User blog comment:Abelzorus Prime/The Dark Assassin/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713210507/@comment-90.218.118.81-20140713232206

"Throughout the assassins creed franchise, the story has always went the same basic route of putting you in the shoes of an assassin slaying the corrupt Templars one by one"

Not all of the Templars we "slay" are corrupt. Corrupt, as in using the influence, resources, and position of the Templar Order, for selfish, personal gains. AKA, Cesare. Name all of the corrupt Templars (And by Templars I do not mean Hench Men such as Malfatto, Hickey).

bad is a subjective word. what is bad to one person can be different to another. So no, I mean corrupt.

Both orders believe the end justifies the means. That is why they both do what it commonly believed to be bad (KILL). the reasoning for both orders is the same: It is for the greater good. Only one end can actually bring about peace. and that is Order.

I think at first, Rodrigo was a true Templar. I think he became frustrated, and greedy, and that's what eventually led to his corruption. Cesare was just completely selfish. It is a stretch to use Malfatto. He was a grunt, nothing more.

True, it was kinda "bad" of Ahmet to do that. But I ask you, what if he didn't? What would Ezio have done? Walked of home? Or gone straight to retrieve the keys? Ahmet read Ezio's priorities correctly, and used it to buy himself time. Same as Ezio's sacrifice to the greater good of killing one man (Kill many innocents, to reveal one target).

Easily explained: First we saw the Templars through the Templars eyes. THEN we saw the Templars from an Assassins eyes. Admittedly Haytham did become more cold in his latter life. But not evil. He became battle hardened finding out about Edward, Jenny and Birch's great secret, at the horror practiced on Holden. As for Jenny... yes it was justified. Put yourself in Birch's position. Jenny knew EVERYTHING, but Birch wanted Haytham as a student: yes it was morally bad, but to him necessary. Charles Lee, believed himself better than everyone else: Haytham again points out this English Imperialism he has. He also though himself above Hickey (Socially an inferior). Charles, Johnson and co were stupid, Haytham questions their actions, and laments Holden's superiority to them. He did not agree, nor condone with Johnsons' means.

TBH, IMO, the comics didn't really do that, they felt betrayed, and wanted what they believed they should be the guardians of (Much like how they felt when Calderon went rogue). Again, bad is subjective. but like I said both orders:

"Both lie, both cheat, both rob, both kill, both manipulate, both have extremists and members that become corrupt, both are sneaky, both work behind the scenes, both are at fault for Juno's release"

Both are bad, both believe their "bad" actions will be justified latter. But by going from "bad" and "good" they are COMPLETELY EVEN! Because of the above. You can't say Ahmet is bad for killing people... but say... for example, Ezio isn't. Same between Connor and Haytham. Birch and Achilles. Rodrigo and Giovanni. Abbass and Manual. Torres and Altair... well, you get the idea.