Assassins Creed – The Templars, flat-pack villain No. 2016

You know when you’re riled up when you start writing your second on the same topic in one night.

And when Alan Rikkin in Assassin’s Creed said that the discovery of the Apple was “end of the Assassins” as if it was the only goal, then I was expecting him to get a blade through the neck.

And when you look at the Templars, you find no redeeming value in them.  I played Assassin’s Creed up to 3 and while I didn’t agree with the direction, they did a great job of making the Templar and Abstergo believable organisations with goals and quirks, I liked to move on with them.

Abstergo and the Templars were just not up to scratch… and that’s just frustrating.


Look at the goals of Templars from the Assassin’s Creed Wiki

“Order and discipline through power and control”

Although their methods are considered immoral and some say evil, it is a noble goal and Sophie Rikken pushes it home with her “Cure for Violence” as when you say Violence, the terms “war” and “chaos” aren’t far behind.  They are aiming for a Utopia of their own creation.

The problem is… well you don’t see the reasonable side of them; you see them executing people, you see them creating a chaotic mob out for blood.  You don’t see any reason for them being right, they are too cookie cutter.

I remember a conversation Warren Vidic and Desmond were having a conversation that allowed Warren to step away from the brink of being a flat pack villain and actually an interesting villain.

The problem is perspective; we only have 1 for the entire 1482 period of the story;  Spanish Assassin Aguilar de Nerha, we reduce this to a small area around the Assassin, which means that they don’t get the chance there.

Which means that we need the present day to carry the torch… and all we get are two elderly people talking shop.  They genuinely feel like cardboard villains.

A good villain doesn’t believe they are evil, they believe they are doing the right thing… if this is true, why did Alan lie to Sophie?  If the argument was so strong then why did he not confront Sophie with it, why doesn’t see entirely agree with it?

Sophie’s character was what the Templars could have been; flawed good which uses evil methods.  OK we know Abstergo are “the bad guys but that doesn’t mean they are bad guys” (Wreck it Ralph).

There were so many missed moments and chances to flesh out both sides of the War; but by the end, we just have Assassins good, Templars bad and worse still corrupts the only element of the bad guys that could have been good.


Obligatory Follow Me Section


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.