Talk:Assassins/Archive 1

Who is Rebecca Crane?--PhantomT1412 12:27, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oh? It isn't? My fault, sorry about that. I didn't know. Toukashi 16:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I really didn't know who she was. But I did some research since... --PhantomT1412 20:59, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

About the Assassin's Flag

In a rare moment, I decided to play Assassin's Creed through again. Don't ask why. Anyway, I was given an update over Live, which appears to have changed game textures of everything bearing the Assassin's logo. It appears that in the middle of the insignia is some kind of cube thing that wasn't there before. I've taken a quick look and there doesn't seem to be anything about it. Anybody else seen this, and if so, could you provide pictures? Swollenfish 13:33, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, all assassin's flags on Masyaf and throughout the word already had that cube on it, but I have the PC version. -- D. Cello 16:01, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I just checked my strategy guide; the picture in the flag collection section of the Masyaf flag does have something in the middle of the Assassin's logo. The picture is kind of small, but whatever is in the middle of the logo does resemble a cube. --Aftyn 10:52, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

You can see these cubes in one of Iran's Mosque. I'm not sure if it's in iran MakinArceneau 13:53, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they were there before. Wookie Assassin - "Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the only antidote to shame." 02:26, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Location of Modern

Can we add a speculation section. In AC2 if you look out the windows in the Assassins Hideout they city scape looks like Venice or one of the Italian cities....any thoughts?

~ Kole

Speculations on the Talk page. Article pages, only facts. -- D. Cello 00:46, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

The signs in the parking lots (at both places) are in italian....... CarloGrimaldi 01:16, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Spanish

I saw Raphael Sanchez and Gaspard Martinez on this page; Raphael as an Assassin and Gaspard as Ezio's victim. I assume they are from AC II: Discovery, or are they just made up? Can someone confirm either of these? Master Sima Yi 11:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

They are from Discovery. Ezio Auditore 22:43, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Boothe

Isn't it possible that Lincoln was a Templar using the Apple to control the southern or northern states to start the Civil War, and Boothe the Assassin trying to stop it?--Bladeinthecrowd 07:22, December 31, 2009 (UTC)Bladeinthecrowd

Nope. It says the way it is now in Subject 16's The Truth files. Master Sima Yi 13:13, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Abel

I've played the game twice and i have not seen any evidence of him being an Assassin now i'm not saying he too is evil but he could have not cared about the Assassins or Adam and Eve could have given it to him after the war since they apperently found no use for it and since Abel died before the Templars even existed and after the war between the humans and "those who came before" there was no need for assassins at the time and the Assassins group could have started after the Templars were formed. ANd I'm sry if im making this look like such a big deal but everyone on here takes every little thing so seriously --TitanGunz 23:50, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree - Abel doesn't seem to be an assassin himself - nor does Adam and Eve for that matter - I suspect they belonged to a sort of rebellion/freedom fighter group who liberated the humans from Those Who Came Before. Adam, Eve, and maybe Abel might be the descentants of the Assassins, or at least the Assassins immune to the piece of Eden (including the members of the order who helped out Altair in the final sequence of assassins creed 1). Regardless, I think Adam, Eve, and Abel need to be removed from the list of Assassins - Cain was definitely the first Templar, as his 'mark' (i.e. Symbol) is the Templar one, and he stole the Apple (PE1?) from Abel, probably for power. The trouble is Adam and Eve's role isn't fully explored yet, so we can't say for sure what they where doing. But I don't believe the evidence supports them being the founders of the assassins --Yargling 00:32, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, until (or if) we are otherwise told straightforward, I think we should look upon the origins of Templars and Assasins and their corresponding ideologies like the wielders of the Light and Dark sides of the Force in Star Wars - neither Jedi nor Sith came up with the two sides of the Force, just like Templars nor Assasins invented cravings for power and a belief in freedom of will, respectively.

These are flaws and traits which have been around since the beginning, and much blood has been spilled over these issues. It ranges from major events like the war between humans and the First Civilization, the secret war between Assassins and Templars and, for the sake of comparative argument, between Jedi and Sith :), to relatively minor events like the assassination of Ceasar, Cains jealousy-leading-to-killing of his brother, etc. And in between we have the various individuals (who usually are the instigators to these kind of events) whose eye's are opened to the world, realizing that nothing is true, everything is permitted and either chooses to bring about a new illusion for their benefit, or tear the down the whole concept and ultimately let people decide on their own.

The fight going on right now could just as well be the latest, and the most prolonged one, concerning these beliefs.

Brutus and allies, Wei Yu, Cleopatra, Adam and Eve and any other pre-AC1 assassins could, more reasonably, be spiritual ancestors to the Assassin Order, but not likely part of any formal Order at all, instead answering independently to the need for change for the benefit of freedom (and yes, Wei Yu might have his karate belt fashioned like an assassins emblem in the Sanctuary, but this could also be the result of artistic license at the behest of the Auditore. After all, aren't there oranges depicted in The Last Supper?).

The same could be applied to the "earlier Templars" like Cain and Ceasar.

Whenever there's a hunger for absolute power, a presence of greed, empowering of an elite at the cost of honest common folk (and especially when there's a POE involved) it seems you are automatically marked as a formal Templar (sometimes anachronistically - I don't think Cain started a world-stretching order devouted to the subjugation of mankind. Rather, he was the symbollic first-timer in "human dark-side wielding", so to speak. Hard to belive that his mark would literally be same as the one adopted by a monastic order turned blasphemous - it has to be symbollic, too. "Mark of Cain" traces L'Ordre du Temple back to biblical times...pfew - etymology: result of a melodrama-queen gone mentally labile due to super-exposure to a highly controversial and non-approved genetic memory extraction and viewing device. Spraying your blood all over the interior decoration seems pretty stable, too...But still, 16 - I'll pour one for you, homie). Also, the bible doesn't really mean that the Devil is physically present with his unholy fork & farts anytime and anywhere there are wrongdoings about, but rather the evil he represent is (And no, I'm not a Christian. Why would I be writing this essay about an all-star heathen game like AC if I was? :)).

So in essence: Just like red lightsaber doesn't have to mean Sith, Apple-wielding doesn't have to mean Templar membership. BUT, you are still a dark-sider, something both Sith and Rakata adhere(d) to, just like Templars and Savonarola adhere(d) to. The same could be said about Assasins - throughout time, the same belief is there, just not the one and same incarnation. -- Nicke.e 01:11, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy

Would JFK be an Assassin or one of their allies? Because if you look at the Truth files it says that Abstergo planned his assassination.

--Beirut 23:06, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think JFK was an Assassins, I think maybe the Templars tried to recruit him (like they did with Nicola Telsa), and he wasn't interested - then they killed him to get his PoE. The assassins, from what I understand, stay in the shadows and only act to counter the templars; power is not there goal, only the prevention of world domination by the Templars and the destruction of free will. --Yargling 00:32, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't even understand why we have pages for JFK, Lincoln, Hitler, the only part these people have in the AC games is the 5 second pictures shown in the glyphs they do not affect the story line in anyway possible. Who cares if they had a piece of eden and were killed b/c of that? �

This place is supposed to be a "complete" database. 'Nuff said. --Silver Mage Ω 05:46, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

References

I think this article is a bit over-referenced. There is no need for a reference behind every single name. Our point is making a usefull database, not putting a lot of info and telling us were we got it from. Everyone knows were the info is from: from the games and the other media. No need putting it here. -- Master Sima Yi 13:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Master Sima Yi, the policy are literally choking us here. (Arabian411269 18:04, March 9, 2012 (UTC))

It's policy. Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 14:14, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's policy to put a reference behind every single name instead of just including a group of names for one reference? -- Master Sima Yi 14:16, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Atheists?!

How is their religion atheism? There were christians among the assassin's. I think the proper word should be "various". Alexrd 18:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well Altaïr was surely an atheist. Though they still describe him as spiritual. He knew from his master that the Apple was responsible for all the miracles people saw, which were just illusions performed by the Apple. Altaïr wrote in his codex he doesn't believe in a creator. And the work of assassins, their drive-force was based on the codex. I'm not sure which assassins you think to be Christian. -- Altaïr 19:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

• • Altaïr was just one assassin among many. It was believed that the Apple was responsible for all the miracles, but that was not proved. Teodora was christian, although not belonging to any church. Besides, the religion of the other assassins is unkown, and as such, nobody can claim that all of them are (were) atheists. Alexrd 19:13, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

They were all different religions...... Ezio, along with his whole family was Catholic, the codex and the first game says Altair was half Christian and half Muslim but follows an Agnostic culture, Malik and his brother were Muslims and they're just the Assassins who openly admitting their religion..... So I too believe it should be various but apparently Jasca's word is the be all and end all......EchoAltair......

D.Cello is the one who decides on this. Jasca is a mod, a member of the Istruttorium. But it's admins like D.Cello who have the final word. So if you have any questions, you can adress them to either D.Cello, me or master Sima Yi. Members like Jasca make sure the wiki stays in a good condition. As for the religion. I agree that the Assassins started off in a Muslim evironment. But after Altair knew thetruth and wrote the codex he knew he had to start to re-shape the Assassins in a different philosophy, compared to the blinded obedience under Al Mualim. Altaïr was one assassin, but after the first game he did become master of the assassins and lets not forget that he left and that the Assassin order we know from the Renaissance, mainly in Italy was forged from the codex or at least inspired. But I agree that they lived in a time of ignorance because the codex was lost after Domenico Auditore was forced to hide it and split it, so afterwards they could have had varied religions indeed. An would they base their religion on the codex. I do think so.-- Altaïr 19:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I read the codex as though he taught them to 'open their minds', to tell them the truth and let them make of it what they wish. Not convert them all to athiesm, then he'd be just as bad as Al Mualim...... And the codex is a family heirloom, all families had one, I even have one, so chances are that noone has ever seen that codex outside the bloodline of the author...... Even Master Sima Yi has tried to change it to various but Jasca keeps changing it back saying it shouldn't be 'blanketed' when he has just blanketed them all as athiests....... Assassins claiming they are nephilim is the stuff religion is made of, so being athiest is far from the truth anyway......... EchoAltair......

Is that so? Well he shouldn't. Don't want to play boss here, but I do think the religion of Assassins is depended on the timeline. I'm sure Altaïr was an atheist. But others weren't. Many in the Third Crusade were muslim and everyone not familiar with the context of the codex could be of a variety of religions. So I'll change it. And indeed Altaïr wouldn't try to convert the assassins under his leadership, nor would they be familiar with the codex as it was not completed anyway. I have to ask you to sign your signatures propery. Just base it on mine and replace my nickname with yours. Altaïr 23:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, just check the history of changes.... And thankyou for changing it....... Sorry for not signing my posts properly but my laptop's broke and I'm using my phone which doesn't have tildes or a signature button so that's the best I can do I'm afraid....... EchoAltair.....

All that said, I think we can safely say that they were not all Christian, as 68.253.212.85 has twice tried to change it to. Is there a way to lock that person out, or otherwise let them know that they should stop trying to make that change? Morgan-wolf 00:04, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

ORIGINAL Assassins are muslims. You should know the Real life Al Mualim is muslim too (Rashid ad-Din Sinan) Ezio is also atheist i think, since he said words like Altair did," held in the arms of YOUR GOD." something like that. Mario might also be an atheist since he said that he was not interested in Monteriggioni's church. In general, the FIRST Assassin Order based in Syria are mostly Muslims, no Christians. Few Atheists. Remember they fight the Christian Crusaders... so.MakinArceneau 14:02, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Ezio's frequent visits to the Vatican to kill the cardinals, papal guard and pope are evidence towards atheism~Ziodes

The Assassins don't fight Christian Crusaders. They fight the Templars, whom in the game are portrayed as atheists themselves, who use religion as a shield to hide their true purposes. They don't believe in God, nor in any religion because they think the Apple (and "those who came before") was the origin of all things. And Ziodes, killing corrupt people has nothing to do with religion, nor with Ezio being an atheist or not. Alexrd 23:40, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all Templars are atheists, i think they are just like the Assassins, some are atheists, some are believers, and one example is Antonio Maffei, who say constantly about being doing god's work and calling Ezio a demon, but maybe he is lying, but who knows? maybe he is really convicted. Another would be Rodrigo Borgia, who everybody calls an atheist, but i think he is deist, since he don't believe in the biblical god, but yet he believes that god himself is in the vault of the vatican. about Ezio and Altair, Altair maybe was half christian half muslim, but after he got the apple and discovered it's secrets, he became an atheist. About Ezio, i think he believed in god, but wasn't religious, and i don't recall nothing saying that the auditore family is catholic, but after he discovered that his father was an assassin, sometime during his quest he became atheist. is just my opinion and i may be wrong so waht you guys think about that? BOS 00:44, August 28, 2011

History lesson:

The Assassins (حشاشين or حشاشيون) were ALL Muslims. Their complete classifications is:

Islam > Shi'a > Isma'ili > Nizari > Hashshasheen (yes with 2 sh)

And they weren't just Muslims, they were the big beard, baggy pants, Osama Bin-Laden type (I still love them). Legend has it that they used to preform assassinations while under the influence of hashish. Now contrary to popular belief, hashish is not marijuana. It is marijuana x 1,000,000. It was strong enough for people to stay under its influence for DAYS. And that is where they got the name; it literally means the "Pot Boys". BUT it is a legend most likely made up by "h8rz" with little to support it. Also, in contradiction to the game, they started in Cairo, Egypt, moved to Alamut, Iran, THEN finally ended up in Masyaf, Syria. The Masyaf in the game is actually modeled off of Alamut, which is where they had the big fortress. Another thing contradictory to the game, as you level up through the brotherhood you no longer preform assassinations. That work is left for the younger simple-minded goons for they have less knowledge of the Isma'ili faith therefore their loss is not considered too devasating. They were also smart. Not only did they preform their own assassinations but they would also take contracts from BOTH sides of the crusades as long as it didn't go against their goals. Why not make a few bucks out of your hobby?

The idea of the hidden blade has NOTHING to do with the Hashshasheen. They were content with the good old sword. The hidden blade is derived from the Sicarii, a jewish order that also preformed assassinations on the Romans using knives hidden in their cloaks. The whole hooded badass with a knife is totally Sicarii. The Hashshasheen were also much more organized than depicted. They had government representation, took contracts from foriegn nations, and even aided troops with their own soldiers.

Just a brief history lesson (Arabian411269 18:55, March 9, 2012 (UTC))

But, if you snoop around a little, there is records of a Hashasheen leader (how should I say this?) cesseding, from the main Hashasheen body because he didn't like the drugs and the other things like that. He left and created his own branch in somewhat western, Syria (the location of Maysaf). Anyone getting Al Mualim from this? His name isn't mentioned though. Ezio Auditore 22:55, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

I almost forgot, the Assassin's Creed series never says that God didn't exist. In fact if you play the ending of Brotherhood where Desmond is in the Santa Maria Aracoeli, Juno confirms the existance of higher entity who has "endless stamina" and "everlasting reach" who they try to "feign left when he strikes right" and whatnot. From this I understand that God created TOWCB and TOWCB created us, therefore God indirectly created us. Of course this is all just a theory (Arabian411269 19:25, March 9, 2012 (UTC))

In real life, assassins were muslim yes, but not in-game. In Ac1, most were muslim but AC2 onwards only "various" seems to apply. IlMualim 19:53, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

^^^^ I totally agree (Arabian411269 20:34, March 9, 2012 (UTC))

assassins

hey i was looking for a list of the actuall assassins [like altair, ezio, desmond, those dudes under the villa in ac2, etc] but this was all i could find. is there a page with a list of them all? please redirect me if possible

Check the section entitled "Known asssassins" perhaps. It list all the named assassins we know of. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 11:52, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

You can also just check the list here: Category:Assassins. -- Master Sima Yi 21:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that in that Sanctuary under Monteriggioni, the assassins all have a different-looking assassins' emblem? One has one composed of snakes, another with leaves, etc. Has this been documented at all?122.104.203.226 07:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 122.104.203.226 those are not leaves nor Assassin Order emblems. Those are emblems associated with the Assassins' specialty, for example a spear for Wei Yu.. hidden blade for Darius,

I think 122.104.203.226 was meaning the emblems on their belts like how Ezio and Connor have one on their waist.Ezio Auditore 02:58, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Bahir and Karim

Who are they? In which game do they appear? -- Master Sima Yi 21:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hello. it is funny that you are once always lectured by Jasca but know you are an admin XD. Where did you see them?MakinArceneau 14:06, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? I have been here much longer than Jasca, and if I remember correctly, I was already an admin before he arrived here (not sure though). So I don't see how that is funny to you. Bahir and Karim were put on the article, but I removed them since no source was given. -- Master Sima Yi 14:18, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Brutus

Ok, so I have only got the 3 first Romulus scrolls, but it seems to me that it's strongly implying Brutus was an Assassin and killed Julius Caesar, especially considering his armor is one of a master Assassin (though it is also implied that it was in fact Romulus' armor, so he could have just found it). Oh and, by the way, isn't one of Romulus and Remus an Assassin as well in this context ? (I would have just said Romulus is the Assassin, since he killed Remus, but his "followers" are also affiliated to the Templars, which made me doubt). Any thoughts on this ? Alarielle 15:12, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance Assassin attire

The Assassins during the Third Crusade had a uniform guideline; the Grand Master wore black, Master Assassins wore white, etc. Did the Renaissance Assassins have a dress code for their robes; I know most of the other Assassins didn't wear any robes (Niccolo didn't, Paola didn't etc.) except for Ezio and his Brotherhood, were they supposed to have a code similar to the Assassins of the Third Crusade? BleedingEffect 16:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that assassin's in the Renaissance have a dresscode. they are supposed to just blend in, Giovanni only used his hooded suited so he wouldn't be recongnised and i think Ezio and his brotherhood all wear the hooded suits because the war with the Templars is no longer hidden and so its kind of like a unifrom. Jon Shannow 17:31, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Founder

"Adam and Eve's descendants"

Well thats specific, narrows it down to just about any Human who ever lived. 79.97.144.31 21:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Erm, no… Adam and Eve were just two of probably millions of humans created by the First Civilisation for use as slave labour. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 15:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Women

Were there any women in the Order in Altair's time, I can't see a single one in game, they may be included in the order just not as active Assassins or Rafiqs but that probably changed with Maria Zachariah Zuan 00:26, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Women were not allowed in Al Mualim's time, but Altair had a much more open mind about such things, as we've found out.70.70.13.203 03:54, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Women were not allowed in Al Mualim's time..." Says you. The fact is, we don't know why no female Assassins are portrayed at during Al Mualim's reign, though no mention of a ban is ever made. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 12:25, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

PC version of the game, Murder Edition, There are women in the courtyard behind the Masyaf Castle. I know this because me and my friends would get a kick out of walking up behind them and go in and out of high-profile making it look like Altair was humping them. I know, I need a girlfriend. (Arabian411269 19:11, March 9, 2012 (UTC))

Bill and William Miles

I just found a part of the article that had William Miles as two different people. Before it was Bill Miles and William M. I erased Bill Miles and changed it to William Miles. I hope it was okay that I did that.The Great Dog Demon 22:26, November 17, 2011 (UTC)The Great Dog Demon

From a brilliant commentary about religion and a delicious fantasy to a tired trope of liberalism triumphing over conservatism.

Forgive me for being a young black conservative (an impossibility on the Internet, I know.) But I bought the first AC because I had heard so many good things about it. I was dubious, given my religious background, of how AC would portray Christianity, and found, much to my very pleased surprise, that the first two games primarily come at it from the point of "religion -as we know it- is bunk, forced upon us by the Ax Crazy Templars," however, it still leaves some wiggle room in between the cracks, as Jesus was a member of the First Civilization, and God could still exist, albeit in a different context entirely. And that's just my limited philosophical interpretation of the first two games. I'm sure people with more time and willing to devote more effort could construct vibrant tapestries of the games' philosophical connotations.

However, when it came to AC:B, I noticed that instead of the musings of philosophy; particularly in the present day, the political leanings of this game became painfully apparent. Portraying Mao Tse Tung in a positive light, and turning right around and portraying Condoleeza Rice as nothing more than a coroporate stooge (when she was a barrier-breaker in nearly every sense of the word) comes off as heavy-handed, unnecessary, and frankly, false. Where Ubisoft could have continued with the Corrupt Church angle, especially considering Pope Alexander the Sixth is the antagonist of II, they decided instead that the hidden messages would be about how "Liberals triumph the will of the people, while Conservatives are only In it for the Money."

One of the names of the Assassins on this very page, Circle of Liberals, reinforces this point, to an unfortunate end. I'm tired of, every time I go on Youtube, I'm attacked because the Bible I choose to read denounces homosexuality (even though I disagree with that personally). I'm tired of Sarah Palin being outright lambasted, basted, skewered, and roasted by the Left because they don't fit their neat little stereotype of a woman. I'm -also- tired of the standard of living plummeting in this country while Washington loonies on BOTH sides of the aisle continue to do nothing about it. I'm -also- tired of governmental expansion in every single facet of my life. What I don't want, however, is -any- of this to be reflected in my video games, something I use as a distraction from all of these stressors. Particularly in a polarizing way, which is what Ubisoft seems to be doing right here. Yes, the corporations we have in the 20th and 21st centuries are -way- out of control. But the fact that no one seems to have twigged on to yet is that they're in bed with BOTH Liberals AND Conservatives, not simply one or the other. The difference is because Liberals tend to be more smooth-talkers, they can hide it more easily than can Conservatives. 64.198.73.11 07:50, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you seem to be quite getting the point of the universe. Templars aren't "evil" and Assassins aren't "good". Both strive for peace, only they have a different view of how to attain this. The Borgia were corrupt and did not follow the Templars' actual goals, preferring greed over the greater good. Simply because the Assassins are the protagonist faction, doesn't mean they are also the right side. Liberals aren't "good" and conservatives aren't "evil". Templars created capitalism, yet Assassins supported communism, which is commonly despised by western countries. Also, Jesus wasn't a member of the First Civilization, he was a simple human in possession of the Shroud of Eden and (perhaps) an Apple of Eden. The Templars also didn't support christianity, the Borgia simply used it to hold power. Neither the Assassins or Templars support any particular religion. You aren't quite getting the real point of the Assassin-Templar war, which may have been caused by Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood portraying the Templars as greedy and evil. If you look at the first Assassin's Creed, Revelations and The Fall, you may see that the Templars aren't evil in the slightest. Their methods only make them slightly villainous, but in the end they were the ones who progressed scientific development and want the best for humanity. -- Master Sima Yi 15:12, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I also want to clear up that Assassins aren't all liberals and Templars aren't conservatives. John Locke was influenced by the Templars, Adam Smith was tied to the Templars and John Maynard Keynes was a Templar. The conservative Winston Churchill was a Templar, and Margaret Thatcher was a puppet manipulated by Abstergo Industries. There is no division. -- Master Sima Yi 22:52, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Many important acts of the assassins are not included

This page does not include all the acts of the assassins, such as giovanni borgia, bombastus ,etc. Should all this be added? IlMualim 13:47, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Fiction and Reality: Assassins=Carbonari?

Anyone note the incredible similarity between the Assassins and real Carbonari? Carbonari operated using the equivelent of "Assassin" dens, they used assassination to bring liberation, they were mostly protestant (non-roman catholic) and then they spread internationally against abuse of power.

Look them up on wikipedia

PS: good to be back!

ShiningLegend 15:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)ShiningShiningLegend 15:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think they are a mix of the Hashashin (I have compared them to the Assassins many times now) and the Carbonari and a little bit of some other organizations. I did look the Carbonari on Wikipedia, pretty interesting information. Though I'm pretty sure they're not only the Carbonari, because it is a know fact that the Assassins were publicly organized in the Holy Land during the Crusades.Ezio Auditore 02:54, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Assassin Order

I personally think this page should be renamed to "Assassin Order" Because it is the apposite name of the organization, because naming it "Assassins" can redirect users as the human occupation upon being the assassins, not the order. Assassin Order I think is acceptable because it is the organization of the Assassins, or the proper order of Assassins. --KillFeedz OG 20:47, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Were Once Brothers

In Abstergo Files it said the Assassins and Templars once shared the same ideals, the same dreams, the same hopes for humanity and that they are like Brothers shouldn't it be mention in the Assassins Article somehow? --Cococrash11 00:09, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the introduction that the two parties share the same dream of world peace. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 03:55, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly in this article? --Cococrash11 07:25, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

In the introduction... --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 13:28, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I see that it say they are enemies but nothing about whether they were once one group or brothers for that matter. Its not even in the History section or are you talking about Cain? --Cococrash11 04:01, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

"Whereas the Templars strove for the power to save humanity from itself by controlling free will, the Assassin Order fought to ensure the survival of free will, as it allowed for the progression of new ideas and the growth of individuality. " --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 13:26, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

"Entrance"?

Am I the only one who thinks the title Entrance is a bit stupid? Initiation sounds better. 85.74.194.246 07:45, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick FYI, it says here the date of death for Ben Church is 1778, when in fact it was 1777 in-game. Just though someone should fix that..

No title

where is ishak pasha and yusuf tazim? —unsigned comment by Turkish Assassin (talk · contr)

Controversy section = purely subjective

Despite its emphasis on a neutral perspective of the Assassins and Templars, the Controversy section in this article is nevertheless completely one-sided and almost antagonistic towards the Assassins and their beliefs.

Of course, one would assert that that is exactly what a "controversy" section is meant to be. The problem here is not that criticism is being presented against the Assassins but that such criticism is being presented from an almost purely subjective point-of-view. I was of the idea that "controversy" sections in Wiki articles were generally meant to be written from a more objective and neutral PoV, for instance, citing criticisms that had been presented against the subject in question, such as from reviews (or in this case, in-universe characters?). However, the section is written as though it originated from a single user's own interpretation and view.

The issue at hand is that despite the attempted outward appearance of an neutral analysis of the Assassins, with emphasis that it should not be blindly regarded as the "good" to the Templar's "evil," it instead produces a very unbalanced PoV of the Assassins, one that, I, for one, feel is wholly incorrect and short-sighted.

Now, do not misunderstand, I am not seeking to substitute one user's perspective for another; instead, I am making the point that each individual's interpretation of the Assassins would vary, and that the perspective given here is neither objective nor un-biased.

To start, let me cite one excerpt from this section:

I. "As for individual Assassins, many of them, in time, grew arrogantly sure of their own righteousness and benevolence, and would go so far as even to establish a dichotomy of good and evil between themselves and the Templars. Those such as Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Ratonhnhaké:ton and Desmond Miles were all guilty of the same shortcoming, with Desmond Miles in particular going as far as even referring to the Assassins as 'the good guys' "

(1) while it is debatable whether or not the Assassins truely did "go as far as to establish a dichotomoy of good and evil between themselves and the Templars" (and it is quite probable that it varied from individual to individual), the very claim itself is made ignorant of any understanding of the Assassin's maxim, that has been repeated time and time again throughout all the games. "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." The very fact is that part of their philosophy meant acknowledging that there is no one right answer or way or idea to the world. While this alone does not specifically refute the statement that the Assassins saw themselves as the "white" to the Templar's "black" it nevertheless heavily implies that a core aspect of the Assassins is the realization that they were not the absolute good. Indeed, if you were to read the Altaïr's Codex, he outright addresses this controversy. 

- the view that Ezio, Ratonhnhaké:ton and Desmond were "guilty of this shortcoming" is a rather drastic charge. One that has to be backed up with objective evidence, esp. considering the Assassin's maxim above. This view was probably based on all three protagonists' vehement stance against the Templars, denouncing their mortal foes' ideology; while this certainly shows that all 3 did technically view themselves as morally superior to the Templars, in the very fact that they agree with the Assassin's belief over the Templars', it is a completely different matter to say that they saw the world in black and white--which is antithetical to the Assassin's philosophy. This seems to be a contradiction, but it is not, there's a certain degree to everything, and recognizing this distinction is essential. For instance, it's obvious that Shaun agrees with the Assassins, sees them as better than the Templars, or else he would not be striving so hard, putting so much effort, risking his life against the Templars; yet he flat-out corrects Desmond that one shouldn't automatically assume that the Assassins were "good."  There's a very subtle distinction.

(2) the example given of Desmond's remark that the Assassins were "good" is given out of context. To use the specific words "as far as to" gives the implication that Desmond's remark was made after heavy exposure to the Assassin's beliefs, that such a remark was a consequence of such exposure. In reality, Desmond made that remark essentially when he had been completely new to the Assassin's line of work (even if you consider his time with Altaïr's memories). Think about it: the Templars were the ones that had just abducted him, and the Assassins' rescued him, it's only natural for one's initial thought to be that "they were the good guys." Although he was raised as an Assassin, he had never truly felt indoctrinated into it until his rescue; he was essentially a novice, and notice that he was quickly corrected by Shaun that they weren't the good guys, because again, the very maxim of the Assassins is to not jump to conclusions, make assumptions, or arrogantly believe in being self-righteous. To do so is completely antithetical to their most core belief.

- my point is that Desmond's remark here does not qualify as an example to support the assertion that the Assassins were deluded into pretentious beliefs of self-righteousness. And when you add in Rebecca's acknowledgment that "look it's not ideal" and those passages from Altaïr's codex, and Ezio's own explanations of the Assassins' beliefs, there isn't really any evidence to support the notion that the "many Assassins" strayed into such pretentious, simplified mindsets--which again is completely antithetical to the Assassin's core philosophy to do so, since it contends that every individual must open their minds to multiple perspectives, to not take things for granted, to not see things as absolute, to consider and tolerate differences, esp. in beliefs & views of morality.

^ if you guys want me to provide more quotes to support this, I can, but if it's not necessary, then I'm going to avoid making this any longer than I'm going to make it.

II. " This led to increasingly questionable actions, as upheavals in society were caused, good men or innocents were killed, and all in the name of freedom."

- this is a considerably incorrect statement.

(1) the perspective that the men killed were "good" is again, subjective. Under the NPOV Policy, I do not think that any wiki article should be explicitly referring to anyone as "good" or "evil," however, as I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, I would check that with an admin.

(2) this outright contradicts the first part of the Assassin's creed "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent."

- we know that for the most part Assassins weren't hypocrites that never abided by this creed because we witnessed firsthand Altaïr's demotion for disobeying it, and not to mention the fact that in each game, synchronization is lost when an innocent is killed (with the exception of the third game where the Animus downright prevents you from killing any).

- yes, Ezio did cause deaths in the Cappadocian incident; but there's no evidence to the contrary that this wasn't just an isolated incident (or perhaps..... a shorted-sighted incident on the part of Ubisoft?). This one incident by itself isn't enough to override the established creed, and the evidence that it was strictly abided by.

In other words, there is objective evidence that contradicts the assertion that the Assassins killed innocents.

III. "Ultimately, as Sibrand proposed, the Assassins were merely two sides of the same coin with the Templars, and both suffered from similar weaknesses in cause and method. "

- keep in mind that Sibrand, himself, was a Templar

- I agree that a Controversy section probably should exist for this article, but if it is citing perspectives by other characters, it should be clear that these are the characters' perspective. Here, Sibrand is instead being used to support the user's perspective instead.

IV. "The Assassins were also responsible for the deaths of several guards, many of whom were just hired mercenaries with no connection to the Templars. Other guards were simple soldiers, who had no idea of their masters' grand design, and fought either out of patriotism, or for money. "

- note that this is essentially the instance with almost all of protagonist factions in video games concerning war.

- this particular statement above is correct, however, it neglects to mention the Assassins' own reservations about the deaths that they cause, which is shown by

(a) the respect they give to anyone the kill, no matter how vile the target was in life

(b) Rebecca's acknowledgment that "it's not ideal, and killing is never easy, but sometimes there's no other way."

(c) Altaïr's reflections on the murders they commit, in particular Codex pages 4 & 14.

- note that the Assassins never revel in the murders they commit, they pay respect to their dead targets, at times even apologizing to them (Ezio has done so countless of times if you need me to quote), even Ratonhnhaké:ton does this, and they always acknowledge that they commit such murders because they feel it is necessary.

V. "Many assassination targets such as William of Montferrat, John Pitcairn and Haytham Kenway were all good men in their own right, convinced that their cause is in service to the good of mankind, and their assassination was a controversial act at best."

(1) the statement that these three men were "all good men in their own right" is controversial, and very subjective; it depends on one's own concept of what constitutes "good" and does not belong in an article that is meant to be written from a neutral PoV.

(2) William of Montferrat, for instance, killed two of his men for drinking and whoring on duty. Now, some people may think that this is justified, but most, esp. in our modern society, would find this to be an excessively cruel punishment. In fact, there are people in the world today that feel that any act of murder for any reason is against human rights (hence why the Assassins are imperfect). To claim that William of all people was "good men in his own right" is really subject to one's own interpretation and morals.

(3) Although Haytham was in no way pure evil, the opinion that he is "good" is far from universal. He did not hesitate to threaten or (try to) kill his own biological son; and he routinely murdered men that he interrogated after promising them mercy. These are only a few of his questionable acts. [That Altaïr also killed those he interrogated albeit without promising them mercy, is irrelevant].

VI. "Ratonhnhaké:ton single-handedly assured the inevitability of war in his single-minded quest for vengeance against the Templars"

- Ratonhnhaké:ton did not embark on his quest for vengeance. It is made very clear from the start that he fought to save his people from oppression and encroachment. He initially sided with the Patriots because he naïvely believed that the Patriots' support for "liberty" was universal, that the Patriots would grant the same liberty to his own people. Ubisoft even specifically said that they had designed the character to possess an innate sense of justice and liberty from the start, in contrast to Ezio, who had to battle with his inner desire for vengeance.

VII. The overall diction of this section is centered around portraying the Assassins in as negative light as possible. Yes, a "Controversy" section is meant to provide an alternative perspective to an otherwise heroic faction, but it, too, should maintain a neutral and objective tone.

"In time, the concept of freedom grew to be a fanatical belief for some Assassins such as Ratonhnhaké:ton, and the ideal of freedom came to be pursued without regard to cost or reason"

- This is highly opinionated. To accuse an entire organization that spanned millenia of pursuing freedom fanatically without regards to cost or reason requires a much more in-depth, sophisticated, and insightful analysis with evidence to support such an analysis.

- the entire section appears to be written from the perspective of one that does not understand the Assassins' philosophy at all. It is much deeper than mere freedom, it is about tolerance for diversity and equality, to accept differences in beliefs and ideas so that we do not oppress the people; the understanding that there is "no right way" to anything, no "Truth" no view that should be forced upon the people that can introduce a "perfect" society; the people in society must instead learn to accept one another and love one another in order to advance knowledge and understanding and tolerance and love. The Templars disagreed because they found this ideology to be chaotic and detrimental to "peace." But the Assassins believe that for peace to be achieved through force and coercion, is not peace at all.

^ a side note: Benjamin Church's last words curiously and ironically preached something close to Assassin philosophy : It's all a matter of perspective. There is no single path through life that's right and fair and does no harm. Do you truly think the Crown has no cause? No right to feel betrayed? You should know better than this, dedicated as you are to fighting Templars - who themselves see their work as just. Think on that the next time you insist your work alone befits the greater good. Your enemy would beg to differ - and would not be without cause.

- the fact that Church voiced this to Ratonhnhaké:ton may have led people to misunderstand that the Assassins were deluded into believing that their "path was right."

- however, the fact that this was Church's critique of the Assassins does not necessarily make it correct. Also note that while it may in fact have been a correct criticism against Ratonhnhaké:ton himself, it does not necessarily mean it could apply correctly to the Assassins, as Connor was relatively new to the order, and had no one to teach the true meaning of the creed to him.

- in any case, note that Altaïr in codex page 4, specifically noted the paradox occuring from the Assassin's maxim "Nothing is true, everything is permitted;" the question of whether or not the Assassins themselves accepted that their own beliefs were "True" in the sense that it was the correct, one true way in life. If the Assassins did indeed think this, then it would have been hypocritical, and paradoxical, and "pretentious" as the author of this section views. However, Ezio answers this paradox in his response to Sofia that "it would be [cynical] if it were a doctrine. But it is merely an observation of reality." <--- I really shouldn't go too deep into this b/c I will stray off-topic.

Conclusion

My entire point here is that this section is utterly biased in its writing and diction, and not only that, but blatantly false in many of its claims. It bases little on objective reasoning, and it demonstrates a total lack of understanding for the philosophy of the Assassins, namely their creed and maxim; the characters that it mentions and their actions; and overall the themes of the entire Assassin's Creed franchise.

Make no mistake, while I confess that I am decisively aligned with the Assassins in philosophy (not due to influence of the games itself but due to many hard life experiences, and it touched me when I found the franchise and discovered how it coincidentally aligned with my beliefs perfectly), I am not of the opinion that the Assasssins should be viewed as the "good" to the Templar's "evil."

I believe that articles such as these should be expresssed from a neutral perspective, as is the policy of Wikia. The faults to the Assassins should be written, but they should not be written in such a manner that is both brutally incorrect in all its musings, and biased in its antagonism against the Assassins.

There are enough quotes by the Assassins themselves, such as in Altaïr's codex, that acknowledges the flaws in their order, methods, and beliefs. These could be used as reference, in addition to criticism by their mortal enemies, the Templars. But to adopt and maintain a neutral tone, it has to be clear that the criticism given are only the ones mentioned by in-universe characters, and not by some user that, no offense, should apply the skills (s)he learned from English class back in school and analyze the franchise with all its characters and themes as though it were a literature assignment.

Overall, the entire section should be rewritten; if not, then it should be outright removed. It does not belong in an encyclopedia that is meant to promote accurate and non-biased information. 108.237.177.203 12:39, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

I, admittedly, stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs; so I will simply say that if you have an issue with the paragraph's bias, then rewrite it. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 11:37, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

I am planning to do so, but I felt that it would be better to discuss this issue with fellow contributers beforehand. I may not have the time to rewrite it in any case, but given the biased and misguiding state of this section, I will remove it (by the end of the week unless someone strongly disagrees) regardless of whether or not I get the chance to rewrite it in the near-future. These articles are meant to not only be neutral but also to present accurate information. In this case, the section was making claims that are contradicted by objective evidence, so in the event that no one will get the chance to rewrite it soon enough, I will take the initiative to simply remove it since its existence is detrimental to the overall quality of the article. 108.237.177.203 23:34, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you now that if it was simply removed I would very quickly re-add it. As it stands, the section's troubles are more to do with being POV than biased which does warrant a out-right deletion. I would suggest taking your time with plans to rewrite the section and make the change once you have a draft you are happy with. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 23:46, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I would, however, recommend that if you have time, read my entire writing up there, if you haven't already. In case any misunderstandings are to arise, esp. since I respectfully disagree that the section's troubles "are more to do with PoV than biased." 108.237.177.203 00:11, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

You'll need an account, as anons can't edit this page. Or you could send someone your draft and they'll do it, I suppose. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 23:53, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'll create an account soon enough. 108.237.177.203 00:11, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, Jasca and Kainzorous just disputed me correcting the part describing Connor's quest as being about vengeance when that was only part of the reason he hunted the Templars (you know, securing the freedom of the people of America, indigenous and colonist, by ensuring they wouldn't prematurely open the sanctuary): that's just an example of how subjective and poorly written the whole section is. Perhaps the whole section simply need concentrate more on the Assassins' own doubts and regrets: using quotes from Altair, Connor, Nikolai, and Shaun and Rebecca. --Alientraveller (talk) 13:29, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

The article makes the assertion that Ezio, Desmond, and Connor all joined the cause "for the sake of vengeance." It would help if anyone that makes this assertion provides some evidence.

I don't recall Connor being driven by vengeance, and I am certain that it was not his prime motivation (which was to save his village from encroachment). My understanding of the scenario is that Connor did indeed target Charles Lee partially out of vengeance with his promise that "I will find you," but that he set off on his quest not for that purpose but because he was directed to do so by the clan mother and Juno to seek out the Assassins or his village's doom would be sealed (Something to Remember). When he departs his home, he does not mention that he was driven by a "single-minded" passion for vengeance; instead, he explicitly mentions that he was departing not out of any personal desire to do so, but rather out of a sense of obligation (to save his people) (A Boorish Man). Dialogue between Achilles and Connor heavily suggests that Connor targetted those that he did because he had "seen what is to come if they succeed," the "spirit's visions will become a reality." When he assassinates each of his targets, he treats their corpses with respect, as is the way of the Assassin, rather than venting rage. I can continue with this, giving evidence taken throughout the game, but I'm already wary of my bad habit of writing more than is possibly necessary. But essentially, I don't see much evidence that Connor was driven by vengeance, much less a  single-minded pursuit of vengeance.

As for Ezio, he did not join the Assassin cause for vengeance, but rather felt that vengeance conflicted with the Assassin cause. When he murdered Uberto Alberti, he did not even know that the Assassins existed yet, he had only acquired the outfit and hidden blade. There have many more points about all this, but it's not necessary, I do not mean to sound argumentative if I come off in such a way.

My point is that I do not see any evidence to support many of the claims by the author of the section "Ideals and Goals" and "Controversy," and that those that disagree should provide such evidence that I may have missed if they dispute such parts such as "Connor seeking vengeance" if they really feel that it is necessary.

All in all, this just illustrates the fundamental problem: that such things are subject to one's own perspective and interpretation. So how do we ensure that information we present are accurate and un-biased? We have to find clear evidence. We cannot add interpretation that was made on a whim. Yes, Desmond may have desired vengeance, but where is the clear evidence for this? Yes, Connor may have desired vengeance, but where is the clear evidence? Speculation doesn't belong in a wikia article. 108.237.177.203 06:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I personally do not see why we should have this section. Whether the Assassins and Templars are good or bad is for each individual to interpret, and that is the same for whether their actions are good or bad. It doesn't need to be mentioned what the majority believes to be ethically just or unjust. Besides, the majority of the information on the article is a repetition of what is already (or what should be) in the history sections. We don't have a section on the Templars page explaining which of their actions can be considered 'good' either. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 13:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)