial. I know it's not technically wrong since assassin doesn't mean the same thing as Assassin, but it veers too close to being tautological.
• Lede shouldn't define Assassins by conflict with Templars, which should be at the end.
• I used the most accurate political terminology I could think for defining them in the first sentence.
• I wanted to preserve the original intent of defining them as an "order of assassins" in the first paragraph by describing their focus on stealth and assassination, which are definitely their key features.
• Slipped in a brief mention of the term assassin being derived from the Assassins I thought might be helpful for any reader who is completely new to the series and knows nothing about it.
• I used the second paragraph to give a more extended overview of the fundamental characteristics of Assassins by summarizing their Creed, philosophy, and ideology.
• I thought it was important to explain the value-neutral content of their "Creed", which is actually an epistemic claim not an ideological one, while also touching upon their actual cultural ideology which prominently exists despite their base principle of teaching people to develop their own independent belief system.
• I mentioned the prohibition against harming innocent lives in the first paragraph not the second because I think it is so significant and defining of a characteristic that it actually stands out from the rest of the tenets because it guides their entire methodology, something that is reinforced by The Hidden Ones DLC which shows what inspired it. It is also often neglected by fans when comparing them with the Templars despite its significance.
• Last paragraph summarizes history and basics of their conflict with the Templars.
• I did my best to seamlessly and clearly synchronize the idea that the Assassins originated with Adam & Eve vs. originating with Bayek & Aya by describing the former as a genetic and cultural link and the latter as an official founding. I still made mention that the Assassin and Templar conflict is remembered as though it has existed for all of human history rather than writing over that entirely.
• I considered writing "Eve and Adam" instead of "Adam and Eve" because I think Eve was more important, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly and admittedly "Adam and Eve" rolls off the tongue more naturally because that's how everyone has been saying it for all these years because of obvious Biblical reasons, so I wasn't sure what people prefer or if it matters. I also considered naming Aya before Bayek but flowing from the previous sentence which introduces the Medjay, it made sense to name the last Medjay first.
• I always see the "order" vs. "freedom" dichotomy as a Templar narrative not faithful to the Assassin perspective. Another common major error is the idea that Assassins are all about freedom and nothing but, no nuances. But that theme of "freedom" and "free will" comes up so often in sources' description of the Assassins that these words still have to be included in the intro in my opinion. So I tried to concisely explain in the second paragraph the thought process leading to their valuing of freedom of expression, I made sure that in the very last line of the introduction, I made an explicit reference to "free will".
• Whoever wrote "continuous, recondite war" before for the Assassin-Templar War link, I thought recondite was an interesting word choice, and I'm not entirely sure if it's the right word to use here, but I decided to preserve it somehow. Continuous is too soft and lacks impact though. (:P).

My rewrite here isn't necessarily perfect. There are some word choices I wasn't entirely sure about, and so it's of course open to suggestions. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Brotherhood membership

This is an ongoing discussion.

Continuing a topic brought up in the "Merge" discussion on the Persian Assassins' talk page, how do we determine someone's membership in a regional guild? As I mentioned on that page, Najma Alayza has "dual citizenship" (if you like) with the Libyan and Spanish Brotherhoods, but not everyone gets explicit mentioned of which group they're in. Salah Bey and others are among the many examples of people who have different nationalities than the group they're (apparently) part of just by virtue of living in the same geography. – Darman (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)