The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

Stay your flesh from the innocent.

Pfeh. A few pirates had some morals back then, but they were rare. Many of them openly plundered, pillaged, and raped constantly.

Never be seen.

The notoriety system is to be said completely removed. Makes sense...since there wanted men to begin with, and no amount of bribing, tearing down posters, and killing is gonna change that. Only absolute way to get guards of their asses is if they bring the entire government down.

Never compromise the brotherhood.

Depends. Many pirates often backstabbed/betrayed each other.

This is just speculation though. Here's hoping Kenway will be different.

The fact that the pirate lifestyle is so different from the creed has been stated to be a central theme of the game.

But consider this:

Pirates left the poor and innocent alone as long as they had nothing worth stealing.

They remained unseen when it suited their plans to pillage fortified locations.

They had deep bonds of brotherhood within their own tight-knit group and only as long as being in that group was profitable for them.

Pirates are what it would look like if freedom and fighting against authority were to go too far. They're the version of the assassins that has no sense of purpose or selflessness, and at certain times in history the Assassin's have been just as bad as them.

They're all about freedom, but they are selfish with that freedom instead of using it to better mankind.

EDIT: I haven't seen anything about no notoriety system. Source? We know the SSI is still in the game.

Great, we may actually learn the true meaning of the phrase, "nothing is true; everything is permitted". This is my own personal inside joke, based on how the meaning was somewhat different throughout the games, and near the end of ACR Ezio gives the "true meaning" of the phrase.

I think it was explained that the very nature of the phrase calls for you to think about it and interpret it for yourself.

I've always considered the Tenets to be basic guidelines for the Creed, which is another comparison to pirates.

There are rules, guidelines, but in the end, you can choose to do whatever you want as long as it furthers the cause. The order was at one time fully public, in several centralized locations. But that changed, because someone interpreted the third tenet to mean that such public structures were unwise.

Desmond chose to kill Lucy. In that moment where he killed her, he saw why she had to die, and he gave in.

He killed an innocent to save billions. Breaking a tenet to further that same tenet.

"Nothing is true, Everything is permitted" is to me a declaration that rules are finite, they may not apply to every situation, and sometimes they can be impossible to follow. In the end, we are free beings, and we can choose what we want to do to further our ideals, our vision, and our cause.

This is the reason the Assassins are so grey. If they were to truly be slaves to their tenets, they would never kill anyone, never speak out, and never induct anyone who doesn't perfectly fit a criteria. But instead, they will break rules if they have to. They will recruit thieves and prostitutes, men like Edward, anyone who shares their vision. And they do this because they refuse to passively hope for their vision, they refuse to be truly unseen. They take action. Any action that can effect change, that can silence those who would spread influence that they consider to be tainted.

They are in many ways contradictory, and their methods are by no means unworthy of criticism or rethinking, at any point in time. That's what I feel is the message of the mantra. It's not what we usually see with monks in other media. They aren't slaves to their rules. They are free.

That was... beautiful, Calvar.
And true.

I don't know what game you played, but that's not how my Assassin's Creed games played out.

1 - Lucy was not innocent. She was working for Abstergo the entire time with the sole purpose of manipulating Desmond into getting the Apple for Abstergo.

2 - Desmond didn't choose shit. He chose to touch the Apple, but after that he wasn't in control. He may have "given in," in some twisted definition of the phrase, but he LITERALLY could not do ANYTHING else. He was forced to kill Lucy. He had no choice in any matter once he was under Juno's control.

3 - Juno killed Lucy using Desmond as a weapon to ensure that Desmond retained control of the Apple, which is needed to access the Grand Temple and ultimately release Juno's wrath upon the world.

Define innocence. She saved Desmond, even if it was for project siren. She had been manipulated by other people since she was a teenager, and she believed she was doing the right thing.

It's the exact same situation as Haytham killing those agents of Ben Church's.

They work for the enemy, they may have attempted to manipulate you, but they haven't don't anything horrible, or tried to kill you.

Assassins kill many who could be defined as innocents. A more honest tenet for most of them would be "Stay your blade from the flesh of those who won't be a liability alive.". Altair, Ezio, and, after some learning, Connor all followed that interpretation.

Maybe Lucy wasn't the best example, but what about the bonfire of the vanities, where Ezio killed people possessed by the apple, many of whom were not mean-spirited at heart. I'm just saying that throughout history, from all the examples we've seen, the interpretation of the tenets has been up to the assassin in question.

As to Desmond having no choice, it's true he may have been forced to do so eventually, but he says in AC3 that when he saw Juno's vision, he did it himself.

Manipulated at an early age or not, Lucy was a Templar Agent through-and-through. She was working for the Templars. She was bringing the Templars to Desmond as soon as he found the Apple. She was a Templar.

The same can be said for Daniel Cross (that he was just manipulated at an early age)... but he certainly isn't innocent either. (With the whole killing the Mentor thing).

Most people in civilized society wouldn't consider a belief system+indoctrination or deeply ingrained mental programming since youth to be worthy of execution.

I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong, I'm just saying that the matter is in no way black and white. Many would consider a group like the assassins to be a little bit too prone to seeing in black and white at times.

I understand the logic behind the way they consider someone to not be innocent, but I can't help but think that their interpretation of innocence is heavily influenced by who it would be advantageous for them to kill, or who it would be too much trouble to keep alive.

EDIT: and Connor's journey in AC3 was partially about confronting and accepting that part of the order. They have reason behind what they do, and they're often good reasons, but if it were an actual group in real life, it would be very hard for me to see them as they do. They're free from moral conventions, whereas I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of freedom.

Okay, let me try and make things a little clearer for everyone...

- Lucy is ultimately an Assassin. Her intentions were to hand over the Apple to Abstergo so they would leave the Assassins alone. The Templars would succeed in their plans, but she personally decided that it was the safest and most logical thing to do. She would only turn against the Assassins to save them. To a lot of people, that's her being a traitor, but to others, she was actually going to be a hero.

She was raised by Assassins and believed in their cause. However, Vidic saved her life, and she knew that the Templars weren't the true enemy she was supposed to fight against. These two Orders were headed towards the same goal, just by different means. She felt that she owed Vidic a debt and that her handing over the Apple to him would save more lives than if she gave it to the Assassins. The Temples probably wouldn't all work, but Abstergo is smart. They'd most likely find a way to stop the end of the world, I'm sure was her thinking.

- Desmond says in AC3 that he was controlled by Juno at first, but was shown what Lucy's intentions were (giving the Apple to Abstergo). He then says that he could've stopped her from dying at that point, but chose to eliminate her because he couldn't risk the Assassins failing. He regrets it, but felt it was the right thing to do in that split-second.

Joey, I like that interpretation of Lucy's actions. I definitely believe that she bore the Assassins no real ill will, and I also think that she wasn't entirely a Templar. She wasn't part of the inner circle or anything, she was an abstergo employee in a lab who was let in on some Templar secrets and convinced to help with a plan.

Exactly what she was thinking or planning was, I feel, somewhat purposefully left vague, but I believe that the ideology of the Templars appealed to her. Her life had been so turbulent, and I think she would have wanted stability, and she would have wanted people she cared about, like Desmond, Rebecca, and Shaun, to all be safe. I think she was prepared to side with the Templars if that is what would finally bring order.

Thank you for clarifying, I couldn't remember if Desmond had said he could have stopped himself from killing her.

Sheesh, if you look at Desmond's story as it's own thing separate from the animus, all put together, it's really quite great. I hope they make the present day stories from 4 onwards have a complete arc each game, as that portion of the universe is so interesting, and it was torture to have a 3 act story told in 5 parts over many years.

Well it's true this assassin stuff isn't entirely black and white. True some targets were deceived by the POE, but that didn't justify things like killing innocents and withholding food. Then again whether they should die or live is up to the judgment of the assassin. Just think of when Altair spared Maria. He had enough cause to kill; she worked for Robert. But he decided to honor the creed in that he would only go after Robert and kill only when necessary. Or maybe he had a crush on her.

Yeah, that's my understanding of the creed: you're the one who decides how to balance the guidelines of the order with the goals of the order, and your own sense of morality and/or feelings about people are going to influence your decisions in some way.